Common Sense Deactivated?

[SkepticThinker]

Most humans don't want to live by God's rules or to feel bad about anything they are doing. That's all well and good, but if there is a Creator to account to for the lousy job we have done at managing his Earth, and the complete disregard we have shown for his creation, then lots of people are going to be in for a very rude shock IMO.

Do you worry about what the great juju at the bottom of the sea is going to do to you when you die? How about Allah or Thor? Shiva?

No? Then you understand how I feel about threats about what you think the specific God you happen to believe in is going to do to me.

 

[Deeje]

Nope, this is your line of logic all the way. You are the one arguing that complexity requires a designer.
Maybe you need to go back and read your own posts again.

No need to re-read...its a simple matter of "cause and effect", as I said. Isn't that what science knows by its own experimentation? Whatever has an "effect" requires a "cause"....that is just logical. I even used the examples of the wind and magnetism.....the cause is invisible but the effect is not....did you miss them?

When I see complex mechanisms all working together in perfect synchronization, (such as in the biological process that reproduce life and also perpetuate it) I see planning and purpose....and we all know that planning and purpose requires intelligence. Is that rocket science?

Okay so go ahead and use your method and quantify it for me. Or are you going to assert that your god is less complex than "his" creation?

You seems to want to test and measure everything by your own accepted "scientific" standards....the ones that scientists created. These scientists do not, and will not even allow for an intelligence greater than their own. The Bible describes earth's inhabitants as "grasshoppers".....I see scientists vying to be the most intelligent grasshopper among other grasshoppers......it brings it all into perspective for me.

Does science have to necessarily dictate those standards when it has such a limited amount of knowledge? What makes you think science is even capable of measuring and testing all that exists? Science is in its infancy so what makes you think 'infants' can dictate all that is acceptable as knowledge?

I didn't say anything can't or can exist. I'm asking you to explain the inconsistencies in your logic. So far you're having a hard time with that.

I think it is you apparently having a hard time processing a concept that is well known and very simple.....
Are the inconsistencies in your own comprehension perhaps? I have explained as simply as I can. I was assuming that I was speaking to a person with a reasonable amount of intelligence....

 

[Deeje]

It has strict methodology that produces verifiable evidence. So far, it has been the single most useful tool in discovering and quantifying how the world around us operates. More accurate information should replace less accurate information. How do you expect to advance our knowledge base otherwise? I find your objection to be quite bizarre. Don't you want to understand as much about reality as possible? If humans are believing something inaccurate, then they should stop believing it. That seems rather obvious to me.

No one is criticizing science per se. I am not anti-science in the least. I love verifiable science and find their discoveries fascinating.....what I object to is the repeated inference that it is all just a product of random chance, when they cannot prove that macro-evolution as they present it, ever happened outside of their imagination.

Just for fun though, can you tell me which deities people who accept scientific evidence are worshiping? What scripture do scientists follow? Where are their temples? I'd love to know. I worship nobody and nothing.

Any and all revered scientists who hold up their teachings as fact (when they are nothing but suggestions) and are held in high esteem (past and present) by those 'devotees' who hang off their every word as if there was no other possible truth, in the 'temples' of higher learning...the hallowed halls of academia.

Actually yes, we do. Do you live under a rock or something?

Please provide references. I am anxious to see how and when all this reversal might take place.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No need to re-read...its a simple matter of "cause and effect", as I said. Isn't that what science knows by its own experimentation? Whatever has an "effect" requires a "cause"....that is just logical. I even used the examples of the wind and magnetism.....the cause is invisible but the effect is not....did you miss them?

It's a matter of faulty logic on your part. What's the "cause" of God? You say complex things require designers. Your God should be the most complex thing in existence. Certainly much more complex the than universe you say he created.

When I see complex mechanisms all working together in perfect synchronization, (such as in the biological process that reproduce life and also perpetuate it) I see planning and purpose....and we all know that planning and purpose requires intelligence. Is that rocket science?

Yes, I know you do. You just turn it off when it comes to explaining the God you believe in.

You seems to want to test and measure everything by your own accepted "scientific" standards....the ones that scientists created.

Yes, because it's the single most useful way we have discovered that helps us determine fact from fantasy.

These scientists do not, and will not even allow for an intelligence greater than their own. The Bible describes earth's inhabitants as "grasshoppers".....I see scientists vying to be the most intelligent grasshopper among other grasshoppers......it brings it all into perspective for me.

We can't test things that are untestable. That makes for kind of a problem. But like I told you dozens of times before, come up with a test for your God and you can change the world. A Nobel Prize will definitely be in your future if you can do that. That'll show all those "intelligent" scientists, won't it?

I don't really care all that much what the Bible calls people. The Quran calls people things too. Why not go with that?

Does science have to necessarily dictate those standards when it has such a limited amount of knowledge? What makes you think science is even capable of measuring and testing all that exists? Science is in its infancy so what makes you think 'infants' can dictate all that is acceptable as knowledge?

Like I said, so far, it's the single most useful tool we've come up with for determining fact from fantasy and discovering knowledge about the world we live in. It's given us all knowledge we currently hold about the universe.

I think it is you apparently having a hard time processing a concept that is well known and very simple.....
Are the inconsistencies in your own comprehension perhaps? I have explained as simply as I can. I was assuming that I was speaking to a person with a reasonable amount of intelligence....

The inconsistency is in your logic. You have yet to address it.

Maybe we need to start simpler. Is the God you worship complex?

Please don't bother attempting to insult me. It's quite juvenile.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No one is criticizing science per se. I am not anti-science in the least. I love verifiable science and find their discoveries fascinating.....what I object to is the repeated inference that it is all just a product of random chance, when they cannot prove that macro-evolution as they present it, ever happened outside of their imagination.

You certainly do criticize science, almost on a daily basis. Except the parts that agree with your preconceived notions, that is. Anything else gets tossed away.

Who/what says it's all "random chance?"

Any and all revered scientists who hold up their teachings as fact (when they are nothing but suggestions) and are held in high esteem (past and present) by those 'devotees' who hang off their every word as if there was no other possible truth, in the 'temples' of higher learning...the hallowed halls of academia.

I don't worship these people and I don't know anybody who does. Do you?
Science is about evidence.

I always think it's weird though, when religious people try to portray science as some kind of religion.

Please provide references. I am anxious to see how and when all this reversal might take place.

The FDA banned BPA from baby bottles and sippy cups in 2012, after manufacturers had already discontinued their use.

BPA is banned from many products in the European Union, Canada, China and Malaysia.

China, Malaysia Become Latest Nations to Ban BPA
F.D.A. Bans BPA From Baby Bottles and Sippy Cups


CFCs were banned in the 1990s, when it was discovered they were destroying the ozone layer.

The Ozone Layer If CFCs Hadn't Been Banned : Image of the Day

 

[Deeje]

It's a matter of faulty logic on your part. What's the "cause" of God? You say complex things require designers. Your God should be the most complex thing in existence. Certainly much more complex the than universe you say he created.

If we knew "what" God is, perhaps there would be an answer to that question in a few million years.....? By then our intellect might have progressed beyond the infancy we now have.

Science does not have the ability to think past what it wants to see. Humans have no problem inventing science fiction based on what they imagine the future to be.....they have no problem imagining the long distant past either.....but none of it is based on what is real....it's all imagined. Why do you decry religion for using the same process to explain God?

We can't test things that are untestable. That makes for kind of a problem

Exactly, so why claim that an Intelligent Creator doesn't exist because humans at this early point in their development do not have the capacity to go beyond the immediate material universe with any certainty.

come up with a test for your God and you can change the world. A Nobel Prize will definitely be in your future if you can do that.
That'll show all those "intelligent" scientists, won't it?

I don't think we will have that test any time soon.....but then science has no actual test for macro-evolution either, so I guess that makes us equal.....? Nobel prizes only impress egos in the same class....a bit like science's version of the Academy Awards. What are they worth really?

I don't really care all that much what the Bible calls people. The Quran calls people things too. Why not go with that?

Duly noted.

Maybe we need to start simpler. Is the God you worship complex?

Since I do not know, and cannot possibly know "what" my Creator is, I must assume that beings who inhabit the realm where he resides, (and these beings can control matter by being able materialise at will) they must all be more complex than mere humans can even imagine. The "grasshoppers" are not as smart as they think they are....not even grasshopper awards will make them know more than they can learn in their present limited state. We are amoebas compared to the power that created us. Denying him doesn't make him go away. That is how I see things.

 

[Deeje]

Science is about evidence.

Not all of it. Evidence is open to interpretation and we all know what bias does when evidence is inconclusive.

I always think it's weird though, when religious people try to portray science as some kind of religion.

It could be the amount of faith people need to believe what science cannot prove.

The FDA banned BPA from baby bottles and sippy cups in 2012, after manufacturers had already discontinued their use.

BPA is banned from many products in the European Union, Canada, China and Malaysia.

China, Malaysia Become Latest Nations to Ban BPA
F.D.A. Bans BPA From Baby Bottles and Sippy Cups


CFCs were banned in the 1990s, when it was discovered they were destroying the ozone layer.

The Ozone Layer If CFCs Hadn't Been Banned : Image of the Day

Are you serious? You think this is addressing the problem of pollution? BPA and CFC's are just a small part of the story and they have known about it for years.....too little, too late if you ask me.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10155953501531108

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10154900090176479

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Science is about evidence.

There’s evidence, alright. But scientists are about interpreting that evidence to fit their bias....and when further evidence is discovered that brings it into question, they fall back on the old standby, “the evidence is not complete, ie., still missing.” As in the fossil record.

Lol.

 

[Olinda]

There’s evidence, alright. But scientists are about interpreting that evidence to fit their bias....and when further evidence is discovered that brings it into question, they fall back on the old standby, “the evidence is not complete, ie., still missing.” As in the fossil record.

Lol.

Hi @Hockeycowboy , does this mean that you are aware of evidence against the ToE? Could you identify this evidence?

 

[Sha'irullah]

 

[leibowde84]

Love him or hate him, Ray Comfort makes a good argument.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1163450647090949

Can nothing create everything?

What evidence would convince you that there is intelligence demonstrated in the DNA that makes up all living things?

The question "can nothing create everything" is logically incoherent. If there wasn't a creator, then the universe was not "created". It would have come into being without any personal intent.

Evidence that DNA is not naturally occuring would be a start. I have not seen anything in the research I've done on DNA that even seems to be naturally impossible.

 

[leibowde84]

Love him or hate him, Ray Comfort makes a good argument.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1163450647090949

Can nothing create everything?

What evidence would convince you that there is intelligence demonstrated in the DNA that makes up all living things?

This is circular logic, btw. It assumes that the universe was created in the premises.

 

[osgart]

Complexity with specific function implies an intelligence behind it. That's the logic. To deeje, and to me for that matter, that goes for evidence. Anything else leaves a gap in reasoning. It's bluntly ignores that this is true.

It's a stretch of faith, and an assumption that mindless laws produce highly functional living entities.

This argument is that simple. You could go back and forth; yes, no, yes, no is all you'll be doing.

It's an eternal impasse.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Hi @Hockeycowboy , does this mean that you are aware of evidence against the ToE? Could you identify this evidence?

Yes. The Cambrian Explosion. And the huge diversity of discovered species, living and extinct.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Complexity with specific function implies an intelligence behind it. That's the logic. To deeje, and to me for that matter, that goes for evidence. Anything else leaves a gap in reasoning. It's bluntly ignores that this is true.

It's a stretch of faith, and an assumption that mindless laws produce highly functional living entities.

This argument is that simple. You could go back and forth; yes, no, yes, no is all you'll be doing.

It's an eternal impasse.

Great post!

 

[Olinda]

Yes. The Cambrian Explosion. And the huge diversity of discovered species, living and extinct.

The ToE simply says that living creatures can evolve. It does not postulate that the evolution must be consistent or steady, uninfluenced by climate, food availability etc. Therefore the Cambrian Explosion is not "further evidence ... that brings it into question". It is not yet fully explained, true, but it neither contradicts nor falsifies the ToE.

The diversity of species is, if anything, support of evolution. That is, that evolution does not have the boundaries that so-called Intelligent Design tries to impose.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Therefore the Cambrian Explosion is not "further evidence ... that brings it into question".

I have no problem with evolution referring to changes on a limited scale, between species....even evolving into new species, within a family or order. But common descent, all life descending from unicellular organisms? Billions of diverse species, within only 650+ mya? No, to believe that is gullibility. In my view.


What is observed throughout the Cambrian Explosion fossil beds of Chenjiang China, the Sirius Passet formation in Greenland, and the Burgess Shale of British Columbia, however, is exactly what we would expect from a creator! Fully functional Life forms ‘appearing suddenly, and no trace of any transitional fossils’ found for Arthropoda.


SOURCE: The Cambrian Explosion

Do you believe in walking whales? I don’t.

So long, and take care.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

There’s evidence, alright. But scientists are about interpreting that evidence to fit their bias....and when further evidence is discovered that brings it into question, they fall back on the old standby, “the evidence is not complete, ie., still missing.” As in the fossil record.

Lol.

Feel free to show us any evidence that disproves evolutionary theory.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I have no problem with evolution referring to changes on a limited scale, between species....even evolving into new species, within a family or order. But common descent, all life descending from unicellular organisms? Billions of diverse species, within only 650+ mya? No, to believe that is gullibility. In my view.


What is observed throughout the Cambrian Explosion fossil beds of Chenjiang China, the Sirius Passet formation in Greenland, and the Burgess Shale of British Columbia, however, is exactly what we would expect from a creator! Fully functional Life forms ‘appearing suddenly, and no trace of any transitional fossils’ found for Arthropoda.


SOURCE: The Cambrian Explosion

Do you believe in walking whales? I don’t.

So long, and take care.

You don't need to believe in walking whales. You can see the evidence for their existence. No belief required.

As for the Cambrian "explosion", what of it? "We don't fully understand the period, therefore God"?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Whole lotta begging the question in this thread.