• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

My favorite argument for the existence of God

Discussion in 'Physical & Life Sciences' started by xianghua, Jul 24, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. HiEv

    HiEv New Member

    32
    +53
    United States
    Skeptic
    Private
    Nope, totally didn't ignore that part. He asked about robots in the part I was replying to there. The penguins stuff only came up later, and when it did, I dealt with it.

    Yes, that indeed is a good description of what you just did.

    Of course not. It makes you a cyborg. ;)

    None of which are robots, which is what we were actually talking about. More missing the point, I see. :p

    Of course not. I never claimed otherwise.

    However, none of that disputes my point that robots are man-made by definition.

    Do try to keep up.

    Now, did what I said there make me look like an arrogant prick? Yup! So if it isn't good when I do it, maybe you shouldn't do it either, eh? I'll try to stop now. Hopefully you will too.

    Hmmm.... Where exactly is your evidence-based case? You merely assumed one of two conclusions from a false dichotomy based upon nothing more than personal incredulity.

    That's not evidence.

    Whereas I base my argument in the evidence from DNA and homologous structures found in related bacteria, and the utter absence of any mechanism whereby an "intelligent designer" could, or would even need to, make such genetic changes. I posit an explanation founded upon proven naturalistic means, while your explanation is largely supernatural and unfounded in objective evidence which is not better explained by evolution.

    You keep using that phrase. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    So you've picked some particular irrelevant similarities, while ignoring the very relevant differences which I brought up to make a particular point.

    Remind me, which of us is cherry picking again? :D

    No, it doesn't. It just means that it replicates itself.

    Prions, for example, like the ones that cause Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD), are not "complications beyond human capacity." They're just self-replicating molecules. Here's an image of a CJD prion:
    [​IMG]

    It may be a bit complex, but clearly not "beyond human capacity."

    Not exactly, since replication isn't 100% accurate. There are also epigenetic factors which may or may not be transmitted in asexual reproduction (such as plasmids), and only come from the mother in sexual reproduction.

    That said, I was explaining that organisms aren't robots, and you responded with this. I fail to see the relevance of this point.

    If it fit the definition of a robot, then it wouldn't fit the definition of an organism, and vice-versa. They're mutually exclusive if you're being literal.

    Whether "bio-molecules" would rot is irrelevant. Also, not that it really matters, but if it's a fairly stable molecule, then one could prevent this "rot" simply by keeping it in an antiseptic environment. Refrigeration isn't the only solution.

    No, I'm not. Pointing out actual definitions and their usage isn't "playing with definitions", it's describing them.

    You seem to be describing your own position, not mine.

    The theory of evolution was arrived at independently by two different people based on lots of objective evidence, which has only grown tremendously over time, and for which we have numerous precedents for. If it's a conclusion which is founded upon objective evidence which can be tested and has been verified, which it demonstrably is, then it's not "faith-based". Are you actually this oblivious to all of the scientific evidence for evolution?

    And seriously, what part of your explanation isn't founded upon blind faith? Where is the evidence or precedent for your claims? There isn't any in the scientific literature which has withstood scientific criticism or independent replication that I've ever heard of.

    What you said isn't even the pot calling the kettle black here, unless it's an amazingly shiny kettle, and the pot is merely seeing its own reflection in it.

    No, you don't just get to assume "purpose", nor do you get to just assume that something is intelligently designed because of some false dichotomy you have in your head. There are lots of things which are complicated, could appear to have some purpose, and which didn't evolve, such as the structures of crystals or snowflakes. That doesn't mean that you get to assume that little pixies carved them.

    Agreed, however that's because there are no natural processes by which the Starship Enterprise could have formed on the moon. So this point is completely irrelevant when discussing things which could have formed through natural processes, such as evolution in organisms with a mechanism of heredity. These are apples and oranges here.

    But the source is not "obviously intelligent". That's the whole point of this discussion!

    You can't merely assume your conclusion, and then try to use that as evidence of your conclusion. That's circular logic at it's silliest extreme.

    I have no idea what this part was intended to mean. You'll have to clarify here.

    Obviously he wasn't talking about rocks specifically, but he made a general claim, and my point was to show that the claim doesn't work universally. If someone makes a general claim, and the claim breaks down in a specific case, then you can demonstrate the fallacy of the claim by pointing to that specific case.

    Does it make sense why I brought up rocks now?

    Are you trying to be obtuse here? Because it should be obvious that that's not my point.

    I'm arguing against a single intelligent designer of penguins, not that penguins don't have brains. I'd have thought that would be obvious. I'd really rather not play silly games if you're just trying to insult me by misconstruing my arguments.

    No, the analogy didn't work, because penguins aren't man-made robots. You can't assume your conclusion in your premise, especially when it's demonstrably untrue.

    But feel free to continue insulting me, as though that's an argument for your side. It only makes your side look worse. :D

    Actually, essentially that was the argument. Xianghua said, "from a physical perspective a walking creature (a penguin for instance) can be consider as a self replicating robot that made from organic components" (emphasis in original). And, as I explained earlier, robots are "generally defined as man-made machines." So he was trying to build in an assumption of an "intelligent designer" by arguing that penguins are equivalent to robots, when they're not.

    In any case, he's most certainly trying to argue that something intelligent created penguins. The elves were merely a humorous flourish to drive the point home.

    Actually, we don't know that. All we know is that all examples of life are from living sources.

    Those are two very different things.

    But feel free to keep banging on about "blind faith" in the presence of the abundant scientific evidence for evolution. It just makes it clear to everyone else that you don't know what you're talking about.

    LOL. You sound like Kent Hovind. No, you're thinking of your religion and how Adam was supposedly created from dust.

    Science makes no such claim.

    No, I actually don't have to explain abiogenesis in order to accept evolution. Those are two different things.

    Are you unable to tell the two apart, or are you purposefully conflating the two? Either way, it doesn't make you look good.

    Have a nice day! :)
     
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2017
  2. Aman777

    Aman777 Christian

    +570
    Baptist
    Humans were NOT created in God's Image by the Trinity until AFTER Cain killed Abel. Genesis 5:1-2 Adam's intelligence, which is like God's, Gen 3:22 MUST be inherited from another Human....UNLESS you can tell us the process of installing God's intelligence in Apes. You cannot, since you forgot about the birds and the bees. Show us How mindless Nature changed Apes into reasoning Humans. You cannot and neither can the False ToE. Amen?
     
  3. HiEv

    HiEv New Member

    32
    +53
    United States
    Skeptic
    Private
    You keep talking as if "organic components" are the same as it being a living organism capable of self-reproduction with a mechanism of heredity. Those are two very different things.

    So no, a watch made of wood would still be a watch. On the other hand, an organism may have watch-like traits, such as the circadian rhythm, but it's not actually a watch (a man-made portable object, created for the purpose of telling time).

    Also, it's invalid to assume it's an "organic watch" as one of the premises, if you're trying to determine if it's actually a watch.

    This is like saying, "If a sugar cube wasn't made of sugar, are you saying it wouldn't be a sugar cube?" By calling it a "sugar cube" you're building in that it is made of sugar, by definition. If you then try to claim it then doesn't have any sugar in it, you're contradicting the premise that it's a sugar cube.

    So, since your argument contains mutually exclusive premises, all I can do is respond with "mu". The question can't be answered due to the contradictory assumptions within the premises.

    A better form of the question is, "If something could evolve by a natural process it would not be a robot, by definition, because it was not made by an intelligent being?" To which I would answer, "Correct." You don't get to label things "robots" just because you feel like it, they have to actually fit what we mean by the word "robot" if you expect to be understood.

    By labeling something as a robot you're building in an assumption that it was created by a different kind of intelligent being than the robot, generallly a human one, and that it's made up of man-made mechanical parts, not functional organic ones, like lungs or kidneys.

    So by using "robot" or "watch" in your premises, it just looks like you're trying to build your conclusion into the premises of your argument, and that's merely begging the question, not a real argument. It's better to stick with words which don't have such built-in assumptions, like "something", if you want to avoid that problem and the needless waste of time it creates with discussions of semantics like this one. ;)

    If you can't make your argument without resorting to using words which contain built-in assumptions of what you're trying to prove, then there's a problem with your argument.

    Sure. Sexual and asexual reproduction both produce living beings. That isn't merely a belief, it's a demonstrable fact.

    If you're talking about the origin of life, there are plenty of well known natural processes by which organic molecules are produced. Once you have that, and say a billion years or so, not to mention a chemical vat the size of a planet, it's entirely possible that very, very simple life could arise through physics and probability, and after that event, evolution takes over. I'm not saying that this is proven to be the case, but it's the most plausible, probable, and parsimonious explanation we have.

    That said, I thought we were talking about evolution here, and not abiogenesis? It seems like you might be switching between the two without distinction.

    I mean, penguins are unimaginably far removed from the simplicity of the first organic molecules that could be considered living organisms, so these two things are relevant to very different and distinct topics from each other.

    Sorry, it's not a valid argument. It's not even self-coherent due to the mutually exclusive premises.

    Care to reword it?
     
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2017
  4. xianghua

    xianghua Well-Known Member

    +523
    Judaism
    Single
    if it can evolve naturally then it's not necessarily the result of design.
     
  5. Paleophyte

    Paleophyte New Member

    50
    +31
    Canada
    Atheist
    Married
    Stating that a trait cannot evolve naturally requires that you ecccine and exclude all possible evolutionary pathways. That's a task so monumental that it would likely be simpler to falsify evolution by creating animals from raw firmament. Both tasks would require divine powers.

    Let me put it another way. How does ID predict a designed organism can be distinguished from an evolved one?
     
  6. Paleophyte

    Paleophyte New Member

    50
    +31
    Canada
    Atheist
    Married
    That is not how Genesis 1:26-28 reads.

    Why?
     
  7. dmmesdale

    dmmesdale Well-Known Member Supporter

    755
    +186
    Christian
    Private
    CA-Conservatives
    Do you know what evidence is? Replicating bacteria is the evidence, and we are seeking a first cause based on all we know about life. It is reasoning from effect to cause.
    No it is based on all we know about. Life requires a living source. There is no false dichotomy here. That is just a thing you throw up there as a thought stopper. The first cause of life either involves the intervention of living source or it does not. There are no other options. Prove it is false dichotomy because all I am seeing is an accusation. If we are seeking the first cause of life here, then there are two models broken down means either exclusive nonliving or the intervention of an extrinsic living source.
    If life is not evidence of life then you are not evidence of your mother and father. If you are not evidence of your mother and father then you certainly are not evidence of a common ancestor between modern apes and man. You know, the theoretical creature you believe existed which has no more a evidence basis than goblin or unicorns. How do you know they did not exist if your camp claims 99.9% of all creatures that ever existed are now extinct? How bout winged Pegasus? Contradiction have free rent in your head but they do not exist in reality.
    Snowflakes not any more complicated as H20 and it never changes. Astroturf is not grass even if it appears that way. Nor did astroturf evolve from grass due to natural processes. Astroturf was engineered to look and function as grass and Earth was engineered for life here. If you don't know that then you can't see past the end of your nose.

    dmmesdale said:
    Blind faith absent precedent since all we know about life is that it requires living sources.
    What else don't you know? You don't know if there is an invisible pink teapot orbiting Saturn or you don't know if God created everything in six days and made it all look billions of years old. You can't hold a position based on what you don't know and ignore what you do know, Mr science guy.
    Ignore what you do know in favor of what you don't know? Blind faith. What a matter? Don't want to follow the actual evidence or the actual science based on all we know about life? You don't care about science in the first place. What you care about is your atheistic philosophy. All you are doing is hijacking science. In favor of your atheistic creation myths. Don't try to pass your counterfiet atheism off as legit science investigation which is by definition a search for truth. Not as a dummy doll for atheistic validation.
    [​IMG]
    Show us all that conclusive evidence for a common ancestor between modern apes and man. Because as it is they do not even know what the alleged nonhuman creature was
    Science is not a sentient entity so it cannot claim anything.
    From a historical perspective it is all the same. Can't have the latter without the former.
    They are the same historical truth claim.

    Quote
    ''There is no scientist in the world today that would have the chutzpah to claim that he or she knows how life began.''

    Dr. Stuart Kauffman: “Anyone who tells you that he or she knows how life started on the Earth 3.5 billion years ago, is a fool or a knave.”

    ''The enormous, gaping chasm that separates non-living chemicals from the simplest living bacterium is described by renowned biologist,

    Dr. Lynn Margulis: “To go from bacterium to people is less of a step than to go from a mixture of amino acids to a bacterium.”

    ''Every theory mentioned above has nothing to do with Science. All current Origin of Life theories are pure speculation. Speculation, even when it is the product of a brilliant scientific mind, does not magically become Science. None of these theories are supported by anything even remotely resembling any type of conclusive evidence. In fact they are hotly disputed among researchers themselves.'' Physicist and information theorist

    H.P. Yockey: “A scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written. The entire effort in the primeval soup paradigm is self-deception.”

    Nobel Laureate, Dr. Werner Arber: “Although a biologist, I must confess that I do not know how life came about …how such already quite complex structures came about is a mystery to me.”

    Dr. Christopher McKay: “We do not know how life originated on the Earth.”

    Dr. Harold P. Klein: “The simplest bacterium is so damn complicated…that it is almost impossible to imagine how it happened.”

    Dr. Ken Nealson (National Academy of Sciences): “Nobody understands the Origin of Life, if they say they do, they are probably trying to fool you.”

    Dr. Robert Shapiro: “I’m always running out of metaphors to try and explain what the difficulty is. But suppose you took Scrabble sets, or any word game sets, blocks with letters, containing every language on Earth, and you heap them together, and then you took a scoop and you scooped into that heap, and you flung it out on the lawn there and the letters fell into a line which contained the words, “to be or not to be that is the question,” that is roughly the odds of an RNA molecule appearing on the earth.”
     
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2017
  8. Aman777

    Aman777 Christian

    +570
    Baptist

    Humans were NOT created in God's Image by the Trinity until AFTER Cain killed Abel. Genesis 5:1-2

    ***That is not how Genesis 1:26-28 reads.

    Sure it is since Adam (mankind) is STILL being created in God's Image or in Christ Spiritually. Adam was made the 3rd Day Gen 2:7 but was NOT created by The Trinity (God) until AFTER Cain killed Abel. Gen 5:1-2

    Aman:>> Adam's intelligence, which is like God's, Gen 3:22 MUST be inherited from another Human....

    *** Why?

    It's the way Humans are made according to Nature. The False ToE is provably wrong since it CANNOT explain HOW God's superior intelligence got inside Apes. Can you? Of course not except by the sexual process of inheritance.
     
  9. Kylie

    Kylie Atheist and Proud

    +3,004
    Australia
    Atheist
    Married
    Why do you think a bacteria was the first form of life?
     
  10. Paleophyte

    Paleophyte New Member

    50
    +31
    Canada
    Atheist
    Married
    Are you sure you don't mean the sixth day? All I'm seeing on the third day is dry land and some plants.

    Gen 1:26-31 is pretty specific: "Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so. And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

    Man is created by the end of the sixth day. Genesis 5 is just a geneology, a recounting of begats.

    Not that it matters since I'm trying to approach this scientifically.

    You have God's superior intelligence?!? My but you're a humble chap.

    There's little difficulty explaining how *human* intelligence evolved:
    - Apes are pretty intelligent. Not human smart, they don't have the sense to build nuclear arsenals, but still pretty sharp. Smarter than sheep for example
    - Sheep are smarter than rocks. But not much smarter.

    Once you recognize that intelligence is a sliding scale rather than all-or-nothing it's simple enough to evolve it gradually through a succession of progressively smarter descendants. Eventually they'll get smart enough to invent reality TV and chase Pokemon while marveling at their god-like intellect.
     
  11. xianghua

    xianghua Well-Known Member

    +523
    Judaism
    Single
    so you cant tell if this is a watch?:

    Watch - Wikipedia


    dont be so sure. even one gene has a sequence space of about 4^1000. so even if we will have about 10^100 functional sequence in this space it's still nothing compare to the whole space, and we may need more then the age of the earth for a single gene. even during evolution and not just about abiogenesis.
     
  12. xianghua

    xianghua Well-Known Member

    +523
    Judaism
    Single
    we cant know that a robot cant evolve naturally?
     
  13. bhsmte

    bhsmte Newbie

    +11,554
    Atheist
    Single
    US-Others
    Show us one that does.
     
  14. Aman777

    Aman777 Christian

    +570
    Baptist
    Aman:>>Sure it is since Adam (mankind) is STILL being created in God's Image or in Christ Spiritually. Adam was made the 3rd Day Gen 2:7 but was NOT created by The Trinity (God) until AFTER Cain killed Abel. Gen 5:1-2

    *** Are you sure you don't mean the sixth day? All I'm seeing on the third day is dry land and some plants.

    The first 34 verses of Genesis gives us an OUTLINE of God's 7 Day/Age Creation. All the other verses in the Bible from Gen 2:4 until the end of Revelation, refer BACK to one of God's 7 Days of Creation. Genesis 2:4-7 refers BACK to the 3rd Day and adds details to the Outline shown in the first 34 verses:

    Gen 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

    Adam's Earth was made the 3rd Day. Gen 1:9-10

    Gen 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. Gen 2:6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

    Plants, herbs and Trees GREW on the 3rd Day. Gen 1:12

    Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

    See. On the 3rd Day, the SAME Day Adam's Earth was made, but before the plants herbs and rain, Lord God made Adam from the dust of the ground.

    If you wish to be sure, read verses 8 and 9 and you will see that the TREES were made AFTER Adam was made. Amen?
     
  15. HitchSlap

    HitchSlap Burn the torch!

    +4,993
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    [​IMG]
     
  16. Paleophyte

    Paleophyte New Member

    50
    +31
    Canada
    Atheist
    Married
    Depends on how you define "robot".

    If a "robot" is defined as something that is designed then no, it can't, by definition. However, your argument in this case just boils down to, 'I can't tell the difference between designed robots and living organisms.' That isn't particularly persuasive.

    If a "robot" is defined as something that isn't necessarily designed then yes, it could. However, your argument collapses to, 'I can't tell the difference between potentially evolved robots and living organisms.' That's unsurprising.

    Design is blindingly obvious and nature lacks it in abundance.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  17. xianghua

    xianghua Well-Known Member

    +523
    Judaism
    Single
    so if someone will create a human-like robot that made from organic components and has a self replicaiting system. is this kind of robot can also evolve naturally since it has living traits?
     
  18. Kylie

    Kylie Atheist and Proud

    +3,004
    Australia
    Atheist
    Married
    So it's organic, has the ability to self replicate...

    Sounds like a life form to me. In what way do you claim it to be a robot?
     
  19. Paleophyte

    Paleophyte New Member

    50
    +31
    Canada
    Atheist
    Married
    I'm not sure what you're asking here.

    'Could a created, organic, self-replicating robot subsequently evolve?'
    - Sure. Makes for great science fiction.

    'Could an organic, self-replicating robot arise by either creation or evolution?'
    - No. Not even if the creator is inept to the point of cruelty. To make a designed organism appear evolved would require a deliberate and massive deception.
     
  20. xianghua

    xianghua Well-Known Member

    +523
    Judaism
    Single
    why not actually? if a watch that made from organic components is still a watch, why not a robot that made from organic components?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...