warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
El_Machinae said:
So what's mass for then? Seems like an hour of worship to me.
The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread Part Two: The Empiricists Strike Back!
- Thread starter Perfection
- Start date
- Status
So what's mass for then? Seems like an hour of worship to me.
Erik Mesoy
Core Tester / Intern
It's meant to be about teaching. And my priest used to say that it's better to go to the beach and think about God, than to go to church and sit thinking about the beach.
Che Guava
The Juicy Revolutionary
Erik Mesoy said:
I like that quote
Sounds like what religion should be like...diablodelmar
no comment
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2006
- Messages
- 945
Picture this if you believe in evolution: A piece of software, take Civ4 as an example, has to have a designer to write the code that makes the game fun to play: it didn't randomly come into being. Even if, somehow, it did randomly create itself, it would not be fun to play! In the same way, you cannot create a watch by tipping all the odds and ends and all the parts that make a watch and somehow (maybe with an explosion - ) create a ticking, accurate timepiece.
You can probably see what I'm getting at: the universe cannot possibly have come into being just randomly? There has to be a creator to design it! The complexity of the universe does not agree with these theories!
) create a ticking, accurate timepiece.You can probably see what I'm getting at: the universe cannot possibly have come into being just randomly? There has to be a creator to design it! The complexity of the universe does not agree with these theories!
Che Guava
The Juicy Revolutionary
diablodelmar said:Picture this if you believe in evolution: A piece of software, take Civ4 as an example, has to have a designer to write the code that makes the game fun to play: it didn't randomly come into being. Even if, somehow, it did randomly create itself, it would not be fun to play! In the same way, you cannot create a watch by tipping all the odds and ends and all the parts that make a watch and somehow (maybe with an explosion -
You can probably see what I'm getting at: the universe cannot possibly have come into being just randomly? There has to be a creator to design it! The complexity of the universe does not agree with these theories!
The problem with a theory like that is that it assumes some kind of purpose or endpoint. If you stop thinking about how the universe should be and focus on simply what it is, its not too hard to see how we could arrive at this point without any guidance.
The Last Conformist said:
Well I can't let that one pass, Moses parted the red sea, Methuselah lived for nearly a millenia, Adam lived for hundreds of years. Cane is still wondering the Earth to this day, his soul tied here in eternal damnation for killing Abel. Jesus, now how many miracles was that. Job lived to a ripe and somewhat unlikely old age. In fact if you take your argument as sound then most biblical figures are popycock, come on
we're talking a hundred and one dodgy stories here, you dismiss them all or none, just saying that the story may have become exagerated isn't enough to dismiss a biblical figure that's just inane, if that's the case lets toss out most of the characters from the old testament and a few from the new. Sorry TLC but it's your theory that's tenuous not mine. Admitedly there both somehwat or to some exttent tenuous, I just happen to have the Vatican and Christians and Jews behind me, where as you have an old theory and suposition. As I said before, theirs no use mocking my theory until you can substantiate your own.Anyway my final world, sorry perfection but he's talking nonsense here. But when in a hole as they say...
Start a new thread, this is the most fun discussion I've had since oh I don't know ages
diablodelmar said:
I can see what you're getting at. I also know what it is called. "Argument from personal incredulity." Type that phrase into google/wiki/wherever, and read up on the logic behind your argument.
ironduck
Deity
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2002
- Messages
- 6,561
diablodelmar said:
Wohoo, a creationist has replied, that means I get to spam again! (Unfortunately he didn't reply to my questions..)
Mkay.. chemical bounds. Do they mean anything to you? Just thought you might want to have a starting point to see why it's not all 'random'.
ironduck said:
Is that meant to say bounds or bonds? I have a vision of the atom olympics, with the radioactive ones bounding all over the stadium, and the noble gases all trying to be extra cool and not react to anything.
diablodelmar
no comment
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2006
- Messages
- 945
I give up (give up - not in)
sanabas said:
in keeping with the great creationist tradition say little and impart less. Good word play though 
for that diablodelmar said:
Bear in mid that any contribution from a creationist is far more interesting from a thread balance point of view. I admire your persistence
ironduck
Deity
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2002
- Messages
- 6,561
diablodelmar said:
What do you give up on, exactly?
We have showed you a number of things you may want to look into before you make up your mind so definitively on something you seemingly know so little about.
We have also asked you for a number of definitions so that we could actually discuss the subjects you bring forth, but you have not even attempted to do that.
diablodelmar said:
What Ironduck said. Why give up now? You've only just started. So far your entire argument seems to be:
1. Here is all this stuff. (The universe, people, digital watches, a huge variety of animal life, etc).
2. This stuff is just so amazing, there's no possible way it could have happened by chance.
3. Therefore, it didn't happen by chance, it was designed. By a designer.
Is that a fair summary? If you want to convince others outside of this forum, you'll need a more sophisticated argument than that. If you're having trouble with step 2, ask more questions about how stuff could have happened.
Ironduck said:
Thank you for a whole new set of images. K providing the gadgets, Chemical Bond dong various stunts in his buckyball, etc.
The problem is you are not are still thinking that the object (Civ4, the software, the watch, living being) being consider has too come all in one piece at one time. That is not anything close to modern evolutionary theory; as it ignores the power of cumulative or iteratied selection. That "randomly produced program" may not work so well. But if you make several copies (i.e. reproduction) with randomly produced errors (i.e. mutation), run each copy of the software,select the best working copy and begin the process again. Over many iterations (repeating cycles of the process), you can be a pretty good piece of software.diablodelmar said:Picture this if you believe in evolution: A piece of software, take Civ4 as an example, has to have a designer to write the code that makes the game fun to play: it didn't randomly come into being. Even if, somehow, it did randomly create itself, it would not be fun to play! In the same way, you cannot create a watch by tipping all the odds and ends and all the parts that make a watch and somehow (maybe with an explosion -
Here is an example, if you were not prusayed by my prose. Steve Jones, a noted British geneticist, recent gave a public lecture (Why Creationism is wrong and Evolution is right) on this topic. IIRC, He talked about about how some soap manufacturers wanted to increase the productivity of the factories. They brought in physicists and mathematicians to help (intelligently) design a better hose. They were not successful. However, some biologist began proposed a pseudo-Darwinist process, a process of intertated selection. They started with a good hose. They made several copies (i.e. reproduction) with randomly produced errors (i.e. mutation), tested the hoses, select the best working copy and begin the process again. End result: a damn good hose for soap making.
Note the "pseudo-" in "pseudo-Darwinist process". Iterative selection, as outlined above, is not natural selection. These examples were selected by a person (who we assume to be intelligent) with a goal in mind. Natural selection occurs without an intelligent intervention or goal. The organisms are selected because they were able to survive long enough to reproduce, thus organisms very well adapted to the environment are produced.
If you are interested in this line of reason, go to check out the Bind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins or Darwin's Dangerous Idea by Danial Dennett, or any other book like these. They cover the same ground. He is an java applet based on The Blind Watchmaker program.
No, it just you cannot see how it can be produced otherwise. So you invent a reason (god dunnit) it to explain it away. An old saw in evolutionary biology (IIRC, it was George Simpson) goes "evolution is clearer than you are". It not evolutionary theory that wrong; you're imagination just fails you.diablodelmar said:
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
diablodelmar said:Picture this if you believe in evolution: A piece of software, take Civ4 as an example, has to have a designer to write the code that makes the game fun to play: it didn't randomly come into being. Even if, somehow, it did randomly create itself, it would not be fun to play! In the same way, you cannot create a watch by tipping all the odds and ends and all the parts that make a watch and somehow (maybe with an explosion -
"It's obvious to me, therefore it must be true" is not a very good argument.
Have you ever heard of evolutionary computation? It's an artificial intelligence technique in which programs rewrite their own code based on some criteria of what's 'good' and what isn't - they evolve into more and more efficient algorithms.
You might say - oh but wait, there must have been a programmer there to set things into motion. Sure, but the only thing the programmer did was put certain rules into place, much like physical laws that exist in our universe. ie. energies needed to break/form chemical bonds, the speed of light, etc.
Evolutionary computation (or at least some examples of it) would be analogous to God putting the big bang into motion and then leaving everything alone.
diablodelmar said:
Seems to me that a lot of creationists do the same - give up trying to understand the world and how it works. It's a shame, because it's an incredible world.
Have you ever looked at a magnified snowflake? It looks incredibly complex - and yet so elegant. Using your argument that (it's complex, it must have a creator), we must assume that somebody sits in the sky and creates snowflakes, when it snows. The truth is that the laws of the universe - physical laws, dictate the formation of snowflakes.. much like they dictate the evolution of living things. Just because something is complex does not imply a designer.
For what it's worth, I believe that God wants us to worship Him for our benefit, not His. But anyways . . .
I can see the flaw in the "argument from design". If pre-existing design and intelligence are necessary to create the universe, then they would be necessary to create God. If God is capable of pre-existence, why can't the universe?
I can see the flaw in the "argument from design". If pre-existing design and intelligence are necessary to create the universe, then they would be necessary to create God. If God is capable of pre-existence, why can't the universe?
- Status
Similar threads
