Children's Tv Programme Past / Present
Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Intelligent Design
82 Answers
More a question for Theland than anyone else (or any other literalist Bible believer)
Can you explain to me why you believe that the universe is intelligently designed?
In fact, lets narrow it down a bit and just say Earth. (when I say 'narrow it down a bit', I actually mean considerably)
*The Earth has been home to over 99% of (now) extinct species of life forms.
*Life has evolved on this planet to eat other life forms
*Parasites live of other beings
*Cancer cells mutate indiscriminately (children, animals, Christians, atheists)
*Volcanos, earthquakes, tidal waves, etc don't discriminate whom they destroy
I could go on but I won't. But please tell me why you think that there is a divine intelligence in orchestrating the above. If its intelligent then its certainly malevolent.
Can you explain to me why you believe that the universe is intelligently designed?
In fact, lets narrow it down a bit and just say Earth. (when I say 'narrow it down a bit', I actually mean considerably)
*The Earth has been home to over 99% of (now) extinct species of life forms.
*Life has evolved on this planet to eat other life forms
*Parasites live of other beings
*Cancer cells mutate indiscriminately (children, animals, Christians, atheists)
*Volcanos, earthquakes, tidal waves, etc don't discriminate whom they destroy
I could go on but I won't. But please tell me why you think that there is a divine intelligence in orchestrating the above. If its intelligent then its certainly malevolent.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by nailit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Theland //How on earth are undirected natural processes supposed to have performed the miracle of life?//
You show your bias by presupposing abiogenesis to be a miracle and refusing to believe it could have happened.
There are many hypotheses. We don't know which process (or combination of processes) was responsible for life as we know it. Nor do we know the exact circumstances or have had the opportunity to conduct experiments for the time it took for life to form. Hardly surprising that it has not been replicated.
However it is worth noting that the fundamental reaction that provides energy to every known life form is also present in an inorganic process known as the serpentinization of olivine. It occurs at alkaline ocean floor vents known as "white smokers". This process produces cell-sized mineral bubbles. It isn't a big leap to imagine them being enveloped by a lipid membrane.
You also make the common mistake of assuming there is nothing directing evolution towards life. Evolution is powerfully directed by the selection of the most efficient reproduction rate.
Living things are complex catalysts which imperfectly reproduce themselves. An imperfectly replicating self-catalysing reaction where the efficiency of the catalysis depends on the detailed structure of the catalyst will undergo evolution. This is indisputable because such systems are observed in non-living chemistry.
Evolution is self-evident given the knowledge of the way living things are encoded and reproduce. In fact, if life didn't evolve it would be necessary to explain why it didn't. Only a person with seriously impaired cognitive function would fail to comprehend this axiom.
You show your bias by presupposing abiogenesis to be a miracle and refusing to believe it could have happened.
There are many hypotheses. We don't know which process (or combination of processes) was responsible for life as we know it. Nor do we know the exact circumstances or have had the opportunity to conduct experiments for the time it took for life to form. Hardly surprising that it has not been replicated.
However it is worth noting that the fundamental reaction that provides energy to every known life form is also present in an inorganic process known as the serpentinization of olivine. It occurs at alkaline ocean floor vents known as "white smokers". This process produces cell-sized mineral bubbles. It isn't a big leap to imagine them being enveloped by a lipid membrane.
You also make the common mistake of assuming there is nothing directing evolution towards life. Evolution is powerfully directed by the selection of the most efficient reproduction rate.
Living things are complex catalysts which imperfectly reproduce themselves. An imperfectly replicating self-catalysing reaction where the efficiency of the catalysis depends on the detailed structure of the catalyst will undergo evolution. This is indisputable because such systems are observed in non-living chemistry.
Evolution is self-evident given the knowledge of the way living things are encoded and reproduce. In fact, if life didn't evolve it would be necessary to explain why it didn't. Only a person with seriously impaired cognitive function would fail to comprehend this axiom.
Beso, all of your theorising and examples of, "almost," as in examples of part examples to illustrate the possibility of successful evolution, falls far short of a convincing argument.
You might find chemistry to make your mouth water, but you can't take this chemistry into the lab and produce life and you never will.
To say an explanation would be required if there were no life, is certainly something I strongly disagree with.
You might find chemistry to make your mouth water, but you can't take this chemistry into the lab and produce life and you never will.
To say an explanation would be required if there were no life, is certainly something I strongly disagree with.
Mibs - you cannot have a design without a designer, or a creation without a creation, and you cannot provide the necessary information for a system to function, from within the systems initial state. The system needs initial information to develop and then it can go on to self replicate etc
You do not satisfy me as far as the initial starting conditions are concerned.
You do not satisfy me as far as the initial starting conditions are concerned.
Theland, you assume the initial conditions (including design and creation) is everything and end with nothing in the way of explaining how that could possibly be the case from the very beginning. Knowledge is a learning process, nevertheless you assume a state of complete knowledge that exists a prior before there was ever even anything to learn about or with. You'll never learn anything that way but why even bother if you assume all the answers existed long before anything arose with the capacity to ask the questions?
Consciousness is of existence (following the development of means and process) . . . not its alleged 'creator'.
Consciousness is of existence (following the development of means and process) . . . not its alleged 'creator'.
"You might find chemistry to make your mouth water, but you can't take this chemistry into the lab and produce life and you never will."
That's a massive amount of faith in the inability of mankind.
Anyway, man will never fly; the good lord didn't give him wings. Them there idiot Wright brothers are making fools of themselves again.
That's a massive amount of faith in the inability of mankind.
Anyway, man will never fly; the good lord didn't give him wings. Them there idiot Wright brothers are making fools of themselves again.
"you cannot have a ... creation without a creation"
Maths and physics indicates what created our universe better than priestly guesses can. And explains how it matured from it's early beginnings. We seem to have explanations for the basic activity/changes, but need to fill in details. One ought not dismiss a best explanation simply because one doesn't have every detail yet. One wouldn't understand nor accept anything if we took that view.
Maths and physics indicates what created our universe better than priestly guesses can. And explains how it matured from it's early beginnings. We seem to have explanations for the basic activity/changes, but need to fill in details. One ought not dismiss a best explanation simply because one doesn't have every detail yet. One wouldn't understand nor accept anything if we took that view.
The scientists themselves are split on this, and I find the ones who in spite of the science, decree the necessity of God.
As for evolution, the experts in that field are so dissatisfied with the current state of the subject that they gathered at The Royal Society for a conference to come up with a new theory that would embrace their reservations of the evidence for the theory.
After a few days the conference broke up in failure.
Evolution as an idea is unproven and not even supported in its entirety by it most notable commentators.
As for evolution, the experts in that field are so dissatisfied with the current state of the subject that they gathered at The Royal Society for a conference to come up with a new theory that would embrace their reservations of the evidence for the theory.
After a few days the conference broke up in failure.
Evolution as an idea is unproven and not even supported in its entirety by it most notable commentators.
Everything Theland writes is utterly delusional.
Evolution is supported by a vast amount of evidence. Experts in the field are well and truly satisfied.
Go on Theland, provide a reference to The Royal Society conference "breaking up in failure" over reservations about the evidence for Evolution. Was that in 1860?
The Laws of Physics hold from about 10^-43 seconds after the Big Bang. Not a lot of of room left for God.
Evolution is supported by a vast amount of evidence. Experts in the field are well and truly satisfied.
Go on Theland, provide a reference to The Royal Society conference "breaking up in failure" over reservations about the evidence for Evolution. Was that in 1860?
The Laws of Physics hold from about 10^-43 seconds after the Big Bang. Not a lot of of room left for God.
https:/
There are many articles casting doubt on Darwinism, but the scientific community is very conservative, and they don't take kindly to those who are not, "one of us,""
Evolution as a theory has more holes than a Swiss cheese and God help the scientist who does not tow the party line. Loss of research funding loss of promotion e
There are many articles casting doubt on Darwinism, but the scientific community is very conservative, and they don't take kindly to those who are not, "one of us,""
Evolution as a theory has more holes than a Swiss cheese and God help the scientist who does not tow the party line. Loss of research funding loss of promotion e
Theland - // … and am comfortable in my faith. //
Clearly you are anything but 'comfortable' which is why you spend so much time asking questions you don't want answered, so you can lecture people who disagree with you.
I have yet to meet any devout Christian who is 'comfortable' with their faith - it has built-in doubt, guilt, and endless handwringing as a given.
Clearly you are anything but 'comfortable' which is why you spend so much time asking questions you don't want answered, so you can lecture people who disagree with you.
I have yet to meet any devout Christian who is 'comfortable' with their faith - it has built-in doubt, guilt, and endless handwringing as a given.
If a scientist doesn't start with belief in basic accepted science he's not going to be able to advance science any. At the limit of knowledge one is allowed to be a maverick and put forward alternatives, and investigate them, but no one will take seriously those who deny accepted knowledge without evidence or even rational argument as to why it would be wrong.
Latest Posts
Only The A F D Can Save Germany
News3 mins ago
ChatterBank4 mins ago
ChatterBank12 mins ago
