Prove creationism...I'll shut up!

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
"A universe that contains a special place of habitation for complex, conscious life is so truly remarkable that it is, realistically speaking, impossible to believe it is the result of a series of cosmic accidents. To choose to believe that there is a naturalistic explanation for (a) the mathematical forms encoded in the laws of nature, (b) the precise specification of the nineteen universal constants and (c) the remarkable initial conditions required for star formation and the simplest living systems is to believe in a miracle by another name. Physicist Freeman J. Dyson of Princeton's Institute for Advanced Study seems to implicitly affirm theism when he say,"

"As we look out into the universe and identify the many accidents of physics and astronomy that have worked to our benefit, it almost seems as if the universe must in some sense have known that we were coming."

Freeman J. Dyson, cited in Barrow and Tipler, Anthropic Cosmological Principle, 318.

http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9403/evidence.html#text52

Can I rest my case for God now?

No, because your argument is telological and anthropic principles are innately false and based on circular reasoning.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Who is smarter a living cell or you?

What qualifies as "smarter"?

Humans exist in this universe.
Humans thrive in this universe.*
Therefore this universe is made for humans.

*I'm not sure how true that one really is...

Humans exist in this universe.
Humans adapted to survive in this universe.
Therefore this universe is not made for humans.

Or what about

Humans exist in this universe.
Humans adapted to survive in this universe.
Therefore humans were not made for this universe.

lol. Yes, that is the problem with anthropic principles.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Time does not cash the check that impossibility has written.
--JesusIsAlive

Time seems to be the panacea, the mechanism, the answer that atheists run to to explain the impossible. No matter how much time elapses it is impossible to to win the lottery ten times consecutively in one lifetime. These are the same odds that atheists ignore with respect to life coming into existence by chance from an unplanned, undirected, unintelligent explosion. Yet the believer is treated like a mindless idiot for believing that God (Who is all-powerful and all-knowing) is responsible for the complexity that exists in the universe.

If you live forever, the chances of winning the lottery ten times becomes so high that not winning ten times is impossible. Get the point? No? I didn't think so.

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
you know scientist are allowed to have personal believes.. how do you know we was talking specifically of your god..

but still his job requires him to use the scientific methods regardless of his believes to prove or disprove them.

True.

I just want you to think (think). Think and when you are done thinking, think some more. Things of this sophistication and complexity, design, order, mathematically, scientifically, and coincidentally don't just happen.

Consciousness

Morality

Complex life

Complex language and communication

Order

Design

Laws

Intelligence

Rationality

Logic

Information

Organization

Mathematics

Science

The Brain

Instinct

Thought

Reason

Will

Intent

Not one of these is capable of arising by undirected, unplanned, undesigned, unintelligent, chance--from a violent explosion that happened for no reason or purpose.

Think.

What do explosions normally produce?

No matter how many explosions are conducted the result will be the same.

Think.

Has there ever been an exception?

Think.

Why do organisms fight to survive? Why is there this need or tendency?

Think.

Why is life a reality instead of unreality? In other words, there is no reason to exist. So then why do we exist?

Think.

All this energy expended for life to exist and for what reason? Why? Why do we exist? What is in it for the universe? What does the universe get out of it?

Think.

All of this controversy, energy, discussion, time, effort, money, research, study, and education, trying to figure out how and why we exist--and for what? Why the need to be here as opposed to oblivion?

Does the universe have a will? Did it just have to exist? Did it just want to exist? Again, why? What is the reason or purpose? Why did an explosion occur in the first place?

Think.

^ The big bang was neither big or a bang.

Originally posted by Ordo
No, because your argument is telological and anthropic principles are innately false and based on circular reasoning.

What qualifies as "smarter"?

You are composed of living cells but living cells are not composed of you. Hence, you are dependent on living cells and thus inferior to them. Living cells are nano factories that exist whether you want them to or not. They were here before you, they are responsible for you, and they continue to sustain you. You even owe your brain size to living cells. Based on all of these facts I affirm that living cells are smarter than you.

Just something I thought about.

obviously we can tell.... circular logic yet again and cant believe you were taught to think in that manner.. *jaw drop

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
You are composed of living cells but living cells are not composed of you. Hence, you are dependent on living cells and thus inferior to them. Living cells are nano factories that exist whether you want them to or not. They were here before you, they are responsible for you, and they continue to sustain you. You even owe your brain size to living cells. Based on all of these facts I affirm that living cells are smarter than you.

Just something I thought about.

Why do organisms fight to survive? Why is there this need or tendency?

Well, there is a limited amount of resources to go around, so if they don't fight then they will die. If you are asking why they fight to begin with, it is because if they do not then their genes won't be passed into the future. The genes that say "DON'T DIE" are the ones that survive- that are still around. The genes that sit quietly and wait for stuff to happen (for their survival) die very quickly. Organisms fight to survive because there is an evolutionary advantage.

All of this controversy, energy, discussion, time, effort, money, research, study, and education, trying to figure out how and why we exist--and for what?

To eliminate cognitive dissonance. (Thanks Inimalist!)
Edit:

You are composed of living cells but living cells are not composed of you. Hence, you are dependent on living cells and thus inferior to them.

WHAT!? I'd love to know your definition of inferior. You are capable of doing many things that an individual cell cannot. Speech, for example. Locomotion by way of legs. Thought. Your body is capable of killing things & using tools/altering the world you live in (through mechanical force). A cell can kill, but rarely intentionally (I'm anthropomorphizing but you know what I mean.) This argument you've posted is the weakest showing yet. Raise your game or get off the court.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
You are composed of living cells but living cells are not composed of you. Hence, you are dependent on living cells and thus inferior to them. Living cells are nano factories that exist whether you want them to or not. They were here before you, they are responsible for you, and they continue to sustain you. You even owe your brain size to living cells. Based on all of these facts I affirm that living cells are smarter than you.

Just something I thought about.

Are you high?

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Well, there is a limited amount of resources to go around, so if they don't fight then they will die. If you are asking why they fight to begin with, it is because if they do not then their genes won't be passed into the future. The genes that say "DON'T DIE" are the ones that survive- that are still around. The genes that sit quietly and wait for stuff to happen (for their survival) die very quickly. Organisms fight to survive because there is an evolutionary advantage.

To eliminate cognitive dissonance. (Thanks Inimalist!)
Edit:

WHAT!? I'd love to know your definition of inferior. You are capable of doing many things that an individual cell cannot. Speech, for example. Locomotion by way of legs. Thought. Your body is capable of killing things & using tools/altering the world you live in (through mechanical force). A cell can kill, but rarely intentionally (I'm anthropomorphizing but you know what I mean.) This argument you've posted is the weakest showing yet. Raise your game or get off the court.

This was not an argument, the cell thing was just a thought, and you have failed to think.

All of the things you just mentioned relative to the cell are made possible because of living cells (i.e. speech, locomotion, thought), so living cells still win.

he answered your questions you just did not like the response..

you cant even claim the same thing..

you actually rely on philosophical rhetoric for your response and failing to even state a relevence to the question.. using circular logic and restating questions over and over.

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
he answered your questions you just did not like the response..

you cant even claim the same thing..

you actually rely on philosophical rhetoric for your response and failing to even state a relevence to the question.. using circular logic and restating questions over and over.

He did not answer my questions.

Consciousness

Morality

Complex life

Complex language and communication

Order

Design

Laws

Intelligence

Rationality

Logic

Information

Organization

Mathematics

Science

The Brain

Instinct

Thought

Reason

Will

Intent

He did not explain how these things could arise by chance, purposeless, explosion of inanimate, dense, matter.

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
he answered your questions you just did not like the response..

you cant even claim the same thing..

you actually rely on philosophical rhetoric for your response and failing to even state a relevence to the question.. using circular logic and restating questions over and over.

Socrates would definitely be rolling in his grave.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
This was not an argument, the cell thing was just a thought, and you have failed to think.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive

All of the things you just mentioned relative to the cell are made possible because of living cells (i.e. speech, locomotion, thought), so living cells still win.

Yes? I guess that since living cells are made of molecules, and molecules are not made of living cells then Molecules are > cells! I defy you to find me a cell that can experience emotion or swing an axe to chop firewood. A body > a cell when trying to find fuel for a fire. (Note: you still have not specified which area cells are greater than bodies in. So technically, you could define 'greater' however you wish- for the love of god just drop the point though. It is embarrassing to watch you struggle like this.)

EDIT: I'll respond to the latest in a sec...

Some nice quotes "Lord Knightfa11"

“obviously because not all "religious people" are scientists or even skilled with logic, whereas the supporters of evolution are either educated in the ways of the tongue or unable to think for themselves.”

“uh-huh, and if anyone who decides to question evolution is thrown out of their jobs, then who is testing it?”

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
[/color]
No. You do not get to talk to me that way. You asked a series of loaded questions that was designed to give the impression that the universe must have a designer. I pointed out that some (all?) of those questions have a material explanation. I did not fail to think, I failed to reach the conclusion that you have. I did not feel the need to posit an imaginary friend to create the universe, maybe because I have some in real life. You have failed to bait me into a loaded question and now are backpedaling. It is really embarrassing to see.

[/COLOR]

Yes? I guess that since living cells are made of molecules, and molecules are not made of living cells then Molecules are > cells! I defy you to find me a cell that can experience emotion or swing an axe to chop firewood. A body > a cell when trying to find fuel for a fire. (Note: you still have not specified which area cells are greater than bodies in. So technically, you could define 'greater' however you wish- for the love of god just drop the point though. It is embarrassing to watch you struggle like this.)

EDIT: I'll respond to the latest in a sec... [/B]

But...the contest was between the living cell and the human body as a whole, so the molecule argument is not applicable.

One of my questions was why the need to survive? What's wrong with dying? Why the need or desire to capitalize on advantage? Where does such ambition or instinct come from in organisms (add ambition to the list)?

By material do you mean natural?

Ok you did not fail to think.

Imaginary friend? God is not imaginary. What makes you feel that God is imaginary? Is it because you cannot perceive Him personally through your five senses?

Not trying to bait you (calm down), no loaded questions (trust me there is no conspiracy), and why do you feel that I am back pedaling? I am not trying to win anything so there is no pressure of losing.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Think.

Think.

This requires looking at and analyzing fact, not jumping to conclusions written on the back of your eyelids.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
You are composed of living cells but living cells are not composed of you. Hence, you are dependent on living cells and thus inferior to them. Living cells are nano factories that exist whether you want them to or not. They were here before you, they are responsible for you, and they continue to sustain you. You even owe your brain size to living cells. Based on all of these facts I affirm that living cells are smarter than you.

Just something I thought about.

Originally posted by Ordo
Think.

This requires looking at and analyzing fact, not jumping to conclusions written on the back of your eyelids.

True.