Started by challengeatheism, January 03, 2017, 08:12:02 PM
Quote from: PickelledEggs on January 04, 2017, 12:34:14 PMMozartlink, is that you?
Quote from: challengeatheism on January 04, 2017, 12:35:42 PM i am new here. no sock puppet.
Quote from: challengeatheism on January 04, 2017, 12:02:51 PMThe evidence for intelligent design has not been shrinking in the last two decades. Itâ€™s been growing, while the barriers to explain origins through naturalism have grown.
Quote from: challengeatheism on January 04, 2017, 12:34:56 PMSure. Chance does not produce Jumbos. Nor books.
Quote from: challengeatheism on January 04, 2017, 12:34:56 PMNor living cells that are more complex and contain more information than the hadron collider.
Quote from: challengeatheism on January 04, 2017, 12:34:56 PMIntelligence imho can produce all of this......
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on January 04, 2017, 02:10:02 PMNobody has proposed this. Nobody.
QuoteAnd the first life was not even as complex as modern cells.
Quote from: challengeatheism on January 04, 2017, 12:34:56 PMSure. Chance does not produce Jumbos. Nor books. Nor living cells that are more complex and contain more information than the hadron collider. Intelligence imho can produce all of this......
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 04, 2017, 03:36:35 PMThat is all you have--your humble opinion (and don't forget belief, which is another word for willful ignorance). Of course chance does not produce books. So what? Chance, however, is involved in the creation of living cells. Our universe is so full of all that is needed that any chance at all will produce cells. And chance will then produce life. And chance will produce species. It is called evolution. No, the actual way it happens is not known--yet. I am not afraid to say 'I don't know.' And I don't have to ascribe a reason or cause or process to a fiction called god. You remind me of christian of old. If one was able to transport a christian from, say the year 600, show them a jumbo jet (since you seem to love them so...) and then tell him it will fly, he/she would call you a liar and tell you it would be impossible. And when he/she saw it fly, the jet would be called 'of the devil!'. Your ignorance knows no bounds. Belief/faith will keep you ignorant your entire life. I do pity you.
Quote from: Unbeliever on January 04, 2017, 03:58:30 PMIf your God was necessary to create all this complexity that is life, then who created the complexity that is your God? If that complexity that is your God needed no creation, then neither did the complexity that is life need your God to create it.
Quote from: challengeatheism on January 04, 2017, 04:11:18 PM The answer is that by definition He is not created; He is eternal.
Quote from: challengeatheism on January 04, 2017, 04:10:28 PMwhat amazing faith in chance you have.....Paul Davies, the fifth miracle, page 54:Chance and the origin of lifeAsk the simple question: Given the conditions that prevailed on the Earth four billion years ago, how likely was it that life arose?The following answer wonâ€™t do: â€œLife was inevitable, because we are here.â€ Obviously life did originateâ€"our existence proves that much. But did it have to originate? In other words, was the emergence of life from a chemical broth or whatever inevitable, given millions of years? Nobody knows the answer to this question. The origin of life may have been a sheer fluke, a chemical accident of stupendous improbability, an event so unlikely that it would never happen twice in the entire universe. Or it may have been as unremarkable and predetermined as the formation of salt crystals. How can we know which explanation is the right one? Letâ€™s take a look at the chemical-fluke theory. Terrestrial life is based on some very complicated molecules with carefully crafted structures. Even in simple organisms, DNA contains millions of atoms. The precise sequence of atoms is crucial. You canâ€™t have an arbitrary sequence, because DNA is an instruction manual for making the organism. Change a few atoms and you threaten the structure of the organism. Change too many and you wonâ€™t have an organism at all. The situation may be compared to the word sequence of a novel. Change a few words here and there at random, and the text will probably be marred. Scramble all the words and there is a very high probability that it wonâ€™t be a novel any more. There will be other novels with similar words in different combinations, but the set of word sequences that make up novels is an infinitesimal fraction of all possible word sequences. The odds are fantastic against shuffling amino acids at random into the right sequence to form a protein molecule by accident. That was a single protein. Life as we know it requires hundreds of thousands of specialist proteins, not to mention the nucleic acids. The odds against producing just the proteins by pure chance are something like 1^40.000 to 1. This is one followed by forty thousand zeros, which would take up an entire chapter of this book if I wanted to write it out in full. Dealing a perfect suit at cards a thousand times in a row is easy by comparison. In 40000 a famous remark, the British astronomer Fred Hoyle likened the odds against the spontaneous assembly of life to those for a whirlwind sweeping through a junkyard and producing a fully functioning Boeing 747.With such a extraordinary elucidation, it would/should be a easy leap of faith to infer =====>>>> DESIGN !! Why Davies does not do it, but keeps a agnostic standpoint, is a mistery to me.
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 04, 2017, 04:49:49 PM And so far you have not produced one shred of evidence for the existence of your god. We both know why that is, don't we? There isn't any. Sort of like brains in your head.