Order and Design

[Siliconaut]

@Feezilla: You're tickling my troll sensors, too. From the statements you have made about atheism and evolution, two completely different concepts, you have made it perfectly clear that - if you are well-read at all - you have only read sources that lied to you.

Atheism DOES NOT EQUAL evolution or vice versa. There are perfectly good reasons to believe in a creator who used evolution through natural selection as the tool to get the tedious task of creation done, as this is what the most important piece of evidence - the universe - shows us.

Please, before posting more nonsense, read a scientific definition of evolution (as found on talkorigins.com) and learn why it has nothing to do with atheism.

Regards,

 

[FEZZILLA]

1.)Wow, you've gotten to the "evolutionists are child molester" jokes already, I'm impressed.
2.) Go do your own research.
3.)No, I said nothing's all over the place, between the atoms.

1.)That was more of a rip on unreliable web resourses. A sense of humor once again rejected by a liberal. Do liberals ever laugh at funnies??

2.)I study 6 to 12 hours a day! I am a truth seeker that is not afraid to walk into the unknown.

3.)And what is between the adoms? What is this nothing you speak of?
You are starting to bore me with your lack of answers. Im yawning now.

 

[lucaspa]

To me a statement like this is an insult.

I said "I QUESTION whether ..."

You are proceeding on the premise that you are hearing God. Looking at the ideas you promote and looking at what Christianity and the Bible are all about, I question whether that is so. Yes, I am calling your premise into doubt. Or rather, I am pointing out that the ideas call your premise into doubt.

If you take that as an insult, too bad. That doesn't make it one.

 

[FEZZILLA]

1.)I don't really have the time for an infinite elaboration; I barely have the time for a finite one.
1b.)Okay, utter disconnect here. Elaborate.


2.)No, I said the validity of evolutionary theory. It's right there, so I can't explain your failure to get that.



3.)The response was an illustration of a strawman argument, used as an attempt to belittle a target group, as was your silliness about what evolutionists "believe."

You contradict yourself.

1.)You just don't have an answer cause you don't know an answer.
2.)The validity of Evolutionist was PROVEN WRONG years ago,but you still got some woodpeckers out there keeping the faith
3.)I do not contradict myself. I made an example.
Evolution is a religion.Haven't you read the quotes from your own scientist admitting this?

 

[MartinM]

That was more of a rip on unreliable web resourses. A sense of humor once again rejected by a liberal. Do liberals ever laugh at funnies??

How troll...eh, droll.

 

[lucaspa]

Yes,i know about this unitelligent Designer,yet the concept is illogical and very finite in scientific definition.

Illogical? OK, then point out the error in this deductive logical argument:

"If, during the long course of ages and under varying conditions of life, organic beings vary at all in the several parts of their organization, and I think this cannot be disputed; if there be, owing to the high geometric powers of increase of each species, at some age, season, or year, a severe struggle for life, and this certainly cannot be disputed; then, considering the infinite complexity of the relations of all organic beings to each other and to their conditions of existence, causing an infinite diversity in structure, constitution, and habits, to be advantageous to them, I think it would be a most extraordinary fact if no variation ever had occurred useful to each beings welfare, in the same way as so many variations have occured useful to man. But if variations useful to any organic being do occur, assuredly individuals thus characterized will have the best chance of being preserved in the struggle for life; and from the strong principle of inheritance they will will tend to produce offspring similarly characterized. This principle of preservation, I have called, for the sake of brevity, Natural Selection." [Origin, p 127 6th ed.]

Darwin himself admitted that he could be wrong about his unitelligent design theory and became an AGNOSTIC!

Darwin started out a theist. When he discovered natural selection and even when he wrote Origin, he was a very devout theist. He tended toward agnosticism for two reasons: 1) the death of his favorite daughter caused him to question a benevolent deity; 2) the church doctrine that ANYONe, no matter how good a person, who was not Christian would burn in Hell forever. Of course, the Anglican Church aknowledged eventually that it was wrong about that one. So Darwin was right there.

So, Darwin ended up from going to theism to agnostic -- he didn't know if God exists or not. You have him going from atheist to agnostic. However, both Darwin and Huxley had no use for atheism. Both considered it intellectually indefensible. When Darwin had what he called "wild swings of faith" he was careful to note that they NEVER went to atheism.

Theres is no proof anywhere in science that something unitelligent can create something even has simple as a complex one-celled animal.

http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/
http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html

See the thread "Design by Darwinian Selection" to see how humans use natural selection when the designs are too tough for us.

If you defend and unitelligent designer and say that,thats the something thats been there from the infinite start,

I didn't say that. I said biological organisms were designed by natural selection. Please don't put words in my mouth.

then why is it so hard to believe in a intelligent design that has the intelligence and the cause to created multi-complexs organisms?
Think about that for awhile.

I have. The data falsifies the idea that biological organisms are manufactured.

IF I accept that God made each and every species like you suggest, THEN because of all the dumb designs in organisms, I must conclude that God is stupid, sadistic, and suffering from Alzheimer's. Since God is none of these, the only other choice is that God didn't design each species.

I'll go into the details of those stupid designs if you want. But in the meantime look at your own uro-genital system. What "intelligent designer" would run a toxic waste pipe thru the middle of a recreation area?

 

[lucaspa]

First, the creation stories in Genesis are not "theories" in any sense of the word. They are embedded in the cosmological theories of the Babylonians (flat earth covered by dome with caverns underneath).


I know this one good! And im afraid you are wrong about this.
But before a i flappin my mouth i want you to elaborate further on this concept you just touched on. Please include dates and time periods.
In other words; The axiom of your belief. I had a religion teacher corrected for this one..
Distorted facts are common in secular history.
The Book of Genesis was written by GOD Himself. Moses was a tool.

Mark 10:1-10 says that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, not God. If God used Moses as a tool, then Jesus is saying God made a mistake.

If you look at the shape of the earth in Genesis 1 and elsewhere in the OT, it is the cosmology of the Babylonians: flat earth, transparent but solid dome over it, water "above", stars fixed in a firmament, "waters below" in caverns, and an underworld "Sheol" in a cavern.

So, what are you looking for in "dates and time periods"?

 

[lucaspa]

Holy cow, I forgot I even posted that, Lucaspa.

It does seem rather ignorant, doesn't it?

How does this work for you: I don't think there is a God because I have not seen any empirical proof that would make me think otherwise. However, should such proof arise, I would consider it and make adjustments to my thinking accordingly.

There you go. You have not seen any empirical proof that convinces YOU. However, you have problems:

1. You know "empirical proof" is not going to happen. Science FALSIFIES, remember?

2. How many creationists say they haven't seen "proof" of transitional fossils even tho we post the data for them again and again?

3. Not all valid evidence is empirical. By limiting yourself to that you are cutting off possible evidence and therefore biasing your conclusions.

 

[lucaspa]

Have you ever seen empirical proof of evolution?

Yes.

Have you ever seen a "nothing" before?

No, but I've seen its effects.

Evolutionist critizie christians for believing in a unseen God.

ATHEISTS do this. But not all evolutionists are atheists. There are evolutionists who are theists and evolutionists who are agnostic.

what evolutionist don't realize,is that they believe that an unseen unitelligent nothing created this universe/worlds by complete accident.

Even for atheists, this isn't accurate. Instead, atheists believe that there are ONLY material causes and entities.

There are several hypotheses on how to get a unverse. One of them -- quantum fluctuation -- is based on the OBSERVATIONS that some entities come into existence in our universe by accident. The other hypotheses see the universe as resulting from an unintelligent process but not an accidental one.

I am an honest amn and would not ever lie to you or anyone on this board.

I'm afraid you already have above in your characterization of evolutionists as atheists and about how the universe could have come into existence.

 

[FEZZILLA]

1.)Illogical? OK, then point out the error in this deductive logical argument:

"If, during the long course of ages and under varying conditions of life, organic beings vary at all in the several parts of their organization, and I think this cannot be disputed; if there be, owing to the high geometric powers of increase of each species, at some age, season, or year, a severe struggle for life, and this certainly cannot be disputed; then, considering the infinite complexity of the relations of all organic beings to each other and to their conditions of existence, causing an infinite diversity in structure, constitution, and habits, to be advantageous to them, I think it would be a most extraordinary fact if no variation ever had occurred useful to each beings welfare, in the same way as so many variations have occured useful to man. But if variations useful to any organic being do occur, assuredly individuals thus characterized will have the best chance of being preserved in the struggle for life; and from the strong principle of inheritance they will will tend to produce offspring similarly characterized. This principle of preservation, I have called, for the sake of brevity, Natural Selection." [Origin, p 127 6th ed.]

2.)Darwin started out a theist. When he discovered natural selection and even when he wrote Origin, he was a very devout theist. He tended toward agnosticism for two reasons: 1) the death of his favorite daughter caused him to question a benevolent deity; 2) the church doctrine that ANYONe, no matter how good a person, who was not Christian would burn in Hell forever. Of course, the Anglican Church aknowledged eventually that it was wrong about that one. So Darwin was right there.

2b.)So, Darwin ended up from going to theism to agnostic -- he didn't know if God exists or not. You have him going from atheist to agnostic. However, both Darwin and Huxley had no use for atheism. Both considered it intellectually indefensible. When Darwin had what he called "wild swings of faith" he was careful to note that they NEVER went to atheism.


3.)IF I accept that God made each and every species like you suggest, THEN because of all the dumb designs in organisms, I must conclude that God is stupid, sadistic, and suffering from Alzheimer's. Since God is none of these, the only other choice is that God didn't design each species.

4.)I'll go into the details of those stupid designs if you want. But in the meantime look at your own uro-genital system.
5.)What "intelligent designer" would run a toxic waste pipe thru the middle of a recreation area?

1.)Wow,wow,wow! Stop,look,and listen! We haven't gone that far yet in this conversation! you still have to explain the concept of a nothing with no intelligence,that somehow begins our perfect world design?

2.)WRONG! Buzzer on that one.
Darwin started out a Theist,then He became and Atheist (during the time he was doing his best writtings). Then when he realized he didn't know 85-90% of all world knowledge,he became an atheist because he wasn't sure what to think about his own belief system anymore.

3.)Sounds like you don't believe in God for personal reasons that have nothing to do with science or truth. God must be intelligent to create this world....think!
Do you honestly think something stupid,like a stupid nothing crrated this world? Do you think God id stupid and can't design; or wipe his own butt?
Come on mon,think!! I think this is a personal issue for you and you need to learn how to seperate personal depression apart from scientific views.
Hitler murdered Jews because of his personal problems. If you don't get over you personal problems with Christians you'll probably be murdering Jews and Christians by next week. Evolution creates more murderers than scientist.
Throw away your Billy Idol record,rebel yell,and become an adult. Because its hurting your ability to rationalize.

4.)I want you to go into great detail because know evolutionist has ever done it. I want you to prove the stupid nothing theory. Don't dodge it this time.
5.)Im not sure where you are coming from on that.would you please elaborate?

 

[Arikay]

I have to disagree on one point.

Atheists dont believe in "ONLY material causes and entities" They just dont believe in A God or Gods. Supernatural, is different than God or Gods.

 

[ifriit]

1.)That was more of a rip on unreliable web resourses. A sense of humor once again rejected by a liberal. Do liberals ever laugh at funnies??

Liberals? What are you babbling about?

Other than that... well, I'm sorry you're not funny.

2.)I study 6 to 12 hours a day! I am a truth seeker that is not afraid to walk into the unknown.

You display little knowledge of what evolutionary theory is, what science is, and the difference between a philosophy and a scientific theory. I find it difficult to believe you study an hour a day, much less 6.

3.)And what is between the adoms? What is this nothing you speak of?
You are starting to bore me with your lack of answers. Im yawning now.

I said nothing is between the atoms. Scads of it. Apparently you aren't looking hard enough.

Gosh, I keep forgetting my job is to entertain you! Oh wait, it isn't. Too bad for you, then.

 

[Arikay]

I think I can safely say there is no point in Debating with Fezzila, only talking to a wall.

Im starting to think he is just trolling. Either that or very missinformed with a big ego.

 

[FEZZILLA]

there are a finite number of words whipping around, due to there being a finite number of potential meanings.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=evolution

see. now you can apply the word evolution to cosmology (the gradual change from gas clouds to stars and galaxies)

and you can also apply the word evolution to life (evolution from poorly adapted species to better adapted ones)

however the theories remain entirely distinct.

Well at least we could start a new topic and close this one now that you've admitted that Evolution Cosmolgy doesn't hold water in this design topic.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I think I can safely say there is no point in Debating with Fezzila, only talking to a wall.

Im starting to think he is just trolling. Either that or very missinformed with a big ego.

Have you noticed that the trolls on this forum always claim to be Christians? I mean, sure, it's a Christian Forum, but you think we'd get a Muslim, a Wiccan, or an Atheist troll once in a while.

 

[ifriit]

1.)You just don't have an answer cause you don't know an answer.

Of course I don't have an answer--you're asking nonsensical questions. To quote a great philosopher, "I don't speak crazy [female dog]."

2.)The validity of Evolutionist was PROVEN WRONG years ago,but you still got some woodpeckers out there keeping the faith

I'm going to have to ask you to speak English here too. The validity of evolutionists is not an issue or even a coherent concept to deal with in the first place.

3.)I do not contradict myself. I made an example.
Evolution is a religion.Haven't you read the quotes from your own scientist admitting this?

Christians believe in Fred the fat woman who steals their socks. Haven't you read the quotes from your own priest admitting this?

 

[FEZZILLA]

1.)@Feezilla: You're tickling my troll sensors, too. From the statements you have made about atheism and evolution, two completely different concepts, you have made it perfectly clear that - if you are well-read at all - you have only read sources that lied to you.

2.)Atheism DOES NOT EQUAL evolution or vice versa. There are perfectly good reasons to believe in a creator who used evolution through natural selection as the tool to get the tedious task of creation done, as this is what the most important piece of evidence - the universe - shows us.

3.)Please, before posting more nonsense, read a scientific definition of evolution (as found on talkorigins.com) and learn why it has nothing to do with atheism.

Regards,

1.)Well at least you admit that there is no big bang in this design topic.
2.)That was ignorantly spoken.
3.)I know what evolution is,or at least what its supposed to be.
I know it never happened. God created this world.
Erosion is proof of a young earth.

 

[FEZZILLA]

I said "I QUESTION whether ..."

You are proceeding on the premise that you are hearing God. Looking at the ideas you promote and looking at what Christianity and the Bible are all about, I question whether that is so. Yes, I am calling your premise into doubt. Or rather, I am pointing out that the ideas call your premise into doubt.

If you take that as an insult, too bad. That doesn't make it one.

I just finnished eating my apple.
Can you tell me; was my apple sweet or sour?

 

[Arikay]

Yeah. I think it might be because the non christian trolls dont last.

I remember a satanist troll that didnt last a day.

You begin to wonder if they are really atheists pretending they are christians.

The christian trolls can get away with a bit more because they dont imediatly break the rules when they open their mouths. The funny part of that is that the rules actually seem to hurt christianity, because we dont get an equal representation of trolls from all religions.

Have you noticed that the trolls on this forum always claim to be Christians? I mean, sure, it's a Christian Forum, but you think we'd get a Muslim, a Wiccan, or an Atheist troll once in a while.

 

[FEZZILLA]

2.)Mark 10:1-10 says that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, not God. If God used Moses as a tool, then Jesus is saying God made a mistake.

If you look at the shape of the earth in Genesis 1 and elsewhere in the OT, it is the cosmology of the Babylonians: flat earth, transparent but solid dome over it, water "above", stars fixed in a firmament, "waters below" in caverns, and an underworld "Sheol" in a cavern.

So, what are you looking for in "dates and time periods"?

1.)You need to start read entire scripts and not just segments.Im telling you to read it on your own and answer your own question. Learn to think and read on your own. Then,when you find out you've misinterpretated the verse then drop that religion(s) class your in.
Read the whole context of the stories of the bible.
2.)Isaiah 40:22;
He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth...

3.)Im looking for the simple truth that backs up your statement.
I will investigate this if i have to further this.And you won't like my investigating power. Im an axiom man. A master in the game of chess. Iv had to prove that the stonewall (chess opening)is a force win for black no matter what white moves. I will get to the root of an issue if you really want to go there.
Erosion by the way,is an axiom fact that proves evolution dead wrong.