What evolution does NOT explain

[atechnie]

I would say you lost me somewhere along the way. I think that we are talking about two different things.

We were talking about whether the universe is an intelligent design or not. You came along and said "It is not a question of what it needs to be, it is a question of what it is."

i.e.,

Is chocolate fantastic or not. I said to you, "It is not a question of what chocolate needs to be, it is a question of what chocolate is."

Is that better?

-atechnie

 

[JohnR7]

We were talking about whether the universe is an intelligent design or not. You came along and said "It is not a question of what it needs to be, it is a question of what it is."

i.e.,

Is chocolate fantastic or not. I said to you, "It is not a question of what chocolate needs to be, it is a question of what chocolate is."

Is that better?

You are looking at the taste of chocolate. Yes it needs to be what it is or we would not consider it something that we want to eat. The design it self at a molecular level is a intellegent design.

I will try to explain a intellegent design for you. The classic example has always been a watch. A watch is made up from the elements that we find in the earth. But you have to manufacture those elements and convert them into watch parts. It is the conversion of the elements that makes the design an intelligent one. If you did not have to convert the elements, if you could make up a watch out of the raw elements of the earth, then it could be considered a unintelligent design.

So, like your chocolate a watch needs to be able to keep track of the time. What makes the watch a intelligent design is the way the elements are converted into parts in order to make a watch. Once you have the parts, they will almost fall into place by themselves. You would only have to struggle to get the parts to fit if they were not made properly.

 

[JohnR7]

Unprovable statements of faith are great and all, but you should really qualify them as such when you make such.

Intelligent design is not so much a statement of faith as it is an explaination for the way the universe and nature world are. It has to do with physics and molecular structure.

 

[Magnus Vile]

Hey, I'll bite. Show me a universe that is different to this one, preferably one without any possibility of life, and I'll think about accepting your argument...

 

[atechnie]

You are looking at the taste of chocolate. Yes it needs to be what it is or we would not consider it something that we want to eat. The design it self at a molecular level is a intellegent design.

Once again: we're arguing whether the universe needs to be an intelligent design.

I will try to explain a intellegent design for you.

Thanks!

The classic example has always been a watch. A watch is made up from the elements that we find in the earth. But you have to manufacture those elements and convert them into watch parts. It is the conversion of the elements that makes the design an intelligent one. If you did not have to convert the elements, if you could make up a watch out of the raw elements of the earth, then it could be considered a unintelligent design.

By comparing the universe to the watch, you're already presuming that the universe is an intelligent design. But you can't do that because we're arguing whether universe needs to be an intelligent design.

So, like your chocolate a watch needs to be able to keep track of the time. What makes the watch a intelligent design is the way the elements are converted into parts in order to make a watch. Once you have the parts, they will almost fall into place by themselves. You would only have to struggle to get the parts to fit if they were not made properly.

That's not the point behind my chocolate example. Because we're debating whether chocolate tastes good or not, I can't simply state that chocolate tastes good and expect you to agree with me. I need to provide evidence. Which is what I'm asking you to do.

You said that the universe needs to be an intelligent design. That means that it's not possible for the universe to have occured at a random chance. Can you tell me why?

-atechnie

 

[JohnR7]

Hey, I'll bite. Show me a universe that is different to this one, preferably one without any possibility of life,

That does not exist. Everything in creation has potential or possibility. Otherwise it would be destoyed and no longer exist. So is that what your are seeking after: non existance?

 

[Magnus Vile]

That does not exist. Everything in creation has potential or possibility. Otherwise it would be destoyed and no longer exist. So is that what your are seeking after: non existance?

So 100% of all known universes support life.

How many universes did you examine before you concluded this one was special, in some way? How do you differenciate between this universe, which does support life, and another that does not? How did you determine that alternative universes are possible, or even that changes in the way physics works would lead to lifelessness? Wouldn''t a universe that operated under a different set of physical rules be, by definition, different to this one, and therefore wouldn't it seem that our physical laws wouldn't apply? With the consequence that no prediction made about another universe with physical laws that differ from ours would be reliable if we used our physical laws to make those predictions?

In short, what does the OP have to do with the price of tea in China, and if it doesn't address the price of tea in China, is the OP valid?

 

[JohnR7]

So 100% of all known universes support life.

It has the potential for life. We would not exist if parts of us were not created in a star somewhere. This is a living universe and all of creation has the potential for life.

In short, what does the OP have to do with the price of tea in China, and if it doesn't address the price of tea in China, is the OP valid?

Does this mean you do not need answers to the rest of your questions?

 

[Edx]

It has the potential for life. We would not exist if parts of us were not created in a star somewhere. This is a living universe and all of creation has the potential for life.

So you agree with Big Bang theory??

Ed

 

[JohnR7]

So you agree with Big Bang theory??

I do not think that there was a "Bang" I think that the universe just began to expand. But there are people who are experts on that sort of thing that claim there was an actual explosion.

 

[Somnus]

I do not think that there was a "Bang" I think that the universe just began to expand. But there are people who are experts on that sort of thing that claim there was an actual explosion.

No explosion happened, because there was nothing to "explode" into. You are correct in that it expands.

 

[Magnus Vile]

Does this mean you do not need answers to the rest of your questions?

No, it means I don't expect answers to the rest of the questions. The OP makes a mistake in assuming that the universe is in some way special, without having anything to compare its 'specialness' to.

All known universes support life, so it may not be entirely unreasonable to suggest that universes can support life. Nothing particularly special required at all. That's just the way universes are, 100% of the time.

 

[Edx]

I do not think that there was a "Bang" I think that the universe just began to expand. But there are people who are experts on that sort of thing that claim there was an actual explosion.

But you believe everything came from a heart of star? How do you reconclie that with Genesis? How did you interprete Genesis.?

 

[Kripost]

One problem about the so called "Law of causality" is that it implies a from of deterministic system. However, in quantum mechanics, events are non-deterministic.

 

[llDayo]

Because the universe is an intelligent design.

Compared to what? The watch example doesn't work as we already know that watches are intelligently designed. We can compare the function and design of one watch and determine it was designed because there's others like we know to be designed. What known intelligently designed universe did you use as a comparison to our's to come to your conclusion?

 

[Asimov]

Intelligent design is not so much a statement of faith as it is an explaination for the way the universe and nature world are. It has to do with physics and molecular structure.

It may be an explanation, but it's an unsubstantiated one.

 

[atechnie]

I notice that you've ignored my post, John.

-atechnie

 

[JohnR7]

I notice that you've ignored my post, John.

I answered your question before. You just did not understand my answer and I could not think of any better way to explain it.

 

[JohnR7]

It may be an explanation, but it's an unsubstantiated one.

Unsubstantiated or not it is still the best explaination that we have and your not coming up with a better explaination.

Actually intellegent design when it comes to physics by definition is a fact. But the average person does not look at the universe on a atomic, necular or molecular level, so they totally miss the concept of what intellegent design is. It is simple though, the elements have to be converted before they can become something that is living. In fact they go though about five conversion processes. That is why we have five days of creation before man is created on the sixth day.

 

[corvus_corax]

Actually intellegent design when it comes to physics by definition is a fact.

Could you expand on this assertion and produce some evidence?

But the average person does not look at the universe on a atomic, necular or molecular level, so they totally miss the concept of what intellegent design is. It is simple though, the elements have to be converted before they can become something that is living. In fact they go though about five conversion processes. That is why we have five days of creation before man is created on the sixth day.

(emphasis added)
Now you're adding your own flawed logic and theories to the bible.
How is, then, that plants were created on the third day, and animals were created on the fifth (during but not after the fifth conversion process you speak of)?