Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by scone, Jul 21, 2013.
Enjoyed the video. Thanks.
bonding? no they're a hell of alot more complex than that.
Its like an 3d alphabet thats read by shape.
Bear in mind that a cell for a partilcular area of your eye or your toe or your heart are very different and very specific to that function.
When you see how complex it is even from a laymans point of view, you wonder how the hell the whole thing can possibly function without something going wrong.
All the science in the world with unlimited budget cannot come close to designing and creating a tomato plant. A machine that converts dirt water air and light into a tomato.
The complexity is staggering.
If we have all the elements at hand that evolution had PLUS all the resources of science PLUS the pre-existence of life to reverse engineer from , why cant we reproduce the simplest weed in your backyard?
What i'm saying makes perfect sense and you'd have no problem accepting it. If it wasn't for the moral implications involved.
That requires more than common sense to overcome.
So instead of seeing a design and a language and machinery as being created you'd rather turn your brain off and imagine some mysterious throwing together occurring millions of times for each species by sheer chance by the magical mindless fairy called evolution.
Simply because you're frightened to confront the implications of accountability to a creator.
I enjoy reading all the posts on SS and, in fact, anything that makes me question my current position or which opens my mind to new inquiry, even illogical arguments based upon immature transference of emotion and dogma. There is always a seed. I read the Koran with the same enthusiasm as the Book of Urantia, or the Book of Mormon for that matter (well a chapter or two at least) and although there are some posters here whose ideas I think are barely formed, the fact that they share them on a forum like this which holds so many intelligent, and truly compassionate speakers, gives them a credibility that warrants investigation and assessment (in my opinion).
I'll report you, or anyone else, to the moderators if you endanger the forum or try to silence debate but as for the rest of your inward looking and escapist theories, go for it. I find some of them quite though provoking.
(and p.s. although I try not to be a grammar nazi, a lack of attention to detail and misspelling in posts always diminish the status of an argument when I'm reading. Perhaps because I've usually found such is often the first indication of a rant).
patronised by a woman.
whatever next? a negro for president?
there's another thread in members, Rant of the day. You would be better off there
When I want your advice mate you'll know by the fresh lobotomy scar on my forehead.
how about stop hijacking a thread and get back on topic.
Besides calling us names, your basic argument is that it seems so complex that something must have designed it. The argument that a designer is needed for complex things is simply an infinite regression. Who designed the even more complex designer that designed the cell? It is using an even more complex, improbable thing to solve the problem of how a complex, improbable thing came into being. Darwinism showed that many complicated things that we see in the natural world could readily evolve by slow, gradual degrees from simple beginnings. The illusion of design in living creatures is just thatan illusion. Eyes, ears, brains, body forms etc are readily explained by Darwinism. You are just taking the design argument to the next part in the daisy chain which is still undergoing research. Given the abject failure of the design argument to explain so much of the history of the natural world it is silly to suddenly say "Aha! Now explain this bit." and expect that sufficient research will suddenly not yield the same answer - namely that a designer is not the best explanation for the existence of the eukaryotic cell etc. Indeed much research has already been done to fill in the gaps about how raw elements in certain conditions positively spawn amino acids and such like to how a functioning cell could be achieved. The same thing happened with the whole "missing link" issue a 100 odd years ago and since then a veritable plethora of intermediate links have been discovered.
bordsilver What you did there, much like with your definition of atheism, is change the opposing point of view to something you can dismantle.
I didnt say its complex therefore god mustve made it.
I said it is a language or code and its is impossible to have a language or code without intellect and will to create it. Its not unlikely or improbable but impossible by defintion.
what is a language afterall? a method of transferring messages or information. Mindless nothingness cannot create messages or information language. It has neither the will to do so nor the intelligence.
By the way .Darwins theory about the birds with short beaks and long beaks having evolved has been disproved. I cant recall what birds they were, finches maybe but anyhow his idea was that they evolved according to their environment. But DNA shows that all the information required for short beaks or long beaks is in their genome.
It becomes either dominant or otherwise as per conditions. Which is part of the genius of the design.
They're limited to that genome however.
Any gardener knows this. And we use certain chemicals to fk up the genome to get new ugly phenotypes that are outside the design.
Then I go back to my previous comment that this is simply an assertion not a fact. Irrespective you still have the same problem. If our intellect is the result of a code, and a code is the product of an intellect, who created the code that created the intellect that created the code etc, etc?
I don't think they noticed your post sconejon? :/
edit; on the topic of Mr Rudd, he's a very naughty boy :|
That'll teach ya :
@julie ...I love a good rant .Especially in person when they go all red in the face ....priceless
its not just an assetion, its a self evident fact. Requires 2 minutes thought to prove it to yourself.
If you lack the capacity to do so, you may take either proposition on a likelihood basis.
And its more likely complex language is created than just appears in a mindless, willless universe.
Unless you don't want to acknowledge god because you've done alot of shitty things in your life.
Then the silly option makes alot of sense.
haha Black Sheep, more like give a shit.
Be nice if people paid for and used general discussion
You haven't proved one fact that there is a god. You've just asserted there is.
One question for you
If "god" is so great & all that BS
why does he heed $
the evidence of the design/ the evidence of a language in creating that which is designed and the fact that language cannot be created by a nothingness IS SO OBVIOUSLY TRUE it boggles the mind trying to explain to someone who can't see that how to further prove it.
I realise that we have all been brainwashed into believing nonsense, and try to be patient with you peasants, however if you lack intellectual integrity, the fault lies in your heart and ultimately you deserve your fate.
Separate names with a comma.