My favorite argument for the existence of God

[AV1611VET]

Some do. That's why they are called "flying squirrels."

Uh-huh.

And I'm Genghis Khan.

Besides, they don’t really fly, they glide.

SOURCE

 

[Speedwell]

Uh-huh.

And I'm Genghis Khan.


SOURCE

LOL! I see, that is a big mistake which proves that all scientists are minions of Satan.

 

[AV1611VET]

LOL! I see, that is a big mistake which proves that all scientists are minions of Satan.

Mistakes like that can cause people to get hurt.

 

[Speedwell]

Mistakes like that can cause people to get hurt.

Like how? Some definitions of "flight" include controlled gliding, some do not. So what?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Maybe you can tell me why blueprints used to show electricity going from positive to negative?

Conventional electric current is considered to flow from positive to negative; electrons are the charge carriers and move from negative to positive. For electronics, it doesn't really matter - you can view it as negative electrons moving one way or positive 'electron holes' moving the other way.

See Which way does electricity flow?

 

[AV1611VET]

Like how? Some definitions of "flight" include controlled gliding, some do not. So what?

Conventional electric current is considered to flow from positive to negative; electrons are the charge carriers and move from negative to positive. For electronics, it doesn't really matter - you can view it as negative electrons moving one way or positive 'electron holes' moving the other way.

Well I certainly don't want to list out a whole line of mistakes made by scientists in the past.

Someone might think I look down on scientists.

 

[Speedwell]

Conventional electric current is considered to flow from positive to negative; electrons are the charge carriers and move from negative to positive. For electronics, it doesn't really matter - you can view it as negative electrons moving one way or positive 'electron holes' moving the other way.

See Which way does electricity flow?

It's all down to Ben Franklin: During his pioneering work with Electricity, and knowing nothing of electrons, he had to decide arbitrarily which pole to call "positive" and which "negative."

 

[Petros2015]

If you believe that life spontaneously evolved from non-life, how long do you think the first living thing lived between the time it came 'alive' and before it died? Long enough to reproduce itself, or not? Is reproduction the definition of life? I guess not... hmm. Maybe it's the definition of really basic life? Would there have been 'flickers' of life, like one little protein that kinda tried and then failed and 'died' and then over on the next continent maybe 10,000 years later another flicker until one of them 'took'? Or was it suddenly wham-bam life-soup with a bunch of them together all at the same time?

I'm just curious. It doesn't seem to me like lifeless one moment and then evolving life is feasible. That first 'life', that first individual guy has a 'life span'. No predators of course, but if he doesn't get it right, I guess he starves and dies or falls into a thermal vent or something. It feels like you have to start with life-soup, a million or so of them all at once. And that lends more towards a creation-event, possibly.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Well I certainly don't want to list out a whole line of mistakes made by scientists in the past.

It's not news that scientists make mistakes, everyone makes mistakes. Scientists try to learn from their mistakes.

Someone might think I look down on scientists.

Surely not?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If you believe that life spontaneously evolved from non-life, how long do you think the first living thing lived between the time it came 'alive' and before it died? Long enough to reproduce itself, or not? Is reproduction the definition of life? I guess not... hmm. Maybe it's the definition of really basic life? Would there have been 'flickers' of life, like one little protein that kinda tried and then failed and 'died' and then over on the next continent maybe 10,000 years later another flicker until one of them 'took'? Or was it suddenly wham-bam life-soup with a bunch of them together all at the same time?

I'm just curious. It doesn't seem to me like lifeless one moment and then evolving life is feasible. That first 'life', that first individual guy has a 'life span'. No predators of course, but if he doesn't get it right, I guess he starves and dies or falls into a thermal vent or something. It feels like you have to start with life-soup, a million or so of them all at once. And that lends more towards a creation-event, possibly.

There are a number of different hypotheses - a popular one is that the first 'life' was just a single molecule (e.g. RNA) that could reproduce itself. This is known as the 'RNA world' hypothesis. RNA is a chain of four varieties of nucleotides. The idea is that, in a suitable environment, many different chains of RNA would assemble until one that could copy itself emerged. Then the environment would fill up with these copies and any variations of them that could copy themselves. At this point, these replicators will form an ecosystem and primitive evolution can occur.

Computer simulations show that sequences of self-copying RNA can produce remarkable ecosystems, given tens to hundreds of thousands of generations, including varieties of parasites. For example, see Evolution of complexity in RNA-like replicator systems.

 

[Michael]

For electronics, it doesn't really matter - you can view it as negative electrons moving one way or positive 'electron holes' moving the other way.

To illustrate your point, current actually flows in both directions in plasma. You can have negatively charged electrons moving in one direction, and positively charged ions moving in the other direction and they both carry current from one place to another.

 

[Dkh587]

One of my favorite "arguments" is:

If we can look at a cell phone, or computer, and accept that someone intelligent made it, why can't we look at the earth and the universe & humans and accept that someome intelligent made us? Look at how we are designed to operate within the confines of the creation we were put in

Not here to argue, just sharing

 

[Bungle_Bear]

One of my favorite "arguments" is:

If we can look at a cell phone, or computer, and accept that someone intelligent made it, why can't we look at the earth and the universe & humans and accept that someome intelligent made us? Look at how we are designed to operate within the confines of the creation we were put in

Not here to argue, just sharing

Is that a favourite as a supposedly valid argument or is it a favourite joke? You weren't clear.

 

[Dkh587]

Is that a favourite as a supposedly valid argument or is it a favourite joke? You weren't clear.

A favorite valid argument

 

[Bungle_Bear]

A favorite valid argument

That's a shame.

 

[Dkh587]

That's a shame.

You are entitled to your opinion. I'm sure that your arguments(whatever they are) would be a shame to me. It goes both ways

 

[Speedwell]

One of my favorite "arguments" is:

If we can look at a cell phone, or computer, and accept that someone intelligent made it, why can't we look at the earth and the universe & humans and accept that someome intelligent made us? Look at how we are designed to operate within the confines of the creation we were put in

Not here to argue, just sharing

We can surely accept it; I do myself.

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

--Psalm 19
​

The question is, can it be proven scientifically? That is what the radical Calvinists who created ID want to do, so they can use science to shove their particular brand of Christianity up the noses of the rest of us, along with their right-wing political agenda.

​

 

[bhsmte]

One of my favorite "arguments" is:

If we can look at a cell phone, or computer, and accept that someone intelligent made it, why can't we look at the earth and the universe & humans and accept that someome intelligent made us? Look at how we are designed to operate within the confines of the creation we were put in

Not here to argue, just sharing

Hey, whatever makes you happy. Glad you have a favorite.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Hey, whatever makes you happy. Glad you have a favorite.

My favorite is:

PARENTAL ARGUMENT
(1) My mommy and daddy told me that God exists.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

#18 at Hundreds of Proofs of God’s Existence

 

[pitabread]

If we can look at a cell phone, or computer, and accept that someone intelligent made it, why can't we look at the earth and the universe & humans and accept that someome intelligent made us?

The reason we look at a cellphone or computer and conclude design is because we are instinctively comparing these manufactured devices to non-manufactured objects found in nature. It's essentially a form of pattern recognition. However, if we are trying to consider if the entire universe is the product of design we don't have such a comparison to make.

Plus, my phone says "Made in China" on it.