DanG 1 #126 January 5, 2012 QuoteIs this proof, NO, does it logically makes sense if there was a creator he would have to be beyond natural law ? Sure, if there were a creator, he could do anything he wanted, I suppose. QuoteThere are many arguments for the case of a designer... Perhaps, I'm just saying that you haven't presented one yet. QuoteIf you saw a sandcastle on the beach would you think the wind did that? No, but if I saw miles of nearly uniform undulations in the sand, I would be fairly certain that the wind did, in fact, do that. Quotenatural law causes disorder not order For the entirety of the system, disorder will eventually prevail. Locally, within the system, there is no law that says things can't become more ordered. The Earth is quite a small locallity. No God required. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikempb 0 #127 January 5, 2012 Quote:" Mathematically it's easy to prove: 0 = -1+1. I think quarks pop into existence from nothing in opposite pairs all the time" The quarks popping up out of nothing isnt true.. It is done inside of a vacumme, there is still an abundant amount of energy in that vacumme. As far as proving your theory in math, it's great on paper because math is just a figment of our imagination. If you dont agree then what color is math? or how much doest it weigh? When you are talking about finite, physical universe those numbers just dont add up ( sorry for the pun) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #128 January 5, 2012 QuoteIf you dont agree then what color is math? or how much doest it weigh? That's just plain silly. Math is a language used to describe reality. Math exists just like English exists. "If you dont agree then what color is English? or how much doest it weigh?" - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikempb 0 #129 January 5, 2012 Well I'm a silly guy.... My point is that there are math equations that can be worked out that cant be applied in real life... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikempb 0 #130 January 5, 2012 Quote: " but if I saw miles of nearly uniform undulations in the sand, I would be fairly certain that the wind did" I agree that is not intellegent design. In fact if the castle is left by the person who made it it will turn back into disorder fairly soon.. The chance for all the factors for life to exist is 10 to the 136th power,( that is from scientist)do you know how many atoms are in the universe? 10 to the80th power. That tells me for life to be possible it is beyond rare. It shows a complex design therefore all designs have a designer. FUNNY story, there was an athiest professor, who had his class turn in their progect for class, he saw one with no name on it, it was a accurate diagram of the solar system, when he asked who's it was, one student said noone's. the professor said, that's ridiculous! somebody had to have made it!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #131 January 5, 2012 QuoteThe chance for all the factors for life to exist is 10 to the 136th power,( that is from scientist) Source, please. Generally, the scientific community is of the opinion that life exists in countless places in the known universe. I would say that the chances that all the factors will combine somewhere to produce life as we know it are exacly 1 in 1. Somewhere is here. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,090 #132 January 5, 2012 >The chance for all the factors for life to exist is 10 to the 136th power Nope. That's modern life as we know it and in its current form. You can't calculate the odds that any life will occur randomly, because we don't know how many forms life can take or how many environments it can start up in. Put it this way - the odds of you making your last post, on the machine that you did, at the exact time that you did, using the area of the server disk that you did, with the exact network traffic that existed over the minute when the post went through, is well over 1 in 10^80. Does that mean that God must have created your post? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikempb 0 #133 January 5, 2012 No, but it does mean that an Intellegent designer did Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,090 #134 January 5, 2012 >No, but it does mean that an Intellegent designer did How could you have possibly made that post against those odds? You cannot time your posts to the microsecond; how could you have possibly chosen the time to hit those infinitesimal odds of being exactly where you were within all the network traffic between your PC and the server? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #135 January 5, 2012 Hang in there. Don't let these people make a monkey out of you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikempb 0 #136 January 5, 2012 But in order for there to even be any posts at all An intellegent designer wrote the posts on the computer that another intellegent designer made, on the server that an intellegent designer designed.... Do you think the internet and computers could have been created out of nothing, and just appeard? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikempb 0 #137 January 5, 2012 Here's my source Dan in fact I underestimated it, it was actually 10 to the 138 Astrophicist Hugh Ross Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikempb 0 #138 January 5, 2012 Thanks Andy! I heard of this before but not with such detail in explanation.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,090 #139 January 5, 2012 >But in order for there to even be any posts at all . . . OK. I'll assume your answer to the question "How could you have possibly made that post against those odds?" is "I don't really know; it just happened." Fair enough! >So you think the internet and computers could have been created out of nothing, and >just appeard? In their current form, just like this one? No. A network similar to this one appearing naturally? Yes. Indeed I would be surprised if a biological network that spanned a world _doesn't_ exist somewhere in the universe. Question for you. Giant's Causeway is a highway in Ireland that extends into the ocean. It's made of hundreds of thousands of perfectly aligned hexagonal tiles. It's very ordered and regular, and in places quite smooth. Who made that? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikempb 0 #140 January 5, 2012 Not being familiar with Giant's Causeway I just looked it up, gathered some quick data and looked at a couple of pictures, It looks beautiful, but to me its still very random, they are not all lined up in an exact formation not all tiles are in precision to the rest, as if a masonary was hired to do your driveway. My example would be the grand canyon, awe inspiring and impressive, but it was created randomly through natural causes, Now look at Mt. Rushmore, no amount of wind and rain will make that( intellegent design) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikempb 0 #141 January 5, 2012 i posted before I finished... Hugh Ross " The creator and the Cosmos" 1995 there are others I havent been able to foot note but the attachment Andy Posted should also help my point Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,090 #142 January 5, 2012 >but to me its still very random It's tens of thousands of perfect hexagonal tiles! How can that be random? >not all tiles are in precision to the rest, as if a masonary was hired to do your >driveway. I've been there and there are huge swaths (way larger than driveway sized) that are just that perfect. It's pretty amazing and a little creepy. But there was no designer there; the laws of physics just resulted in perfect basaltic crystalline formations, and erosion then uncovered and polished them. But imagine a tenth century Irishman finding them! He'd be positive that someone must have designed it; it's too orderly and perfect. >My example would be the grand canyon, awe inspiring and impressive, but it >was created randomly through natural causes . . . That's actually a pretty good example as applies to evolution. One problem that I've seen creationists* sometimes have is that evolution has been demonstrated in laboratories. We see new forms of bacteria evolve drug resistance, we see new species created, we see mutations occur and be selected for. We see animals (like idiaturus macrotis) in the process of evolving a new structure, in that case a wing. We see finches evolving new beaks. So the argument "there's no such thing as evolution" doesn't work, because you can point to results that show it working. So instead they say "well I believe in microevolution (drug resistance, finch beak size changes, a bone becoming a wing strut) but not macroevolution (wings evolving from nothing.)" And since we've only been recording history for about 10,000 years, about the most macroevolution we've seen has been the (artificial) evolution of wolves to chihuahuas. That gets us back to the Grand Canyon. Someone who hadn't thought it through might well argue "well, I've seen gullies being eroded, so I believe in microerosion but not macroerosion. So God must have created it." But even though we have never seen Grand Canyon like structures created with our own eyes, we can use our reason to extrapolate that if you can erode a big gully in ten years, and a small ravine in 30 years, you can erode a Grand Canyon in millions. (* - not calling you a creationist, this example was from another forum) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikempb 0 #143 January 5, 2012 You had me laughing because I was reading your post I had my Micro/macro evolution argument ready!! LOL It is true I believe in Micro evolution you gave perfect examples.... But the proof for Macro evolution just isnt there, for example: they (evolutionist) say new species evolved from old ones ( birds from reptiles, etc) but there is no fossil evidence for this. In other words there are no 1/2 bird 1/2 lizard fossils, so how could it have evolved to it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,090 #144 January 5, 2012 >they (evolutionist) say new species evolved from old ones ( birds from reptiles, etc) >but there is no fossil evidence for this. In other words there are no 1/2 bird 1/2 lizard >fossils, so how could it have evolved to it? Here are a list of "half bird half lizard" fossils, from most lizardy to most birdy: Anchiornis (lizard with feathers) Scansoriopteryx Archaeopteryx Confuciusornis Sinosauropteryx Eoalulavis Ichthyornis (very close to a modern bird) The Scansoriopteryx was likely the first one that could glide at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikempb 0 #145 January 5, 2012 Given the fact Im leaving to go to work now I looked up your first example Anchiornis. The problem I have with this is this was a dinosour living 160 million yrs ago, and it always had wings, to me this is a strange and curious creature but it doesnt prove a lizard started to sprout wings, it seems some animals have similar fetures to other animals but thats it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,560 #146 January 6, 2012 I think that the real problem (and the problem with apologetics in general) is the fact that you're trying to prove that something is true, rather than trying to prove that something is NOT true. You can postulate that there is no God -- if you find evidence that contradicts that, then you've disproven that assertion. You can postulate that there is a God -- if you find evidence that contradicts that, or fail to find evidence that supports it, then you've disproven that assertion. But if you try to prove something true, you always end up using something internal to measure (e.g. "the eye had to have been designed -- look at how well it suits its purpose" -- well, since organisms had that cool thing that could detect light changes, of course they used it). Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #147 January 6, 2012 Quote Giant's Causeway New Year, new material please...I'm suprised you haven't brought up Dr. Casimir or Boss Higgons yetYour secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #148 January 6, 2012 Quotetrying to prove that something is NOT true. I'm waiting for the tin hatters to prove that Christianity is conspiracy/hoax...Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #149 January 6, 2012 QuoteI think that the real problem (and the problem with apologetics in general) is the fact that you're trying to prove that something is true, rather than trying to prove that something is NOT true. Logically, you can only prove something exists, you can't "prove" it doesn't. For instance, let's say I make the claim there was a rabbit in my hat. I can, of course, prove there was a rabbit in my hat, if I reach into it and pull one out. However, it would be impossible for you to prove there was never a rabbit in my hat, because it's entirely possible the rabbit was there when you weren't looking. While science can't "prove" God doesn't and never has existed, it certainly can prove the universe can exist without the need for God to create it -- and it has. Meanwhile the Christian Apologetics are still trying to pull a rabbit out of a hat to prove God exists. It's a futile effort unless they actually show me God.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stevebabin 0 #150 January 6, 2012 "Russel's Teapot"."Science, logic and reason will fly you to the moon. Religion will fly you into buildings." "Because figuring things out is always better than making shit up." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
