MATHEMATICS IN NATURE PROVES INTELLIGENT DESIGN

[Loudmouth]

A process falsifies nothing of the sort.

Yes, it does. If we find a natural process behind the creation of an object then it falsifies intelligent design. Even the websites you have cited say the same thing. It is the very reason you reject abiogenesis, which is the production of life through natural chemical processes.

The process verifies intelligent design for reasons you illogically claim unable to SEE.

What reasons are those?

 

[Speedwell]

A process falsifies nothing of the sort. The process verifies intelligent design for reasons you illogically claim unable to SEE.

So the existence of naturalistic evolution verifies ID? You're right--I really don't see that.
If naturalistic abiogenesis is eventually demonstrated, will that verify ID too?

 

[Radrook]

So the existence of naturalistic evolution verifies ID? You're right--I really don't see that.
If naturalistic abiogenesis is eventually demonstrated, will that verify ID too?

Right on both counts.

BTW
I never agreed that evolution is true.

 

[Loudmouth]

Right on both counts.

Are you saying that you accept abiogenesis, and count it as evidence for an intelligent designer?

Can you give a single example of what wouldn't be evidence for intelligent design?

 

[Loudmouth]

In short, discovery of mathematics in nature isn't an invention of mathematics, it is a DISCOVERY of mathematics in nature. Like discovering a chessboard and a book of instructions alongside it on how to play.

Chess doesn't play itself. Chemistry does. The two are not comparable.

 

[Speedwell]

Right on both counts.

Well, I am just too stupid or wicked to see it, I guess. I don't see how existence of the process of evolution by variation and selection verifies the notion that a "designer" must periodically intervene with it.

BTW
I never agreed that evolution is true.

But ID proposes that it be "true" most of the time.

 

[Radrook]

Are you saying that you accept abiogenesis, and count it as evidence for an intelligent designer?

Can you give a single example of what wouldn't be evidence for intelligent design?

Abiogenesis? Accept something that has never been observed in nature nor forced to happen in a lab?

Everything is composed of molecules, atoms. electrons, neutrons, protons which indicate order and planning. You might feel impelled to dismiss such organization by merely saying that nature did it. I am persuaded differently.

 

[Radrook]

Chess doesn't play itself. Chemistry does. The two are not comparable.

There are machines that are programmed to play chess against themselves. I personally had one approx. 20 years ago. Very common function.

 

[bhsmte]

A process falsifies nothing of the sort. The process verifies intelligent design for reasons you illogically claim unable to SEE.

Then show us.

 

[Loudmouth]

Abiogenesis? Accept something that has never been observed in nature nor forced to happen in a lab?

You just said that abiogenesis would prove intelligent design, did you not?

Everything is composed of molecules, atoms. electrons, neutrons, protons which indicate order and planning.

Why does that indicate order and planning?

You might feel impelled to dismiss such organization by merely saying that nature did it. I am persuaded differently.

Now I am confused. Are you now saying that if a natural process is responsible for a phenomenon that this is evidence against the phenomenon being the product of intelligent design?

 

[Loudmouth]

There are machines that are programmed to play chess against themselves.

Computers do not spontaneous form through natural processes. Chemistry does.

 

[Radrook]

Well, I am just too stupid or wicked to see it, I guess. I don't see how existence of the process of evolution by variation and selection verifies the notion that a "designer" must periodically intervene with it.

But ID proposes that it be "true" most of the time.

My name isn't ID.
I never claimed that a designer has to be constantly tweaking a process that he might have put in motion. That is your inane idea not mine. I have stated that several times already but you ignore it. Such a tactic tends to bring discussions to an end since they come across as goading and attempts to frustrate..

 

[Radrook]

Computers do not spontaneous form through natural processes. Chemistry does.

I have repeatedly explained what I mean but you keep purposefully misrepresenting. Such a tactic tends to bring discussions to an end.

 

[Loudmouth]

I never claimed that a designer has to be constantly tweaking a process that he might have put in motion.

Then I will put you down as accepting abiogenesis as the origin of life. Thank you.

 

[Radrook]

Translation: "Tails I win, heads you lose!!!"




Yeah, it was already clear to most of us that you deny the biological facts of reality the second you identified as a cdesign proponentsists.

The many anti-biology PRATT video's about DNA and flagellums and such, also kind of make it obvious....

I am not arguing against theistic evolution as I have explained a million times before only to get the response of
"Ï cain't see!"

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I am not arguing against theistic evolution as I have explained a million times before only to get the response of
"Ï cain't see!"

ID is diametrically opposed to "theistic evolution".

See, this is what I meant earlier when I said that your position is extremely confusing and that your posts are conflicting.

ID and theistic evolution are not the same thing.
They are not compatible with one another.

For starters, ID considers the flagellum evolving to be impossible because of "irreducible complexity". Under ID, a "designer" must come down and fiddle about with the DNA to create a flagellum

Under theistic evolution, the flagellum evolves quite happily through the simple process of evolution.

 

[bhsmte]

I am not arguing against theistic evolution as I have explained a million times before only to get the response of
"Ï cain't see!"

Interesting. Theistic evolution, certainly argues against ID.

 

[Loudmouth]

No. They just need to be arranged with coded information by an intelligent designer . . .

Then this means you reject theistic evolution.

 

[SkyWriting]

Relationship a love relationship

No argument here.

 

[SkyWriting]

That is false. Math isn't found under a rock.Math is just a human expression / attempt at explaining patterns in reality.
It is, by all means, a human invention.

I think that having two rocks and subtracting one would = 1 rock.
This should work out the same way for squirrels, fish, or mathematicians.
If you collect 2 acorns a day for 5 days, you'd end up with 10 acorns.