Life

[Alceste]

Originally Posted by 4troof

But, that is where it gets very shady to me...
the evidence to me shows very distinctly a designer.

Have you heard of the scrabble game example? If you were to come upon a scrabble game that someone had dropped on the floor with letters everywhere...and in the middle of the letters was a sentence that read "I love to play scrabble"...would you see it as random chance, or as designed?

Have you heard of the logical fallacy called hasty generalization? It occurs when a sample that is too small to be representative of the whole is used to conclude that since the sample has certain properties, the entire group must share them.

An example would be the claim that since we assume graffiti is painted by humans, we should conclude all the colors of the earth are hand-painted.

All the creationist arguments I've heard are illogical. It's OK to be illogical though - I only think creationists would be more effective communicators if they stuck to expressing themselves emotionally / intuitively and did not try to present their beliefs as logical propositions. Either that or study logic to understand why ID is not convincing so they can construct better arguments.

So far, it seems ID is a balloon, and logic is a pin.

[4troof]

Originally Posted by 9-10ths_Penguin

I don't think that's a good analogy. Here's a better one: if you and a billion of your friends each dropped your bags of scrabble letters on the floor repeatedly for a billion years and the phrase "I love to play scrabble" came up a few times in all of those tries, would you see it as random chance, or as designed?

Ok, but are you serious about billions of friends and chances to drop the letters?
For there to be that much time to drop the letters, then energy would have had to of been around for that length of time to drop them.
I believe the 2nd law of Thermodynamics would show that as energy is used it becomes less and less. Energy itself would not has lasted over "billions" of spillings of the scrabble game itself. No?

[4troof]

Originally Posted by Alceste

Have you heard of the logical fallacy called hasty generalization? It occurs when a sample that is too small to be representative of the whole is used to conclude that since the sample has certain properties, the entire group must share them.

An example would be the claim that since we assume graffiti is painted by humans, we should conclude all the colors of the earth are hand-painted.

All the creationist arguments I've heard are illogical. It's OK to be illogical though - I only think creationists would be more effective communicators if they stuck to expressing themselves emotionally / intuitively and did not try to present their beliefs as logical propositions. Either that or study logic to understand why ID is not convincing so they can construct better arguments.

So far, it seems ID is a balloon, and logic is a pin.

I would conclude that all graffiti is painted by humans.
It seems to me that non-creationists are the ones that do not use logic in their explanations of things.

[mball1297]

Originally Posted by 4troof

Does it take more faith to believe that life comes from non-life than it does to believe in an intelligent designer of life?

If you believe in ID, you still believe that life came from non-life. Where did God come from? The difference is that an IDer believes God came from nothing, while an atheist believes the universe came from nothing. Either way, something still came from nothing, it's just a different something.

Now, with that said, you could also believe that something is eternal. It's still no different, though. It's just as easy to believe that the universe is eternal as it is to believe that God is eternal.

[Alceste]

Originally Posted by 4troof

Does it take more faith to believe that life comes from non-life than it does to believe in an intelligent designer of life?

It takes no faith at all to admit we do not yet know how life came to be, to realize we get closer to this understanding with every significant advancement in the study of life, and to admit that evolution is the most obviously accurate theory in the history of biology. It only takes inquisitiveness. All we know about the nature of life is demonstrable, repeatable or observable.

Only belief in things that are not demonstrable, repeatable or observable requires "faith".

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by 4troof

It seems to me that non-creationists are the ones that do not use logic in their explanations of things.

But, apparently, many strange things seem true to you. Therefore?

[4troof]

Originally Posted by Alceste

It takes no faith at all to admit we do not yet know how life came to be, to realize we get closer to this understanding with every significant advancement in the study of life, and to admit that evolution is the most obviously accurate theory in the history of biology. It only takes inquisitiveness. All we know about the nature of life is demonstrable, repeatable or observable.

Only belief in things that are not demonstrable, repeatable or observable requires "faith".

How is life coming from non life demostrable, repeatable or observable??

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by 4troof

How is life coming from non life demostrable, repeatable or observable??

It's not. You're not very good at this ...

[4troof]

Originally Posted by Jayhawker Soule

It's not. You're not very good at this ...

So, concluding your argument for you, you have faith that we will someday be able to see life be created out of something not living. Right?