Natural selection v Intelligent design

[HitchSlap]

well another way to see is gift of Adaptation

Why would I want "to see" it any other way than what it is? That's the entire reason science exists, to understand things as they are.

 

[Zlatanara]

Are you saying that ID/Creationism has as much evidence as abiogenesis?

God does not need evidence we all know that evidence does not either prove or disprove God

if something cannot be explained through chance, then it has to be cause. Unless you can come up with a better explanation for chemical evolution

 

[Zlatanara]

Why would I want "to see" it any other way than what it is? That's the entire reason science exists, to understand things as they are.

so what? understanding things as they are does not go against a cause for all those things to exist in the first place

 

[Loudmouth]

God does not need evidence . . .

Yeah, he does.

if something cannot be explained through chance, then it has to be cause. Unless you can come up with a better explanation for chemical evolution

And that would be an argument from ignorance.

 

[Zlatanara]

Yeah, he does.



And that would be an argument from ignorance.

Well if you believe in a software that does not have a coder, that's up to you

if you look at an art, the art bare witness to the artist although we might have never seen the artist.

believing that a software or an art self organizing without knowing how it originated isnt any better than believing that a coder coded a software or an artists painted an art without proving them.

 

[HitchSlap]

Well if you believe in a software that does not have a coder, that's up to you

if you look at an art, the art bare witness to the artist although we might have never seen the artist.

believing that a software or an art self organizing without knowing how it originated isnt any better than believing that a coder coded a software or an artists painted an art without proving them.

Classic argument from ignorance.

 

[Loudmouth]

Well if you believe in a software that does not have a coder, that's up to you

You would first have to show that it is software. So far, you can't show that DNA is any different than any other molecule.

if you look at an art, the art bare witness to the artist although we might have never seen the artist.

I can find beauty in naturally formed structures. These are some of my favorites from my neck of the woods.

 

[Zlatanara]

You would first have to show that it is software. So far, you can't show that DNA is any different than any other molecule.



I can find beauty in naturally formed structures. These are some of my favorites from my neck of the woods.

Life is a great product that successfully reproduces, evolves and adapts in to changing conditions. Sequence hypothesis as Bill Gates said is similar to Binary codes.

this is one of my favorite

 

[Zlatanara]

Classic argument from ignorance.

so whats your home boy saying about chemical evolution?

oh wait by the time he was dead still DNA was not known in its double helix structure, poor man had only an island to explore

 

[Zlatanara]

You would first have to show that it is software. So far, you can't show that DNA is any different than any other molecule.



I can find beauty in naturally formed structures. These are some of my favorites from my neck of the woods.

also i see allot of life in that picture, thinking of all those green grass in that picture which have cells in patterns, feeding from the earth and sky and invading the land. I could imagine the other creatures that depend on those grass which have even more complex patterns and DNA, also waiting to reproduce their kind.

Even that one green grass in that picture is evidence for an artist

 

[HitchSlap]

so whats your home boy saying about chemical evolution?

oh wait by the time he was dead still DNA was not known in its double helix structure, poor man had only an island to explore

Yet he was able to formulate and communicate one of the most important ideas in human history.

 

[Davian]

Well there is truth in a creator to me, im sorry it does not work for you

I still do not know what you mean by "creator".

you are completely ignorant on my evolution claims which is sad

i have never said i am against evolution theory

And when you said you believed evolution is guided, you would not be for it.

i am speaking about chemical evolution.

Biology is chemicals.

All i am saying is there is a coder behind the software of life, progress of the software does not contradict with the fact that it has a coder.

As a professional programmer, I fail to see how your analogy between chemical reactions and computer coding works. Perhaps you could be more explicit.

 

[Zlatanara]

Yet he was able to formulate and communicate one of the most important ideas in human history.

yet his book title is misleading, he should have replaced it with progress of life

 

[Zlatanara]

I still do not know what you mean by "creator".

And when you said you believed evolution is guided, you would not be for it.

Biology is chemicals.

As a professional programmer, I fail to see how your analogy between chemical reactions and computer coding works. Perhaps you could be more explicit.

According to my faith, the simple description of God is ''God is unlike anything, he is not born and never dies'' So its a universal creator or a power that exist without the limits of time and distance.

As a coder

how would you explain the least complex living cell that is qualified for self organization and also reproduction with 100s of proteins and amino acids in specificity and also DNA-RNA blue print with sequence hypothesis able to pass the gene to the next life to originate from a prebiotic soup without a guidance or coder? As you know just as software comes with 1010 binary codes DNA has a 4 letter code. If the software algorithm was coded how come a even more complex 4 letter algorithm originate out of thin air?

 

[HitchSlap]

According to my faith, the simple description of God is ''God is unlike anything, he is not born and never dies'' So its a universal creator or a power that exist without the limits of time and distance.

As a coder

how would you explain the least complex living cell that is qualified for self organization and also reproduction with 100s of proteins and amino acids in specificity and also DNA-RNA blue print with sequence hypothesis able to pass the gene to the next life to originate from a prebiotic soup without a guidance or coder? As you know just as software comes with 1010 binary codes DNA has a 4 letter code. If the software algorithm was coded how come a even more complex 4 letter algorithm originate out of thin air?

But they're not letters, they are amino acids and they are ubiquitous.

 

[pshun2404]

Here is my definition of the materialist by way of analogy. They are a person inside a small corner of an infinitely huge box with total and sole faith in their quite limited perceptual faculties, their limited instrumentation that they intelligently design, and by experiments they always and only intelligently engineer. They cannot THINK beyond these imitations and can only know what is less than the box.

They, having no possible (not just improbable) way of knowing by these means that there even is an outside or beyond the box (except perhaps for a few theoretical quantum physicists) make assertive assumption based declarations of what may or may not be outside of or beyond their box. Because they can only understand what is less then the box.

All we absolutely know for sure (scientifically speaking) is NO ONE can “prove” by any means (empirical or purely material) that there IS NO GOD…I am sure you agree with that (I hope)! One thing philosophical reason has given us is that there are no less then 15 or 20 lines of reasoning that indicate there must be a God/god/creator/designer etc., and absolutely zero that indicate there cannot be one.

So you can try to reason with them but because they reject God and the knowledge of God, thinking themselves to be wise they show themselves to be quite foolish. Clearly regarding the intricacies of His marvelous creation the more they think they know, the more it is apparent there is much, much, more they do not know. Plus most of them KNOW most of what you are saying is true but though light has come into the world, man PREFER the darkness, but do not be too concerned, for there is a Day coming when we all will know even as we are known. A day when all injustice and unbalance will be made right (just rest in that).

 

[Zlatanara]

But they're not letters, they are amino acids and they are ubiquitous.

Well Genetic Code or 4 letter Code its the same thing, its not letters in English but we identify the pattern through a 4 alphabet model.

 

[HitchSlap]

Six base pairs, actually. And they're not" letters of code," they're amino acids.

Well Genetic Code or 4 letter Code its the same thing, its not letters in English but we identify the pattern through a 4 alphabet model.

 

[Davian]

According to my faith, the simple description of God is ''God is unlike anything, he is not born and never dies'' So its a universal creator or a power that exist without the limits of time and distance.

That only tells me what you think your god isn't.

As a coder

how would you explain <snip>

I am not here to explain anything, particularly your "out of thin air" straw-man. I just see your analogy as faulty, and that adding an undefined, unfalsifiable "god" to the equation does nothing to help.

 

[HitchSlap]

Here is my definition of the materialist by way of analogy. They are a person inside a small corner of an infinitely huge box with total and sole faith in their quite limited perceptual faculties, their limited instrumentation that they intelligently design, and by experiments they always and only intelligently engineer. They cannot THINK beyond these imitations and can only know what is less than the box.

They, having no possible (not just improbable) way of knowing by these means that there even is an outside or beyond the box (except perhaps for a few theoretical quantum physicists) make assertive assumption based declarations of what may or may not be outside of or beyond their box. Because they can only understand what is less then the box.

All we absolutely know for sure (scientifically speaking) is NO ONE can “prove” by any means (empirical or purely material) that there IS NO GOD…I am sure you agree with that (I hope)! One thing philosophical reason has given us is that there are no less then 15 or 20 lines of reasoning that indicate there must be a God/god/creator/designer etc., and absolutely zero that indicate there cannot be one.

So you can try to reason with them but because they reject God and the knowledge of God, thinking themselves to be wise they show themselves to be quite foolish. Clearly regarding the intricacies of His marvelous creation the more they think they know, the more it is apparent there is much, much, more they do not know. Plus most of them KNOW most of what you are saying is true but though light has come into the world, man PREFER the darkness, but do not be too concerned, for there is a Day coming when we all will know even as we are known. A day when all injustice and unbalance will be made right (just rest in that).

I'm not interested in proving there is no god, only that you prove there is.