2 proofs that nature was designed

[Larniavc]

Gayer Hypothesis

Gayer Hypothesis? What on Earth is that?

Do you mean Gaia?

 

[driewerf]

Ok. The issue of a Creator instead of mindless evolution is the topic of this forum.

I don't know exactly what you mean by "mindless evolution," but if you mean the theory of evolution as science describes it ...
(...)

"Mindless evolution" is a clear attempt to ridicule the Theory of Evolution. 150+ years after Darwin creationists have still nothing else than what Bisshop Samuel Wilberforce had in the 1860's: mockery and ridicule, but no science.
Note that creationists only use the for the Theory of Evolution.I have never seen a creationist speak of mindless photosynthesis, or mindless heliocentricity or mindless crystallization or mindless fermentation. All these phenomena are equally mindless. Yet "mindless evolution" (or some similar phrase) is used regularly.

 

[driewerf]

As Young Earth Creationists, they study the theory more than most do.

In that case everything wrong you write will be attributed to willful dishonesty instead of ignorance. I don't think you want to go down that path.

 

[Astrid]

Deleted

 

[Astrid]

As Young Earth Creationists, they study the theory more than most do.

They study what is in creation sources. If they studied evolution,
they would not so say many silly things about it.

 

[Speedwell]

As Young Earth Creationists, they study the theory more than most do.

Maybe some do. The YECs who com to this forum don't generally know very much about the theory of evolution at all. They appear to have done all of their "studying" with YEC books and websites.

 

[Larniavc]

But are you a TRUE atheist, like me?

Statistically, probably.

After all, remember the popular saying: everyone outside of a foxhole is an atheist.

 

[Astrid]

Statistically, probably.

After all, remember the popular saying: everyone outside of a foxhole is an atheist.

I heard about that.
But I also heard that no Christians say
"Glory be, I am about to receive eternal life"
when they see the tanks coming.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

That is the ultimate terminus conclusion from James's theory. He argues that the extremes levels of interdependence by different living organisms can only be explained by his hypothesis that planet is a system with inbuilt intelligence and an ability to process information because the natualist explanation based on blind chance was inconceivable give the complexity of interactions between lifeforms. I think its nuts mind you.

Do you have a reference for that description by Lovelock?

It sounds like a complete misrepresentation of his idea.

 

[Astrid]

Xx

 

[Kylie]

Xx

I'm curious as to what your response was...

 

[Astrid]

I'm curious as to what your response was...

Me too

 

[klutedavid]

Your opinion of Traditional Christians is noted.


Science is an intellectual tool for understanding the natural universe. that's all.

That's assuming of course, that a so called 'natural' event can even occur. To discuss such high end concepts, is far above mankind's pay scale.

Science cannot determine whether God exists or not. Science cannot know whether the universe is a 'natural' universe. Science does not know and will probably never know, the scale of the universe. We don't even know what space-time actually represents.

An invisible creator?

Jesus Christ was observed in person; an invisible creator?

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

That's assuming of course, that a so called 'natural' event can even occur. To discuss such high end concepts, is far above mankind's pay scale.

Science cannot determine whether God exists or not. Science cannot know whether the universe is a 'natural' universe. Science does not know and will probably never know, the scale of the universe. We don't even know what space-time actually represents.

An invisible creator?

Jesus Christ was observed in person; an invisible creator?

speaking of high end evidence, any for your point?

Did you observe this invisible creator?

 

[Astrid]

That's assuming of course, that a so called 'natural' event can even occur. To discuss such high end concepts, is far above mankind's pay scale.

Science cannot determine whether God exists or not. Science cannot know whether the universe is a 'natural' universe. Science does not know and will probably never know, the scale of the universe. We don't even know what space-time actually represents.

An invisible creator?

Jesus Christ was observed in person; an invisible creator?

A visible guy who got himself killed. Those are common as dirt.

 

[klutedavid]

speaking of high end evidence, any for your point?

Did you observe this invisible creator?

This is exactly the point I am making. The evidence does exist that does establish the Christ as the creator. Yet, there is zero evidence to support the idea that the universe is a 'natural' entity. One has evidence and the other is a blind guess, an assumption.

The existence of the churches, the scripture, and early church letters. All can be cited as evidence.

 

[klutedavid]

A visible guy who got himself killed. Those are common as dirt.

Thanks for stating that. Christianity does not believe in an invisible God.

 

[Kylie]

Me too

Since you were the one who quoted me, then deleted the post, I would say you already know.

 

[Astrid]

Since you were the one who quoted me, then deleted the post, I would say you already know.

Posting with a phone makes it hard to go back and look, I will
try to rejconstruct. I got frustrated with trying to edit it and just gave it up.
ETA i think it was something not worth staying.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Evolution based on the religion of "randomness", a force that does not exist.

You'll find that, outside the physical sciences, randomness usually means unpredictability.

This was explained to me by a forensics examiner who demonstrated to me that randomness does not exist. If all the forces are known, then any result can be predicted.

Of course, a forensics examiner(!) should know...