Is There Really A God? (priests, Creator, soul, creation)

[uss_bigd]

Originally Posted by camanintx

In fact, everything we know about life appears exactly like one would expect if it were guided by an unconscious, natural force instead of a conscious, intelligent being.

everything you said? technology is something about life, it is created by human beings with life.

can your xbox's creation be guided by an "umconscious and unintelligent being"?

[camanintx]

Originally Posted by uss_bigd

everything you said? technology is something about life, it is created by human beings with life.

can your xbox's creation be guided by an "umconscious and unintelligent being"?

Is an xbox capable of reproducing and mutating?

While you are trying to show that evolution requires conscious guidance, there are many complex systems that have evolved through simple, natural processes. Why should life be any different?

[uss_bigd]

Originally Posted by camanintx

Is an xbox capable of reproducing and mutating?

While you are trying to show that evolution requires conscious guidance, there are many complex systems that have evolved through simple, natural processes. Why should life be any different?

The creation of technology and how it was created is based on fact. and not based on theory.

I am merely transferring the same logical argument of the creation of less complex things to the existence of living things.

you have not proven why that logic does not apply to living things.

its simple complex vs more complex.

The examples i gave had even the same functions as body parts. (the video camera beign the eye)

Humans can mimic the function of the eye with complex technological inteliigence. which required consciosness and intelligence.

and you are saying, that the human eye, where the function of the video camera was copied from existed due to a non intelligent and unconcsious mechanism.

sir, that is not logical.

[Hexaqua_David(II)]

Originally Posted by uss_bigd

The creation of technology and how it was created is based on fact. and not based on theory.

I am merely transferring the same logical argument of the creation of less complex things to the existence of living things.

you have not proven why that logic does not apply to living things.

its simple complex vs more complex.

The examples i gave had even the same functions as body parts. (the video camera beign the eye)

Humans can mimic the function of the eye with complex technological inteliigence. which required consciosness and intelligence.

and you are saying, that the human eye, where the function of the video camera was copied from existed due to a non intelligent and unconcsious mechanism.

sir, that is not logical.

Argggggggggggg! I take it you did not read the wikipedia article as fully as I had hoped. You really are using this tired old argument still? Video cameras do not have DNA, they do not change slowly over time due to the less than perfect duplication of the code, they do not reproduce, there is no comparison to be made between a living thing and a video camera. Read the article I linked you to... it's good! =)

- David

[camanintx]

Originally Posted by uss_bigd

The creation of technology and how it was created is based on fact. and not based on theory.

I am merely transferring the same logical argument of the creation of less complex things to the existence of living things.

you have not proven why that logic does not apply to living things.

Technology is not capable of self-replication and mutation so your analogy is deficient.

Originally Posted by uss_bigd

its simple complex vs more complex.

Are you really saying that simple, unintelligent processes cannot produce complex patterns? Fractals are simple equations capable of producing some incredibly complex patterns.

Originally Posted by uss_bigd

The examples i gave had even the same functions as body parts. (the video camera beign the eye)

Humans can mimic the function of the eye with complex technological inteliigence. which required consciosness and intelligence.

and you are saying, that the human eye, where the function of the video camera was copied from existed due to a non intelligent and unconcsious mechanism.

sir, that is not logical.

Since scientists are able to postulate how the eye could have evolved through the unconscious and unintelligent mechanism called mutation and natural selection, how does this help your case? Even Darwin could see this 150 years ago.

Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real.

[uss_bigd]

Originally Posted by camanintx

Technology is not capable of self-replication and mutation so your analogy is deficient.



Are you really saying that simple, unintelligent processes cannot produce complex patterns? Fractals are simple equations capable of producing some incredibly complex patterns.



Since scientists are able to postulate how the eye could have evolved through the unconscious and unintelligent mechanism called mutation and natural selection, how does this help your case? Even Darwin could see this 150 years ago.

Technology requires consciousness and intelligence to be created. that is a FACT.
Darwins theory of evolution is a THEORY.

so, you want me to abandon existing facts and beleive your theory as a fact?

[logician]

Does it seem like we get the same questions worded a little differently on every thread?

[camanintx]

Originally Posted by uss_bigd

Technology requires consciousness and intelligence to be created. that is a FACT.
Darwins theory of evolution is a THEORY.

so, you want me to abandon existing facts and beleive your theory as a fact?

Please try to get your facts and theories straight.

It is a FACT that all living organisms experience evolution, the change in inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. Darwin's THEORY explains the FACT of evolution through the process of mutation and natural selection.

By saying that evolution is not a fact, you are saying that inherited traits are constant from one generation to the next, something which any simple DNA analysis will disprove.

Science does not attempt to replace facts with theories, rather theories are used to explain facts. If a theory fails to explain any relevant facts, then the theory is changed or discarded, not the facts.

If you wish to prove Darwin's theory wrong, all you have to do is show one case where it fails to account for facts. Since hundreds of biologists have been trying this for the last 150 years, I wish you luck.