nPeace
Veteran Member
Notice he said, "can sometimes not be objective".
Much of it is not objective evidence - cannot be verified.
Want me to start the list?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evidence God Is
- Thread starter nPeace
- Start date
Much of it is not objective evidence - cannot be verified.
Want me to start the list?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Since you appear to have a very poor understanding of the concept of evidence I would be more than willing to bet that you fail.
nPeace
Veteran Member
Is that a yes?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Go ahead. But do it properly. One supposed case at a time. A Gish Gallop can be refuted by refuting only one example.
But why do you think life was planned? The complexity is explained by mindless, purposeless chemistry and natural selection.
nPeace
Veteran Member
I don't recall mentioning complexity. When you mention complexity, what do you have in mind?
I only just read the OP and sure enough you were very keen on complexity back then
nPeace
Veteran Member
I was!!!?
Please I request that you point that out, thank you.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
I think he's referring to this: "Complex machines are built, or constructed. Was it designed?"
nPeace
Veteran Member
She.
Thanks.
That's there, but it was not intended as the focus.
There is a lot said about design. That's my focus.
Actually, it is only now that you point this out, that I realize I did mention complexity many times
It was not intended to be the focus. Sorry to those who saw it as such.
It can however be included in making the point about the complexity of the design, but design is not the same as complexity.
Again. Sorry for the confusion.
nPeace
Veteran Member
@Valjean
I don't know of any system that has specific functioning components, that are specifically arranged, and directed by specific commands that must be followed, in order to reach specific goals, that was not designed by an intelligence.
Do you know of any? I don't mind if you show me.
That's the design I am referring to, not the complexity.
I don't know of any system that has specific functioning components, that are specifically arranged, and directed by specific commands that must be followed, in order to reach specific goals, that was not designed by an intelligence.
Do you know of any? I don't mind if you show me.
That's the design I am referring to, not the complexity.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
When one cannot properly define one's terms, then one is usually simply making an argument from ignorance, a logical fallacy. Creationists cannot come up with working definitions of terms such as "specific functioning components". Many organs cannot be identified that way since they have multiple functions and there are not "specific goals" for them.
This is just a vain attempt to sound "sciencey". Science and scientific evidence are based upon the concept of scientific evidence. In fact if you do not have at least a testable hypothesis, one that can be shown to be wrong if it is wrong, then by definition you do not have evidence. See if you can form your idea as a testable hypothesis and then we can see if you have any evidence for it.
Spirit of Light
Be who ever you want
Does the body really stop dividing? from birth to we die in old age the full-body has changed every cell in the body 7-8 times. so is it really a finished body finished at all?
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Oops. Sorry Christine. Kind'a exhausted after the workout today. Brain not working.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Genetic algorithms have been experimented upon and used in applications. Basically, it's a system that's setup to find its own solutions to a problem. The core mechanics is of course to give access to all input and output needed, like control systems and such, but then the algorithm uses randomizing mutations and recombinations and then selection based on fitness. The first ones were used in the 80's if I'm not mistaken. Now, it's used in artificial intelligence and robotics.
The analogy would be like God creating physics, but chemistry and evolution emerged out from it and produced the universe and life.
Its called the OP, post #1 of this thread, like i said in my post, you wrote it so i im sure you can remember what you wrote
nPeace
Veteran Member
I believe this is referring to the development of each body part.
I'll look at it again, and get back to you.
nPeace
Veteran Member
I understand that these algorithms use what's already there and working. They do not explain how the communication started and progressed without a planner.
"I think God creating physics" is out of the question, where science is concerned, as I am sure you probably know better than I do.
Besides that, I have to say, I don't see anything showing that evolution emerged from anything... at least not evolution on the level of major change. Persons do claim there is evidence, but I don't see it.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Not really.
Basically, a genetic algorithm is based on the same algorithm as Evolution. If a genetic algorithm works, then evolution works, because they basically the same thing.
God couldn't have created physics? Why?
Evolution is a natural process of change and selection. Increase a pool of variation through a process, then select what to keep and what not to keep, and repeat. That process does work, as I said above, because it has been used and is used in other kinds of production.
nPeace
Veteran Member
Don't you have to assume that something will work a particular way before you program it? The programmer is who makes it work, based on his ideas and methods of input.
I'm not saying God couldn't have created. I am saying God is not considered in science - methodological naturalism, that is.