Creationists

[Hollie]

Richard Dawkins shocks world by admitting strong evidence for God exists! - YouTube Richard Dawkins put his statement about biology right there on page one: “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” {Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1}

He enlarges on this thought: “We may say that a living body or organ is well designed if it has attributes that an intelligent and knowledgeable engineer might have built into it in order to achieve some sensible purpose… any engineer can recognize an object that has been designed, even poorly designed, for a purpose, and he can usually work out what that purpose is just by looking at the structure of the object.” {Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 21}

Dawkins added that if anyone saw a machine on some other planet, he would know life had existed on that planet because machines are designed by intelligent beings. {p.2.} I must add, there are many molecular machines in living things. Their moving parts work together to do the work of every cell. Most of us would interpret all this as telling us that living things really were designed. Dawkins admits that living things look like they had been designed, but he does not believe they were. He goes on to use imagination, speculation, philosophy, and his wonderful story telling ability to undercut the evidence."

Appearance of Design

Crick and many others agree with Dawkins.

You were saying ?

Dawkins admits that living things look like they had been designed, but he does not believe they were. hey aren't you the guy that yammers on about similarity not being proof.....is that only when it works against you...BULLSHIT show me Dawkins actual statement not some asshole's interpretation .

You are in denial he admitted there is a strong case for God he is not the only one. Daws it just takes time to realize and admit you are simply wrong. If you have watched the video it gives you the details of the debate but you didn't did you ?

Why is it that you are falling over yourself with the claim that "Dawkins admits that living things look like they had been designed"?

There is nothing about "design", that necessarily implies your currently configured god(s). Secondly, why is it that you think Richard Dawkins is an authority on what your god(s) would have designed?

 

[Hollie]

Well if you consider the evidence for design against the evidence of an unintelligent natural process creating everything we see,mathematics will be more supportive of a designer rather then this natural process you subscribe to.

That's ridiculous. There's no reason to believe that is true. There is nothing in mathematics that supports supernaturalism.

Tell that to these guys, who are Orthodox:

Nova ScienceNow

I didn't see anything in the video that demonstrates mathematics supporting supernaturalism.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Dawkins admits that living things look like they had been designed, but he does not believe they were. hey aren't you the guy that yammers on about similarity not being proof.....is that only when it works against you...BULLSHIT show me Dawkins actual statement not some asshole's interpretation .

You are in denial he admitted there is a strong case for God he is not the only one. Daws it just takes time to realize and admit you are simply wrong. If you have watched the video it gives you the details of the debate but you didn't did you ?

Why is it that you are falling over yourself with the claim that "Dawkins admits that living things look like they had been designed"?

There is nothing about "design", that necessarily implies your currently configured god(s). Secondly, why is it that you think Richard Dawkins is an authority on what your god(s) would have designed?

I'm falling all over myself because Dawkins admits God and design is a possibility ? why does this worry you ?

How bout DR. Francis Crick comments saying that the DNA molecue could not possibly come about through a random natural process of evolution. He also said the genetic code is a miracle and thought it was designed to replicate itself. Guess what ? it does.

DR.Francis Crick is famous for being one of the scientists that discovered the genetic code.

I don't need to fall all over myself your side's authorities on the issue agree with our side.

 

[Youwerecreated]

That's ridiculous. There's no reason to believe that is true. There is nothing in mathematics that supports supernaturalism.

Tell that to these guys, who are Orthodox:

Nova ScienceNow

I didn't see anything in the video that demonstrates mathematics supporting supernaturalism.

Does design ring a bell ?

 

[newpolitics]

And there we have it. You making a metaphysical claim and then trying to say that math is the reason it could be true. Yes, and math is the reason God could be true too. How does it feel here in the boat with me?

How has math ever pointed to God? God does not show up in any equations, anywhere, ever. We are not even in the same ocean, let alone the same boat.

Well one way is music, which is VERY mathematical and has absolutely no evolutionary reason to exist at all. Fine tuning of the universe is another way.

Music, like the rest of the physical universe, can be expressed in mathematical terms. None of that math elucidates what would be a god.

The anthropic principle, or the idea of a fine tuned universe, is not evidence for god.

 

[Youwerecreated]

How has math ever pointed to God? God does not show up in any equations, anywhere, ever. We are not even in the same ocean, let alone the same boat.

Well one way is music, which is VERY mathematical and has absolutely no evolutionary reason to exist at all. Fine tuning of the universe is another way.

Music, like the rest of the physical universe, can be expressed in mathematical terms. None of that math elucidates what would be a god.

The anthropic principle, or the idea of a fine tuned universe, is not evidence for god.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4uG3qC6KBw&feature=plcp]Agnostic Richard Dawkins destroyed in debate by wiser Christian professor - YouTube[/ame]

 

[newpolitics]

Well one way is music, which is VERY mathematical and has absolutely no evolutionary reason to exist at all. Fine tuning of the universe is another way.

Music, like the rest of the physical universe, can be expressed in mathematical terms. None of that math elucidates what would be a god.

The anthropic principle, or the idea of a fine tuned universe, is not evidence for god.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4uG3qC6KBw&feature=plcp]Agnostic Richard Dawkins destroyed in debate by wiser Christian professor - YouTube[/ame]

Thank you for the link. I don't think Dawkins got destroyed one bit. He may not be the best debater, and the christian guy was a good talker who I enjoyed listening to, but he didn't destroy Dawkins, in my opinion. They both had good points.

 

[UltimateReality]

What the fuck do YOU know, about "most people," you downie? Eat shit and write something intelligible, you miserable queer, who should have been aborted.

You are an english major trying to discuss science You have not said anything of substance at all. If you want to get into the specifics of science do so otherwise your resposes are not worthy of a reply.

Youwerecornholed, I didn't tell you anything, about my academic background, which did wrap up, at a major university. If you want to suck off your butt-buddy URanallyretarded, you don't need to get in a pissing contest, with a skunk, which is what you two queers went and did.

Eat shit, BITCHES. I guarantee, we wouldn't have any conversations. What you are is butt-buddies, backing each other up, since you like how your heads feel, up each others' assholes. What the fuck do YOU want to write about, queers? I checked in, you got oppositional, you are blow-buddies from some kind of downie-boy zone, so EAT SHIT.

I learned about stupid people, like you, so I don't like to talk to you, in person. I think we know you don't get to talk to real people. When I meet fucktards, like you, there is no further wordy business. You either fuck off, or you don't. If you DON'T, then we see who the cops believe.

I love internet courage. I guarantee you if we were having this conversation in person, you wouldn't be talking this way. Grow up.

Eat shit, you miserable cocksucker. You guarantee WHAT, punkhole?

Guarantee you would be way more polite. It's amazing to me your mother doesn't monitor your computer use. Or that you can find time between popping zits or digging corn out of your braces to spout off profanity on the internet. This is the last response you will get from me. I'm done playing your silly game.

 

[UltimateReality]

guess you never under stood the concept that keeping your mouth shut and let everyone think you're a fool...rather than opening it and leaving no doubt ....works!

Projecting.

ironic coming from someone who is a master at saying stupid shit!

Before going after the spec in my eye, you might want to work on the log in your own.

 

[UltimateReality]

If structures in the cell resemble highly intricate machines designed by humans, does that indicate humans designed cells?

Well that is an obvious no But thanks for acknowledging someone designed these machines.

So I guess daws is not gonna explain the process of how molecular machines evolved.

you first, I need a good laugh!
BTW those sooo called questions of yours have been asked and answered in this thread many many times, either you will not accept the answers or dementia is setting in.

It doesn't matter how many times you say something OVER AND OVER it doesn't make it true. The questions haven't been answered.

 

[UltimateReality]

and there we have it. You making a metaphysical claim and then trying to say that math is the reason it could be true. Yes, and math is the reason god could be true too. How does it feel here in the boat with me?

how has math ever pointed to god? God does not show up in any equations, anywhere, ever. We are not even in the same ocean, let alone the same boat.

what would be the mathematical symbol for god?

The alpha and omega.

 

[UltimateReality]

That's ridiculous. There's no reason to believe that is true. There is nothing in mathematics that supports supernaturalism.

Tell that to these guys, who are Orthodox:

Nova ScienceNow

I didn't see anything in the video that demonstrates mathematics supporting supernaturalism.

So you believe Unicorns are real???

 

[UltimateReality]

How has math ever pointed to God? God does not show up in any equations, anywhere, ever. We are not even in the same ocean, let alone the same boat.

Well one way is music, which is VERY mathematical and has absolutely no evolutionary reason to exist at all. Fine tuning of the universe is another way.

Music, like the rest of the physical universe, can be expressed in mathematical terms. None of that math elucidates what would be a god.

The anthropic principle, or the idea of a fine tuned universe, is not evidence for god.

Then why did the Materialists quickly come up with the multi-verse theory to discount the logical explanation the universe had purpose in its design? Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

 

[UltimateReality]

Yeah Daws, because this mathematical relationship just happen to exist after the ape man started calling his mate.

Harmonics Research: Mathematics of Music | Laura Heischberg

According to legend, the way Pythagoras discovered that musical notes could be translated into mathematical equations was when one day he passed blacksmiths at work, and thought that the sounds emanating from their anvils being hit were beautiful and harmonious and decided that whatever scientific law caused this to happen must be mathematical and could be applied to music. He went to the blacksmiths to learn how this had happened by looking at their tools, he discovered that it was because the hammers were "simple ratios of each other, one was half the size of the first, another was 2/3 the size, and so on."

This legend has since proven to be false by virtue of the fact that these ratios are only relevant to string length (such as the string of a monochord), and not to hammer weight.[48][49] However, it may be that Pythagoras was indeed responsible for discovering these properties of string length.

Pythagoreans elaborated on a theory of numbers, the exact meaning of which is still debated among scholars. Another belief attributed to Pythagoras was that of the "harmony of the spheres". Thus the planets and stars moved according to mathematical equations, which corresponded to musical notes and thus produced a symphony.[50]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagoras

 

[Youwerecreated]

Music, like the rest of the physical universe, can be expressed in mathematical terms. None of that math elucidates what would be a god.

The anthropic principle, or the idea of a fine tuned universe, is not evidence for god.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4uG3qC6KBw&feature=plcp]Agnostic Richard Dawkins destroyed in debate by wiser Christian professor - YouTube[/ame]

Thank you for the link. I don't think Dawkins got destroyed one bit. He may not be the best debater, and the christian guy was a good talker who I enjoyed listening to, but he didn't destroy Dawkins, in my opinion. They both had good points.

I should have posted the whole debate that was just a part of the debate.

 

[UltimateReality]

How has math ever pointed to God? God does not show up in any equations, anywhere, ever. We are not even in the same ocean, let alone the same boat.

Well one way is music, which is VERY mathematical and has absolutely no evolutionary reason to exist at all. Fine tuning of the universe is another way.

what the fuck!
When we treat of sexual selection we shall see that primeval man, or rather some early progenitor of man [WHICH ONE], probably first used his voice in producing true musical cadences, that is in singing, as do some of the gibbon-apes at the present day; and we may conclude from a widely-spread analogy [NOT EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE], that this power would have been especially exerted during the courtship of the sexes,--would have expressed various emotions, such as love, jealousy, triumph,--and would have served as a challenge to rivals. It is, therefore, probable that the imitation of musical cries by articulate sounds may have given rise to words expressive of various complex emotions."[1]
This theory of a musical protolanguage has been revived and re-discovered repeatedly, often without attribution to Darwin.

Language is one of those things that defies Darwinism. I have bolded the assumptive language above. Plenty of other species have had enough time to go from mating noises to audible words. Without language, well, you are just another monkey.

 

[newpolitics]

Agnostic Richard Dawkins destroyed in debate by wiser Christian professor - YouTube

Thank you for the link. I don't think Dawkins got destroyed one bit. He may not be the best debater, and the christian guy was a good talker who I enjoyed listening to, but he didn't destroy Dawkins, in my opinion. They both had good points.

I should have posted the whole debate that was just a part of the debate.

It's fine. I saw the link to the full debate. I've watched enough of these. It's always the same arguments brought up over and over again. Theists will always fall short of being able to meet their burden of proof. That doesn't necessarily mean that god doesn't exist, and I admit that. However, they try to get around this with logical arguments, and some are extremely impressive at it like William Lane Craig, but that will never get them to proving god exists empirically or to an convincing degree. Nothing, short of revelation from a god could convince me. Even then, that wouldn't demonstrate creationist claims about the origins of life to be true. So, the debate rages on...

 

[Sgt.Belote]

No one can prove when and how the earth was created, Nor how old it is. The only scientific means of figuring it out would be PREDICTING its age by the earliest predictions of when something was. Example fossles and things of that nature. Science is all a bunch of theories and guesses. Hardly any of it is proven set in stone fact. So it leaves you to your beliefs of which you can not question anyones beliefs because even yours is questionable. Just know that people have the right to figure things out for their selves and what they feel and think is on them and not to be judged by others. Because no one here was alive back then and your theories are as good as anyone elses. Its all just a guess.

 

[konradv]

No one can prove when and how the earth was created, Nor how old it is. The only scientific means of figuring it out would be PREDICTING its age by the earliest predictions of when something was. Example fossles and things of that nature. Science is all a bunch of theories and guesses. Hardly any of it is proven set in stone fact. So it leaves you to your beliefs of which you can not question anyones beliefs because even yours is questionable. Just know that people have the right to figure things out for their selves and what they feel and think is on them and not to be judged by others. Because no one here was alive back then and your theories are as good as anyone elses. Its all just a guess.

Sorry, but scientific theories aren't guesses. They're an explanation based on facts and experimentation. The age of the earth, for example, isn't a guess, but a calculation based on known half-lives of radioactive species. Theories are meant to be questioned. Saying we can't question yours is just anti-intellectual BS.

 

[Hollie]

Well one way is music, which is VERY mathematical and has absolutely no evolutionary reason to exist at all. Fine tuning of the universe is another way.

what the fuck!
When we treat of sexual selection we shall see that primeval man, or rather some early progenitor of man [WHICH ONE], probably first used his voice in producing true musical cadences, that is in singing, as do some of the gibbon-apes at the present day; and we may conclude from a widely-spread analogy [NOT EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE], that this power would have been especially exerted during the courtship of the sexes,--would have expressed various emotions, such as love, jealousy, triumph,--and would have served as a challenge to rivals. It is, therefore, probable that the imitation of musical cries by articulate sounds may have given rise to words expressive of various complex emotions."[1]
This theory of a musical protolanguage has been revived and re-discovered repeatedly, often without attribution to Darwin.

Language is one of those things that defies Darwinism. I have bolded the assumptive language above. Plenty of other species have had enough time to go from mating noises to audible words. Without language, well, you are just another monkey.

Nonsense. The above is another spectacular display of your ignorance regarding "Darwinism". Your revulsion for science and process of science causes you to employ the tactics of your fellow science loathing fundies at the ICR who similarly denigrate the work of Darwin. While you consistently seek to misrepresent the work of Darwin, I'll spell it out again so as to allow readers to understand your science loathing agenda: Darwin theory sought to explain the principles of natural selection, adaptation and fitness for survival.

Promoting blatant lies in furtherance of your religious agenda is a common tactic among Creationist fundies. Fortunately, your lies are typically exposed as such.