Creationism, Intelligent Design, Evolution or .... what?

Tao_Equus said:
No, my 2 Questions first. If there is a 'creator', what created it? And if it 'created' all this , some 500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stellar systems that we know of, why did he create just 1 man to inhabit it, then as an afterthought take a spare rib and create him a mate? Do you not see how preposterously bad logic that is? It is frankly insane.

Life is a rather unusual chemical process that requires optimum stable conditions to flourish as we know it. The basic chemicals to get it started saturate the known universe. From the Murchison meteorite, to spectral analysis of distant stellar nurseries we find an abundance of the chemicals the creationists say cannot form by chance on Earth. It is a lie. It is bullshit and I can make no apology for using that word. It is anti-truth, deceit, crap and any other similar expletive you care to use. And I seriously object to it, with anger, because its proponents know it to be crap. It is filth, intellectual pornography of the basest kind, the equivalent of child rape when taken into schools.

tao
Click to expand...
[satire] Is there an exorcist in the house? :p [/satire]
 
I didn't say we're the only planet of life. ;) (nor anything about a rib lol)

I am just showing the chances of life.... So imagine if there are more like us.... Let's double the probability rate. :)

Understand, that when I say I side with design, that doesn't mean I side with genesis.

No apology needed, however to brush aside a Creator as simply "bullshit" doesn't sell it to me.

Bad logic? Oh ok....

...So how did it all come to be from your account again?
 
Alex P said:
I didn't say we're the only planet of life. ;) (nor anything about a rib lol)

I am just showing the chances of life.... So imagine if there are more like us.... Let's double the probability rate. :)

Understand, that when I say I side with design, that doesn't mean I side with genesis.

No apology needed, however to brush aside a Creator as simply "bullshit" doesn't sell it to me.

Bad logic? Oh ok....

...So how did it all come to be from your account again?
Click to expand...

Your post tried using creationist numerical trickery as evidence for there being no chance of chance alone having been the only cause. To have any meaningful debate on this issue and to support the concept of a creator you have to put forward a single example of where we can see that anything has been intelligently designed. We do not find one example. Not anywhere in the observable universe is there anything that can only have been designed.

In the clip posted by SG on quantum tunnelling we see that the probability of particle combination is slight but that it does happen sometimes. When particles combine they form new types of particles and as they in turn combine they form yet more new particles. As this process expands the range of particles allows the creation of ever more complex molecules that in turn combine to create the chemistry we see. This evolution of particles from primordial to complex can be studied in the lab and shows no intelligent design what so ever. ID is a lie. A deliberate one.


tao
 
How did God begin?

Where is that single intelligently designed particle?
 
Alex P said:
No, Sorry I mean, from your opinion, if this isn't all from a Creator... Like how/where did it all begin? Very interested in seeing your view on that.
Click to expand...

I cannot be sure how the very first elementary particles were formed but I do know they do not have anything about them that implies design. And for you to side on ID then you must have evidence for that, so as I oblige you please reciprocate :D

tao
 
Alex P said:
The particals you speak of, some how formed... From the void, from nothing... That is all I need... :)
Click to expand...

lol Alex, you know as well as I do that is not what I said. If you really want to know I think the multiverse is truly infinite and our universe is an expanding expression of infinity. I believe the elementary particles were sprayed in from an adjoining universe 'chamber' through a tiny 'hole'. But I have almost no evidence to support that belief, but 'almost' no evidence is at least more than creationists can offer. They have none at all.

PS

You are a credit to theists everywhere. You never answered one difficult question.
 
lol I answered you question... The particals... That come from no where lol that is the evidence I need... I look for evidence to prove to myself, not to prove to mankind.

There is life here, it came out from nothing... Life can only come from life(FACT), yet there at one point was no life, the universe around us, has as I previously stated via statistical fact an insane chance of existing...

Yet here is the universe, here is life, here we are on a forum baffled by how it is, but it is.... That is -my- evidence, and that is why I am a believer in the miracle of a Creator lol... Sorry will have to just accept that. You views that it just happened to be somehow.. Fine... I accept that.
 
Tao_Equus said:
lol Alex, you know as well as I do that is not what I said. If you really want to know I think the multiverse is truly infinite and our universe is an expanding expression of infinity. I believe the elementary particles were sprayed in from an adjoining universe 'chamber' through a tiny 'hole'. But I have almost no evidence to support that belief, but 'almost' no evidence is at least more than creationists can offer. They have none at all.
Click to expand...
Tao_Equus said:
No, my 2 Questions first. If there is a 'creator', what created it? And if it 'created' all this , some 500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stellar systems that we know of, why did he create just 1 man to inhabit it, then as an afterthought take a spare rib and create him a mate? Do you not see how preposterously bad logic that is? It is frankly insane.
Click to expand...
So how did this proposed adjoining universe 'chamber' come to be? What mechanism would account for this tiny proposed 'hole' you speak of?
Tao_Equus said:
I cannot be sure how the very first elementary particles were formed but I do know they do not have anything about them that implies design. And for you to side on ID then you must have evidence for that, so as I oblige you please reciprocate :D

tao
Click to expand...
Is not your proposed model a designed one? (One designed from within your own mind?) :confused:
 
Am I the only one that thinks the entire argument is really quite amusing? I mean, here is a creature (Man) spawned by What Is, turns around and looks at the world and the universe, and deems himself somehow separate from, and pronounces judgment upon it. "Oh look at all this!" he says, "oh how intelligent!" all the while forgetting where his so called intelligence arose from.
I dunno seems somehow arrogant to call reality intelligent as if we were in a position to judge it.
If everything is really as it is, then nothing could be intelligent or unintelligent, it simply is. Perhaps the only genuine reaction to what we seem to be experiencing here in this life is wonder, awe, and even possibly gratitude for the chance to have awareness of it all if only for a moment.
subscribing to a theory of how things progress or evolve, delving into the mysteries of life and how it moves never seems to turn me away from this sense of wonder and awe, rather it intensifies it.
Even if there is a God, do you think IT would be offended if I rejected the common conception and merely opened my mind, and my heart to WHAT IS rather than some sort of conceptual framework added onto by generations upon generations of people intent on nothing more than furthering their own sense of self and assuaging their fear of living in a universe with naught but imputed meaning?
Especially considering that the I that I am might only be an idea a thought in itself and this body this consciousness is an integral part of that WHAT IS?

Of course it's always great fun and good entertainment to engage in a false dichotomy and argue one side against another, unless of course there is a really good movie on cable:p
 
Of course it's amusing, Paladin. It's those who want to take away the debate and exploration that take the fun out of it. {However, I must admit, those who want to take all the fun out of it are also amusing in their own way.}
 
seattlegal said:
So how did this proposed adjoining universe 'chamber' come to be? What mechanism would account for this tiny proposed 'hole' you speak of?
Click to expand...
Collision energy of two branes touching.

Is not your proposed model a designed one? (One designed from within your own mind?) :confused:
Click to expand...
Yes but I know that my model is only a rough guess at a workable model and I will never try to ram it down someone throat nor start a religion to smite those heathens that do not agree with me. My position supports a slight possibility that can be overwritten by new information. It is not a dogma based on comprehensively discredited ideas and based on 2nd hand fairy tales compiled deliberately to stop people thinking. I said this before and I say it again, you can try and drag me down into the "religious" notion of justification but I will reject it at every turn. Not because I am superior but because I will not play along with your own self-justification.

tao
 
Tao_Equus said:
Collision energy of two branes touching.

Yes but I know that my model is only a rough guess at a workable model and I will never try to ram it down someone throat nor start a religion to smite those heathens that do not agree with me. My position supports a slight possibility that can be overwritten by new information. It is not a dogma based on comprehensively discredited ideas and based on 2nd hand fairy tales compiled deliberately to stop people thinking. I said this before and I say it again, you can try and drag me down into the "religious" notion of justification but I will reject it at every turn. Not because I am superior but because I will not play along with your own self-justification.

tao
Click to expand...

You know I hear that this pays pretty good though...:p
 
Just taking the talk to my lady and I was explaining about the big bang theory.... Anyway we got on to another part of personal evidence for me, and I thought, I was speaking with Tao about this, evidence, of, design... DNA the life source computer software that is coded to say I am going to be White, I will be average height, blue eyes, light hair, I will have slightly damaged eye site, I will be funny, or serious, My teeth with grow straight.... It goes on, the list seriously goes on... I thought that is some good organisation and design there.
 
Tao_Equus said:
Collision energy of two branes touching.

Yes but I know that my model is only a rough guess at a workable model and I will never try to ram it down someone throat nor start a religion to smite those heathens that do not agree with me.
Click to expand...
Really?
Tao_Equus said:
No, my 2 Questions first. If there is a 'creator', what created it? And if it 'created' all this , some 500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stellar systems that we know of, why did he create just 1 man to inhabit it, then as an afterthought take a spare rib and create him a mate? Do you not see how preposterously bad logic that is? It is frankly insane.

Life is a rather unusual chemical process that requires optimum stable conditions to flourish as we know it. The basic chemicals to get it started saturate the known universe. From the Murchison meteorite, to spectral analysis of distant stellar nurseries we find an abundance of the chemicals the creationists say cannot form by chance on Earth. It is a lie. It is bullshit and I can make no apology for using that word. It is anti-truth, deceit, crap and any other similar expletive you care to use. And I seriously object to it, with anger, because its proponents know it to be crap. It is filth, intellectual pornography of the basest kind, the equivalent of child rape when taken into schools.

tao
Click to expand...
How is the above rant not about 'smiting heathens that do not agree with you?'

My position supports a slight possibility that can be overwritten by new information. It is not a dogma based on comprehensively discredited ideas and based on 2nd hand fairy tales compiled deliberately to stop people thinking. I said this before and I say it again, you can try and drag me down into the "religious" notion of justification but I will reject it at every turn. Not because I am superior but because I will not play along with your own self-justification.

tao
Click to expand...
Now would this new information only include information that fits into your preference, or any information? What do you mean about 'slight possibility,' in other words? Wouldn't that be one means to stop people from thinking?
 
seattlegal said:
Really?How is the above rant not about 'smiting heathens that do not agree with you?'
Click to expand...
Because I use what "they" say and pick out the lies "they" tell to use against "them". Lies "they" know to be lies. I am not forcing "my" lie on them.


Now would this new information only include information that fits into your preference, or any information? What do you mean about 'slight possibility,' in other words? Wouldn't that be one means to stop people from thinking?
Click to expand...
On a cosmological level I believe man is 1000s if not millions of years from getting close to answering the really big question in a definitive way. Which is tantamount to saying we will never know. I can accept that...... without believing in supernatural causation for which there is ZERO evidence.

So what made your God? What is it made from? Who made it?
lol, you have no answers but you believe. I have few answers but I know belief in the supernatural has less evidence by several billion degrees of magnitude than the little I know. If you want my advice go buy yourself a big teddy bear and pray to it, call it God, Its got about as much chance of hearing you as any supernatural deity.

tao
 
Tao_Equus said:
I believe the elementary particles were sprayed in from an adjoining universe 'chamber' through a tiny 'hole'. But I have almost no evidence to support that belief, but 'almost' no evidence is at least more than creationists can offer. They have none at all.
Click to expand...
And how is the approach you're taking now any different from the way you handled the existence of G-d?

I've asked you before: Why would anyone expect "evidence" for something that is a matter of faith? Makes no sense.

Faith-based assertions are axiological. As we've discussed elsewhere, such assertions are by definition nonfalsifiable. They cannot be disconfirmed. Moreover, they are immune from scientific inquiry precisely because they don't call for evidence. If evidence were possible, they would not longer be faith-based assertions or axiological claims.

A.J Ayer once suggested that "If the assertion that there is a god is nonsensical, then the atheist’s assertion that there is no god is equally non-sensical." To try to apply a scientific standard of evidence to creation stories makes no sense either.

You entire line of argument reflects deepseated confusion about concepts and language. If I may humbly suggest you do a Google search on the term "God talk."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top