thehomer:


Which molecules would you say are not designed? Do you have any evidence for the creator you have in mind?

When you see a computer program like microsoft word, you immediately understand and realize that it is a design of a creator. The same thing applies for various processes, events, phenomena and the unity and co-direction of forces we see in the universe, especially DNA.

thehomer: Well that isn't actually true. Evolution is a non-directional natural phenomenon.

Yes. And as I said, It cannot be the origin(note origin) of efficient, workable and sustainable devices, especially a device like DNA.

thehomer: Unfortunate man who is unable to demonstrate the core assumption of ignorant supernaturalism.

This is like expecting someone to teach common sense. Forget about "supernaturalism", acknowledge very obvious design first and stop being belligerent and unreasonable in a futile quest to deny transcendence.
But you won't.
Because you don't want to believe in any thing that might lead to God, you deny order and choose to be hypocritically blind to direction and sense. Look at how you have ended up. Claiming DNA came about through random processes of evolution. You have become the epitome of dogmatism, and unreasonableness.

UyiIredia:
I have issue with several statements you made.
Actually, your statement again is partially true. The key word there is 'often'. The problem is that you focus only on instances where that problem with religion gave rise to persecution, tyranny etcetera and ignore many other contexts it didn't. For example, many ethnic groups in pre-colonial Africa, and Nigeria, took their religion as a given, that didn't give rise to the effects you mentioned.

The key word is "often", which is what I wrote. I didn't write "always"; you are preaching to the choir.

UyiIredia:

This is debatable. Indeed, Saudi Arabia's strict Wahabbi school of Islam has much to do with the level of repression there. But I would also argue that some of the problem is also socio-political, monarchies are very prone to be repressive and Saudi Arabia is a constitutional monarchy.

More importantly, davidylan was using Saudi Arabia to show that a society can be superstitious and successful. You ignore the fact that man's progress into civilization occurred while still superstitious.

Yes I agree that the mix of monarchy and extremist Wahabbism have much to do with the level of repression in Saudi Arabia. The Wahabbi part makes my point. Political Islam as well as political Christianity have often led to persecution and repression. One can be religious and admit this.

Yes I agree that progress can occur while still superstitious; I didn't say that superstition is a binary attribute. My point is that economic and scientific advancement are impeded in Nigeria partially due to the extent of our society's superstitious tendency. Do you disagree?

Yes, Saudi Arabia is economically successful, so what? I did not say scientific progress can not occur in the presence of superstition, I said it slows down (I used different words like "impede", "slows down", "the extent", "lag" etc); I deliberately qualify my statements in order to be nuanced and not absolute, yet you infer absolute meaning from them. This is my problem with davidylan's responses; he seems to read absolutism where there isn't any, so I had to stop feeding the troll.

Note that I am not saying that religion is always bad, so don't artificially project this upon my statements. I will assume your misunderstanding is in good faith.

UyiIredia:

I have already stated why your prediction is wrong. We can and have actually progressed economically and scientifically under a superstitious context.

Ok, your conclusion is based on a misread of my position. I didn't say economic and scientific progress are impossible under a superstitious context. I state that the extent of scientific progress is negatively affected by the extent of superstition of said society.

Antiparticle:


The key word is "often", which is what I wrote. I didn't write "always"; you are preaching to the choir.

And I don't agree it is often. The correct word would be 'some times'. To show that it is often, you'll have to show that in most contexts where all religious claims were held true persecution, tyranny resulted because of it.

Antiparticle:
Yes I agree that the mix of monarchy and extremist Wahabbism have much to do with the level of repression in Saudi Arabia. The Wahabbi part makes my point. Political Islam as well as political Christianity have often led to persecution and repression. One can be religious and admit this.

Yes I agree that progress can occur while still superstitious; I didn't say that superstition is a binary attribute. My point is that economic and scientific advancement are impeded in Nigeria partially due to the extent of our society's superstitious tendency. Do you disagree?

I don't. But I think the statement is less true of the economy than it is of science.

Antiparticle:
Ok, your conclusion is based on a misread of my position. I didn't say economic and scientific progress are impossible under a superstitious context. I state that the extent of scientific progress is negatively affected by the extent of superstition of said society.

Agreed with some misgivings.

BTW what's your take on the OP ?

wiegraf:



There are 'xtians' that are scientists even in this day of course (though their numbers continue to dwindle and rapidly, especially among the elite), many doing well even. By and large they know how to seperate their beliefs from their science

The problem with such Christians is that they've bought into the lie that science must assume only nature exists. Science involves a search for truth, assuming only nature exists limits that search.

wiegraf:

For instance, you assert that there is NO evidence for evolution.

There isn't. If by evolution, you mean a change of allele frequencies then even creationists are evolutionists. If by evolution you mean the development of all life from a common ancestor through mutations and natural selection, then you are brainwashed. The so-called overwhelming evidence for such are based on false assumptions and a wilful ignorance of the facts.

wiegraf:
I'm being silly? Well, then do show how ID is science. Better yet, you're a researcher (or so you claim), no? Show it to your peers.

I'm willing to furnish you with articles that explain how ID is
science. Will you read it ? And be objective about what you've read ? That's the problem.

wiegraf:
As for yourr claims that there's no evidence for evolution, like I've stated to you before, you do this while making points like we share ~60% of our dna with corn (or whatever you said earlier). Claiming there's no evidence for evolution while stating this is...well....lol.

So what if we share DNA with corns ? That doesn't show that we evolved from corns.

wiegraf:

In fact, just take this your 'science' to biology's equivalence of physics.org and please let us observe the debate. Go talk to them about this 'beauty' you see and just how it must be evidence of a designer (and even more ridiculously, a supernatural one that wrote a story book 2000 years ago)

That has been done unfortunately . . .

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" - Upton Sinclair

wiegraf:

You can't, you never will, because ID is simply NOT SCIENCE. In any shape, form or manner. And the evidence for evolution is clearly bountiful and everywhere to be seen

State some of this evidence and I will tell you the problem with it. If you promise to read it, I will present an article showing how ID is science and we can discuss it.

wiegraf:

So again, if you wanted say godidit, please and please why in the world are you a scientist? Godidit is for the pulpit not the lab, so why are you there?

Indeed you are brainwashed. It's no mystery why you believe in evolutionary fairytales. You actually think God doing it must not be science which is false.

UyiIredia:


And I don't agree it is often. The correct word would be 'some times'. To show that it is often, you'll have to show that in most contexts where all religious claims were held true persecution, tyranny resulted because of it.

Ok, fair enough. I see what you mean. "Sometimes" is probably more appropriate.

UyiIredia:

I don't. But I think the statement is less true of the economy than it is of science.

Agreed.

UyiIredia:

Agreed with some misgivings.

BTW what's your take on the OP ?

Per the original post, I will comment on that sometime in the next couple hours (assuming you are asking in good faith ).

In the interest of brevity, this johnydon22 response mirrors my position on your original post.

johnydon22:

UyiIredia:
I made the same arguments on another site and couldn't convince atheists there. Maybe I'll have better luck here . . . OR NOT !

1) The existence of the universe demands an explanation. The order of the physical universe which ensures it adheres to laws which can be inferred suggests an intelligence behind the universe.

2) The genetic code in living organisms precludes the possibility they arose naturally. Natural processes CAN'T give rise to codes which don't follow natural laws. As humans, we know that codes are always made by conscious effort so the presence of codes in living things is grounds to infer that God exists.

3) Consciousness in man is not explainable by materialistic means. Emergence can't explain consciousness since typically it deals with new physical properties that arise due to complex interactions. But the consciousness isn't physical and so can't be explained by purely material means moreso since physical things lack consciousness. This is good grounds to believe that a God that effects consciousness exists.

Antiparticle:
In the interest of brevity, this johnydon22 response mirrors my position on your original post.

I responded to johnydon22 here. He never responded back. You can.

UyiIredia:


The illogicality of an infinite regress isn't proof against God. The issue of an uncaused complex designer would only be a problem if God was physical, He isn't. That said, we can't have a one-way discussion where only I defend my position, YOU TOO must defend your position that unguided natural processes resulted in life, a position that lacks any evidence whatsoever.

Perfect! I just wanted you to see my view for a second and I'm glad you did. Of course it is unfair to have a single sided debate.

The origins of life are much of speculation and hardly of facts. So I do not sell facts of the Universe or life itself. Neither am I willing to buy such facts. I'm more comfortable drawing the lines.

davidylan:


Well what does it posit then? You seem to waffle from position to position based on the particular thread you're on. Are you saying that the big bang created an ordered universe?

Are you expecting me to spit out the entire big bang theory here or what?! This has already been overdone. Why act like you are just hearing the big bang for the first time

davidylan:


Not really... infact not at all. You're basing your "substantial effect" on pure phenotype alone... i.e. skin color, facial features. But you forget that there are literally millions of other processes that take place under the skin facade that are no different from that of your neighbor. Your cells act exactly alike, your blood is the same color, your cells respire through mitochondria... etc.

But undesigned changes in a designed DNA ought to produce undesigned effects, aren't they?

UyiIredia:


The problem with such Christians is that they've bought into the lie that science must assume only nature exists. Science involves a search for truth, assuming only nature exists limits that search.



There isn't. If by evolution, you mean a change of allele frequencies then even creationists are evolutionists. If by evolution you mean the development of all life from a common ancestor through mutations and natural selection, then you are brainwashed. The so-called overwhelming evidence for such are based on false assumptions and a wilful ignorance of the facts.





I'm willing to furnish you with articles that explain how ID is
science. Will you read it ? And be objective about what you've read ? That's the problem.





So what if we share DNA with corns ? That doesn't show that we evolved from corns.




That has been done unfortunately . . .

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" - Upton Sinclair



State some of this evidence and I will tell you the problem with it. If you promise to read it, I will present an article showing how ID is science and we can discuss it.



Indeed you are brainwashed. It's no mystery why you believe in evolutionary fairytales. You actually think God doing it must not be science which is false.

Uyi, seriously telling even kindergarteners this twaddle would lead normal people to deep shame and embarrassment when they get the chance to reflect on their actions. Enough to cause one psychological trauma...

Do you honestly believe this deserves a proper response?

Are you genuinely this warped, confused and/or desperate?

Joshthefirst:
When you see a computer program like microsoft word, you immediately understand and realize that it is a design of a creator. The same thing applies for various processes, events, phenomena and the unity and co-direction of forces we see in the universe, especially DNA.

Computer programs are very different things from natural processes like DNA molecules and the formation of the grand canyon.

Joshthefirst:

Yes. And as I said, It cannot be the origin(note origin) of efficient, workable and sustainable devices, especially a device like DNA.

Well it works well enough given the diversity of life currently available and the multiple extinction events that have happened. DNA is a natural part of other natural entities.

Joshthefirst:

This is like expecting someone to teach common sense. Forget about "supernaturalism", acknowledge very obvious design first and stop being belligerent and unreasonable in a futile quest to deny transcendence.

What is the obvious design? Stop being belligerent and unreasonable in a futile quest to deny natural events.

Joshthefirst:

But you won't.
Because you don't want to believe in any thing that might lead to God, you deny order and choose to be hypocritically blind to direction and sense. Look at how you have ended up. Claiming DNA came about through random processes of evolution. You have become the epitome of dogmatism, and unreasonableness.

You don't want to believe in any thing that doesn't lead to your God. You deny natural processes due to your dogmatism and unreasonableness. You say it is your God that has done it all. Well how do you know DNA arose by supernatural intervention?

wiegraf:



Uyi, seriously telling even kindergarteners this twaddle would lead normal people to deep shame and embarrassment when they get the chance to reflect on their actions. Enough to cause one psychological trauma...

Do you honestly believe this deserves a proper response?

Are you genuinely this warped, confused and/or desperate?

This is it.
This Uyi guy spews out so much convoluted garbage, one cannot even respond without feeling embarrassed at doing so.

Please can anybody here show us exactly how the DNA was formed using supernatural intervention?

wiegraf:



Uyi, seriously telling even kindergarteners this twaddle would lead normal people to deep shame and embarrassment when they get the chance to reflect on their actions. Enough to cause one psychological trauma...

Do you honestly believe this deserves a proper response?

Are you genuinely this warped, confused and/or desperate?

You ain't seen nothing yet. Just you wait until he starts vomiting what he considers good sources.

dalaman:
Please can anybody here show us exactly how the DNA was formed using supernatural intervention?

They are basically saying that the DNA cant be formed the scratch . Quite impossible . This implies that random or even ordered natural processes cant beget the DNA therefore needing a highly intelligent designer or the supernatural.

Its obvious you are imagining magic or superhero movie stuff - "supernatural intervention."

Wrong perception of what the supernatural is or means, is what is being witnessed in this thread .

Because if you know what the supernatural and the first paragraph of my comment mean, you dont expect a human to show how the DNA was formed using "supernatural intervention."

... i don't get it, all this wonderful reality? inference!? haba!

thehomer:


Computer programs are very different things from natural processes like DNA molecules and the formation of the grand canyon.



Well it works well enough given the diversity of life currently available and the multiple extinction events that have happened. DNA is a natural part of other natural entities.



What is the obvious design? Stop being belligerent and unreasonable in a futile quest to deny natural events.



You don't want to believe in any thing that doesn't lead to your God. You deny natural processes due to your dogmatism and unreasonableness. You say it is your God that has done it all. Well how do you know DNA arose by supernatural intervention?

dalaman:
Please can anybody here show us exactly how the DNA was formed using supernatural intervention?

See why I'm saying? I'm not denying natural events or claiming supernaturalism yet. Neither was davidylan. Can you people read and understand or have you become too warped to understand issues without seeing everything as a threatening referral to the supernatural?

Computer programs are designed by entities. I recognize design in natural processes, you deny design. Dogmatically. This is a quite futile argument, because its like arguing with a mad man.

How can I be recognizing order, direction, arrangement, precision, and efficiency in a particular complex system and one will run up to me and start calling me unreasonable, trying to claim it all came up by random processes without any evidence?

Joshthefirst:

See why I'm saying? I'm not denying natural events or claiming supernaturalism yet. Neither was davidylan. Can you people read and understand or have you become too warped to understand issues without seeing everything as a threatening referral to the supernatural?

Computer programs are designed by entities. I recognize design in natural processes, you deny design. Dogmatically. This is a quite futile argument, because its like arguing with a mad man.

How can I be recognizing order, direction, arrangement, precision, and efficiency in a particular complex system and one will run up to me and start calling me unreasonable, trying to claim it all came up by random processes without any evidence?

they have no arguments. That's why they whine about supernatural every 2 seconds... outside of that, they cant confidently discuss the scientific evidence so they have to hide under the thin skirts of noise making and false outrage.

Kay17:


Are you expecting me to spit out the entire big bang theory here or what?! This has already been overdone. Why act like you are just hearing the big bang for the first time

I'm not sure you understood my point at all... infact i think it just went over your head. We were talking about the fact that the basis for the big bang itself is that life started in a state of random chaos... the question is how did random chaos come up with such a fine-tuned system of codes like the DNA? No one is asking you to describe the big bang... if you cant answer the questions then say so rather than all these useless pretense.

davidylan:


they have no arguments. That's why they whine about supernatural every 2 seconds... outside of that, they cant confidently discuss the scientific evidence so they have to hide under the thin skirts of noise making and false outrage.

Which of the scientific evidence suggests or points out that the DNA was formed by unnatural entities?

davidylan:


I'm not sure you understood my point at all... infact i think it just went over your head. We were talking about the fact that the basis for the big bang itself is that life started in a state of random chaos... the question is how did random chaos come up with such a fine-tuned system of codes like the DNA? No one is asking you to describe the big bang... if you cant answer the questions then say so rather than all these useless pretense.

But again I repeat, the Big Bang is not chaos nor was the preuniverse. And neither is the Big Bang a direct cause of Life. And neither can you thread any implications of chaos to the origin of life. Hence the bolded is a moot point. You set up a cascade of assumptions nobody agreed to, and presented them up as my position.

davidylan:


Well what does it posit then? You seem to waffle from position to position based on the particular thread you're on. Are you saying that the big bang created an ordered universe?

An ordered Universe is such because of physical laws. Physical laws create the predictability and determinacy of the Universe. In their absence the Universe would fall into absolute chaos. And the fact that language uses "laws" to describe these forces, does not mean they are similar to human laws which are createable or created.

UyiIredia:


I didn't miss any point. undercat denied my statement that consciousness is immaterial. I agree the brain is the source of consciousness but I don't believe the brain alone explains it.

I forgot to address the above. So what else is involved? Consciousness?!

Joshthefirst:





See why I'm saying? I'm not denying natural events or claiming supernaturalism yet. Neither was davidylan. Can you people read and understand or have you become too warped to understand issues without seeing everything as a threatening referral to the supernatural?

It looks like you've now developed the interesting inability to understand the implications of what you say. When you say something didn't arise by natural means, how exactly would you say it arose?

Joshthefirst:

Computer programs are designed by entities. I recognize design in natural processes, you deny design. Dogmatically. This is a quite futile argument, because its like arguing with a mad man.

I know humans design computer programs. Are you saying that DNA arose by natural means? The mad argument I see here is the assertion that DNA somehow requires some supernatural entity.

Joshthefirst:

How can I be recognizing order, direction, arrangement, precision, and efficiency in a particular complex system and one will run up to me and start calling me unreasonable, trying to claim it all came up by random processes without any evidence?

Because you're confusing your subjective experience and limited knowledge for some sort of cosmic order, direction, arrangement, precision and efficiency.

davidylan:


they have no arguments. That's why they whine about supernatural every 2 seconds... outside of that, they cant confidently discuss the scientific evidence so they have to hide under the thin skirts of noise making and false outrage.

And because you have no arguments, you hide under the claim of "I'm just asking questions" to detract from the fact that your God is missing. If you can confidently the God based reason for which you hold your beliefs, then please, let's do that.

wiegraf:


Uyi, seriously telling even kindergarteners this twaddle would lead normal people to deep shame and embarrassment when they get the chance to reflect on their actions. Enough to cause one psychological trauma...

Do you honestly believe this deserves a proper response?

Are you genuinely this warped, confused and/or desperate?

Not that I had any doubt that you were foolish.

Kay17:

I forgot to address the above. So what else is involved? Consciousness?!

God. Absent God and I don't think there would be life and certainly not consciousness. One can't reduce, explain or understand consciousness in solely material terms. To explain or understand consciousness you have to be conscious and intelligent.

Kay17:


An ordered Universe is such because of physical laws. Physical laws create the predictability and determinacy of the Universe. In their absence the Universe would fall into absolute chaos. And the fact that language uses "laws" to describe these forces, does not mean they are similar to human laws which are createable or created.

Physical laws are statements by humans to describe how the universe works. As such, they have no causal power, they are simply statements that describe the universe. Note that sometimes the term 'natural laws' is used instead of 'physical laws'.

thehomer:

It looks like you've now developed the interesting inability to understand the implications of what you say. When you say something didn't arise by natural means, how exactly would you say it arose?

Through supernatural means. We can't know exactly how it was achieved but we can be sure that natural factors would have acted in a way contrary to how they usually do.

thehomer:
I know humans design computer programs. Are you saying that DNA arose by natural means? The mad argument I see here is the assertion that DNA somehow requires some supernatural entity.

Then let's assume no supernatural entity made it. What's the evidence showing that natural processes can effect the DNA ?

UyiIredia:


God. Absent God and I don't think there would be life and certainly not consciousness. One can't reduce, explain or understand consciousness in solely material terms. To explain or understand consciousness you have to be conscious and intelligent.

I am not surprised at your response because it has always been your position but God himself is conscious

UyiIredia:


Physical laws are statements by humans to describe how the universe works. As such, they have no causal power, they are simply statements that describe the universe. Note that sometimes the term 'natural laws' is used instead of 'physical laws'.

And these statements have no connection to reality?! At least these statements are trying to describe phenomena the Universe exhibits, and these phenomena are what are regarded as physical laws. Humans might have an inaccurate picture of these physical laws, BUT they exist on their own. Uyi stop acting like human statements form legs and hands that shape reality and the behaviour of the Universe. For example, the properties of a triangle are independent from human ideas of it. The triangle is a raging example of physical laws.

Another example is causality itself. Why do we expect an effect to come after the cause, why not the effect before the cause. Yet it would be ridiculous to say causality has a causal power. I would define physical laws as the language through which the Universe expresses herself.

Kay17:


An ordered Universe is such because of physical laws. Physical laws create the predictability and determinacy of the Universe. In their absence the Universe would fall into absolute chaos. And the fact that language uses "laws" to describe these forces, does not mean they are similar to human laws which are createable or created.

and those physical laws just appeared by chance right? What's the difference between believing God and believing chance? They are both one and the same - based on blind faith.