- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Hey Stu, where is that banana that you were going to create. In the time that I have been waiting, nothing/non-intelligence/inanimate thingy has created milllions.
Come on, I thought you were an INTELLIGENT ape. Your not very convincing.
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 02 2008,21:07) Hey Stu, where is that banana that you were going to create. In the time that I have been waiting, nothing/non-intelligence/inanimate thingy has created milllions. Come on, I thought you were an INTELLIGENT ape. Your not very convincing.
Please see previous page, or the page before that, or any page really. I have dealt with your single argument so often now it must appear on a large number of pages in many threads.Seek and you will find!
Stuart
So you cannot out do non-intelligence.
That must be the conclusion.
If so, why should I listen to your intelligent argument if non-intelligence can come up with better ideas and stuff than you? Now you see why I find it hard to take you seriously.
Your argument is flawed.
If you are an intelligent ape and creation didn't have a creator, then non-intelligence is smarter and better than you. Either way you look at it, your belief leaves me know option but to think that your argument is foolish.
I have to agree with scripture don't I?
This post was brought to you by the letter B.
Quote If you are an intelligent ape and creation didn't have a creator, then non-intelligence is smarter and better than you. Either way you look at it, your belief leaves me know option but to think that your argument is foolish.
An honest but mistaken man, once shown the truth, either ceases to be mistaken or ceases to be honest.Stuart
StuartQuote (t8 @ Mar. 04 2008,19:14) Your argument is flawed. If you are an intelligent ape and creation didn't have a creator, then non-intelligence is smarter and better than you. Either way you look at it, your belief leaves me know option but to think that your argument is foolish.
I have to agree with scripture don't I?
While I agree with you on your basic premise of a divine creator I find your logic in your responses to Stuart flawed. If there is no creator and man is just an intelligent primate then he seeks to understand the natural processes around him and emulate, copy or even improve upon same. The same as he would if there is a creator. To say that non-intelligence is smarter then anything is an oxymoron. While I disagree with Stuart's findings, one can not say they are random or not well postulated. It is absurd to make the claim that because Stuart may be wrong you have to look to scripture. You may look to scripture yes, but it is just one of many possibilities, as this is not a discrete choice of only scripture or pure naturalism, for there are many nuances and beliefs between and around the two.Cato.
I agree with scripture, but the reasoning is easily seen without scripture.
So there are 2 witnesses. Common sense and scripture. I used both.
Surely I am allowed to use more than one witness in my argument?
Quote To say that non-intelligence is smarter then anything is an oxymoron. Exactly my point Cato, you are actually supporting my argument.
It is ridiculous to state that the designs of nature are far superior to anything intelligent men can do, yet also believe that a non-intelligent force/thingy/singularity/whatever was responsible.
You are then faced with the prospect that intelligence as in man cannot do a better job than non-intelligence. A foolish argument when you think about it. Billions of years of non-intelligence/inanimate dead thingy shouldn't be able to out do even 1 day of intelligent propagated design.
Think of cyberspace as a digital ecosystem for the following parable. Think of all the design in one day on the Internet/WWW. Not even 1 billion years of a binary soup could create such order and design without the involvement of intelligence or designer.
A binary soup in 1 billion years is still a binary soup. And even then we have to ignore the fact that binary would had to have been created or at least thought of.
t8 (as you replied to Cato):
Quote I agree with scripture, but the reasoning is easily seen without scripture.
So there are 2 witnesses. Common sense and scripture. I used both.
Surely I am allowed to use more than one witness in my argument?
Sure. You can use Creflo Dollar, Benny Hinn, Genesis, Answers in Genesis, John Hagee, Pat Buchannan, the Discovery Institute and your own ‘common sense’. They are all wrong though.Quote It is ridiculous to state that the designs of nature are far superior to anything intelligent men can do, yet also believe that a non-intelligent force/thingy/singularity/whatever was responsible.
Nature is not designed. That is the ridiculous statement, although you seem to be sticking to it like a bulldog with a bone.Quote You are then faced with the prospect that intelligence as in man cannot do a better job than non-intelligence. A foolish argument when you think about it.
Not when I think about it. I wonder if you have really thought about it. I mean not just using your religious book to do the ‘thinking’ for you.Quote Billions of years of non-intelligence/inanimate dead thingy shouldn't be able to out do even 1 day of intelligent propagated design.
And yet that is how the illusion of design came about. Amazing, eh?Quote Think of cyberspace as a digital ecosystem for the following parable. Think of all the design in one day on the Internet/WWW. Not even 1 billion years of a binary soup could create such order and design without the involvement of intelligence or designer. A binary soup in 1 billion years is still a binary soup. And even then we have to ignore the fact that binary would had to have been created or at least thought of..
Because it is not a self-reproducing system subject to random mutation and selection pressure.Stuart
Hey Stu, I think you are blind.
I totally understand your argument. I was a proponent of it myself when I was blind.
Maybe you can see? Maybe you can have insight?
I will put it this way Stu.
Which one is harder to make?
A robot that can walk and talk,
or a robot that can walk and talk and reproduce and even improve generation after generation?A self reproducing system is obviously much harder to make.
Now if man can create a digital ecosystem for information and data, then why doesn't someone create a digital singularity that can explode into a digital cosmos instead of having to build every little bit ourselves? Wouldn't that make more sense than having to add and upgrade everything ourselves?
But maybe such a thing is beyond our technical ability?
You know, such technology just doesn't come out of nothing or from non-design/non-intelligence. That much is obvious.
But I also know that God hands people over to believing lies because that is what they want.
When a person rejects light, then they end up with a lack of light commonly called darkness.
The thing about darkness is that it matters little how smart you are. Even the highest IQ cannot see it if they are blind.
On a different note, I've eaten 4 banana's today and for some reason, suddenly I'm craving another one.
Quote (david @ Mar. 07 2008,13:04) On a different note, I've eaten 4 banana's today and for some reason, suddenly I'm craving another one.
Were they man made ones or natural ones?Quote (kejonn @ Mar. 08 2008,15:01) Since no one can prove God created bananas, nor disprove that He didn't, what is the point here?
I guess the point is that creationism (or its identical twin intelligent design) is an invention of fundamentalist religion in the US, adpoted by fundamentalist islam, and that although this forum is open for anyone in the world to discover and post in, no-one has produced any good argument here against the fact that all living things evolved despite the appearance of design they have (to some human eyes).The case is closed but the relitigation carries on anyway.
Stuart
Hi t8
Quote Hey Stu, I think you are blind.
The sentiment is a mutual one.Quote I totally understand your argument. I was a proponent of it myself when I was blind.
I think it is pretty clear, even to other fundamentalists here, that you do not understand my argument.Quote Which one is harder to make?
A robot that can walk and talk,
or a robot that can walk and talk and reproduce and even improve generation after generation?
A self reproducing system is obviously much harder to make. Now if man can create a digital ecosystem for information and data, then why doesn't someone create a digital singularity that can explode into a digital cosmos instead of having to build every little bit ourselves? Wouldn't that make more sense than having to add and upgrade everything ourselves? But maybe such a thing is beyond our technical ability?
Life is a digital system that arose without anyone/thing setting off the singularity that led to the formation of the required matter, as far as the evidence tells us. The practical difference is that our self-replicating code is in base five, not binary, and is composed of molecules that can self-assemble on a molecular template, not a series of on/off voltages stored on transistors. A self-replicating molecule can (and almost certainly did) assemble by chance to lead to the billions of years-long process that resulted in humans able to invent computers. The same kind of process should be expected for the evolution of self-replicating computers, but clearly that has not happened, and you would not expect it because in order for a computer code to be preserved with adaptive modification in the way we see today the code would have to contain instructions for the spontaneous manufacture of its own voltage source and the spontaneous manufacture of chips (or whatever primitive version of them) that would carry a record of such code. The chemistry of the elements carbon and silicon make carbon-based life as we know it a straighforward proposition, and silicon-based life virtually impossible by the means of evolution that we know. Natural selection has found a far more elegant solution to carrying code: the materials that carry the code are assembled into the code order, they do not have to form in order for the code to be written onto them.Quote You know, such technology just doesn't come out of nothing or from non-design/non-intelligence. That much is obvious.
Not it’s not. It is getting dull to write that, having already provided a detailed explanation for why that statement is wrong, and having read no corresponding reasoned argument for it. To me it is obviously wrong.Quote But I also know that God hands people over to believing lies because that is what they want.
You must know this because you have heard voices or in some other way experienced something that others cannot see. You refuse to deny this so we must conclude that your claims are based on experiences that are identical to those afflicted with certain kinds of mental illness. If I told you that Charles Darwin appeared to me in a dream and told me to read his books to find the truth, you would pour ridicule on me. Well you do the equivalent and expect some kind of automatic respect for your belief. What you say has no basis in reality. What are we to conclude as reasonable people?Quote When a person rejects light, then they end up with a lack of light commonly called darkness. The thing about darkness is that it matters little how smart you are. Even the highest IQ cannot see it if they are blind.
Yes, that would seem to be true of those who reject reality for the dark age world of religious fundamentalism.Stuart
This is a gecko made by intelligence.
Yet the natural one was suppose to come from something with less intelligence than a monkey.Quote (kejonn @ Mar. 08 2008,15:01) Since no one can prove God created bananas, nor disprove that He didn't, what is the point here?
The point is that somethings are obvious even if they were not observed.Quote (Stu @ Mar. 08 2008,18:13) Life is a digital system that arose without anyone/thing setting off the singularity that led to the formation of the required matter, as far as the evidence tells us. The practical difference is that our self-replicating code is in base five, not binary, and is composed of molecules that can self-assemble on a molecular template, not a series of on/off voltages stored on transistors. A self-replicating molecule can (and almost certainly did) assemble by chance to lead to the billions of years-long process that resulted in humans able to invent computers. The same kind of process should be expected for the evolution of self-replicating computers, but clearly that has not happened, and you would not expect it because in order for a computer code to be preserved with adaptive modification in the way we see today the code would have to contain instructions for the spontaneous manufacture of its own voltage source and the spontaneous manufacture of chips (or whatever primitive version of them) that would carry a record of such code. The chemistry of the elements carbon and silicon make carbon-based life as we know it a straighforward proposition, and silicon-based life virtually impossible by the means of evolution that we know. Natural selection has found a far more elegant solution to carrying code: the materials that carry the code are assembled into the code order, they do not have to form in order for the code to be written onto them.
Stu.Quantum computing is supposedly possible in decades from now.
Possibilities with technology this include nano-cryptology and cloning of 3d models (3D Fax). I suppose it would be possible to eventually create the Matrix with such.Yet even in all that evolution without a designer happen just plain will not happen. It is an impossibility and not even in 14 billion years will make it possible. Whatever happens in the Virtual World will be the result of at least one designer.
I reasonably cannot accept that our reality/cosmos came about by something with less intelligence than a monkey. Not even a monkey in 45 billion years could create 1 atom. Never mind all the galactic spirals, suns, planets, and life.
Wake up.
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 29 2008,10:52) Quantum computing is supposedly possible in decades from now.
Possibilities with technology this include nano-cryptology and cloning of 3d models (3D Fax). I suppose it would be possible to eventually create the Matrix with such.Yet even in all that evolution without a designer happen just plain will not happen. It is an impossibility and not even in 14 billion years will make it possible. Whatever happens in the Virtual World will be the result of at least one designer.
I reasonably cannot accept that our reality/cosmos came about by something with less intelligence than a monkey. Not even a monkey in 45 billion years could create 1 atom. Never mind all the galactic spirals, suns, planets, and life.
Wake up.
Hi t8You are quite right about digital 'life' requiring a designer, for the reasons that I gave above.
You not accepting something does not equate to a demonstration that it did not happen.
Stuart
I believe the best explanation is that GOD created everything just like he said he did.
So we are going to believe some half-witted human that did not even have all the facts…and basically just made and assumption on what he thought happened? …uh…not me.
When we have a record that have not once been proven wrong that was written by people that were influenced by the very spirit of GOD …of Truth. And every single thing thats in the bible has come to pass or discovered to have been true.
Ha ha …for someone that wants to go off logic or success rates…I'd say the best bet is GOD.
We are trying to say that “Single-Celled” organisms have “Created” themselves out of nothing…with no brain…or nothing…and have “Created” themselves out of “Nothing”…for “Nothing”…With what appears to be a very “High-Tech” “Motor”. Thats the most absurd, bucket of water that does not hold any reason, at all. That I've heard my entire life.
I honestly don't believe that I've ever heard anything as outlandish as such a thought…aside from 911.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
