Prove creationism...I'll shut up!

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
He did not answer my questions.

Design

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

1. What explosion are you talking about?
The Brain causes Instinct causes Consciousness causes Intent/will causes Thought causes Intelligence causes Rationality causes Reason causes Logic causes Organization causes [this one is kind of a stretch- only 'cause of the definition of science itself] Science/Mathematics. Information, Laws and order exist a priori (god I hope I used that right) and are the object of science/math- they are to be sought after and understood. Not created. Language/Communication is also a consequence of intelligence but is primarily an adaptation from the tribal lifestyle of our ancestors- it was a benefit so it stuck around. Even wolves and Velociraptors use rudimentary communication- it helps in the hunt. Complex life developed from simple life that generated through the processes of Abiogenesis- again, which is not the theory of evolution. Morality is, at best, a mutually beneficial set of guidelines that preserves the integrity of the community in which an individual lives. We are moral (sometimes) because we live together.

I used all but one of your words. There simply isn't room for design. Everything is accounted for, except for a supernatural creator. Sure, humans have designed 747s and computers and watches, but the universe wasn't designed. Nothing needs to be designed and Occam's razor cuts God out of everywhere she doesn't belong.

While you're at it, explain the appendix to me, explain why our spines are sub optimal for upright locomotion. Explain wisdom teeth, explain why we have undeveloped muscles by our ears (muscles that we'd need if our ears were shaped differently) and explain goose bumps- what these have in common is that they are vestigial structures that have no purpose- God would not have been so inept in creating something "in his image."

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

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive

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)?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive

By material do you mean natural?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive

Ok you did not fail to think.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive

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?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive

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.

Conspiracy would imply that you planned something with someone else. I did not mean to give the impression that you did, and I don't believe that I did so. 'Conspiracy' is therefore the incorrect word in this situation. A better one might have been 'duplicity' or ' hidden agenda.' It was incorrect to use that word where you did.

ROFL MAO........... 😆 😱 i think i poop myself a little laughing so hard 😕

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
ROFL MAO...........

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
1. What explosion are you talking about?
The Brain [b]causes Instinct causes Consciousness causes Intent/will causes Thought causes Intelligence causes Rationality causes Reason causes Logic causes Organization causes [this one is kind of a stretch- only 'cause of the definition of science itself] Science/Mathematics. Information, Laws and order exist a priori (god I hope I used that right) and are the object of science/math- they are to be sought after and understood. Not created. Language/Communication is also a consequence of intelligence but is primarily an adaptation from the tribal lifestyle of our ancestors- it was a benefit so it stuck around. Even wolves and Velociraptors use rudimentary communication- it helps in the hunt. Complex life developed from simple life that generated through the processes of Abiogenesis- again, which is not the theory of evolution. Morality is, at best, a mutually beneficial set of guidelines that preserves the integrity of the community in which an individual lives. We are moral (sometimes) because we live together.

The Big Bang is likened to an explosion. It has been dubbed a rapid, chaotic, expansion. The questions remains: how can natural laws, design (the sun being just the precise distance from earth to support life, the existence of water, all the right chemicals in the universe from oxygen, to carbon dioxide, etc), order, and complex intelligent life arise from undirected, inanimate, hot, dense, chaotic material?

Why does the brain cause those things? Just because it wants to? Needs to? Why cause anything?

I used all but one of your words. There simply isn't room for design. Everything is accounted for, except for a supernatural creator. Sure, humans have designed 747s and computers and watches, but the universe wasn't designed. Nothing needs to be designed and Occam's razor cuts God out of everywhere she doesn't belong.

You are comparing the universe to a watch, jet, and a computer? Do you honestly believe that you are rational?

While you're at it, explain the appendix to me, explain why our spines are sub optimal for upright locomotion. Explain wisdom teeth, explain why we have undeveloped muscles by our ears (muscles that we'd need if our ears were shaped differently) and explain goose bumps- what these have in common is that they are vestigial structures that have no purpose- God would not have been so inept in creating something "in his image." [/B]

To be continued…

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.

Think. I am living cells. Living cells are me. The joy of complex organisms is that cells become specialized and work together for mutual advantage. I am the product of that mutual advantage. They are not responsible for me and they do not sustain me because they are me. I am responsible for myself. I sustain myself. "I" am the product of my cells and they have a greater existence because of me.

Side note: brain SIZE has little to do with anything.

Once again you've demonstrated horrible analytical skills. You lay out A, B, and C, and then jump to Z. Cells don't demonstrate a lot intelligence individually. Most of their "intelligence" is chemical reactions driven by the intra and exta-cellular environments that give the perception of intelligence. Cells do however, collectively, exhibit a greater intelligence collectively, even to the point of consciousness and self-consciousness.

Thus and one of my individual cells is not "smarter" than my collective, or me. But that isn't what you asked. You asked "a cell" or "me" and there are different types of cells. I can take a plant epithelial cell and me. Both demonstrate different types of intelligence. Are you capable of judging which intelligence are greater? If we go with your interpretation of this question, which is one of many, you can't separate me from my cells, as explained above.

Basically no. You're just interested in changing the subject with vague little games that are irrelevant to the thread.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
The Big Bang is likened to an explosion.

Exactly. LIKENED, but was not.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
but... the contest was between the molecule and the cell as a whole, so the molecule argument is applicable. The analogy is sound.

It was? No, actually it was between the living cell and the human body (I know because I initiated the comparison).

There is nothing wrong with dying. The animals that don't do so are more prevalent in the next population. Genes that encourage survival are more common than genes that do not. The instinct is part of the drive to reproduce (I think... Inimalist might know the connection) and is part of the way the brain/consciousness works.
No. I meant material. Made of matter and the interactions between that matter.
I'm beginning to suspect that you are not at a level where you would be able to judge that in the first place...
It is because there is no evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, which supports the existence of a god. Not only is there no evidence for a creator, the functions that creator would fulfill are all otherwise accounted for, which allows me to cut the concept out of my life with Occam's razor. I should ask you a similar question: "Why do you believe in god?"

But you just said that there is a evolutionary advantage to surviving. So the opposite must be true: there must be an evolutionary disadvantage to dying. My question is why is the need to live in the first place? Why does life tend toward living instead of toward non-existence, if you know what I mean?

Again, time does not cash the check that impossibility has written (I need to copyright that). Hot, dense, matter expanding chaotically will remain hot, dense, matter unless it explodes. Then it will be pieces of hot, dense, matter. It will not turn into a universe that is subject to mathematically precise natural laws, give rise to spontaneous generation of complex intelligent life and all of the systems in the universe that support life, chemicals that interact in the correct quantity and fashion physically to support life.

There is plenty of circumstantial evidence for God, but you must be willing to acknowledge it as such.

Asking a loaded question (one with a hoped for response) and saying (initially) that I 'failed to think' because I didn't agree with you seems like baiting to me. I can accept spin (it is your job) but don't be disingenuous.

Ok.

Conspiracy would imply that you planned something with someone else. I did not mean to give the impression that you did, and I don't believe that I did so. 'Conspiracy' is therefore the incorrect word in this situation. A better one might have been 'duplicity' or ' hidden agenda.' It was incorrect to use that word where you did.

Not necessarily, I could be in cahoots with myself to orchestrate your downfall (just kidding). Ok, I did not have any ulterior motive.

n

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
n

So light= god?

Edit: Hey what happened to that hilarious video?

Originally posted by AngryManatee
So light= god?

Edit: Hey what happened to that hilarious video?

Had to chuck it because they started talking about Allah.

hilarious lmao
there you go angrumanatee got you another one for you tp enjoy
bkhQLt1vbWU&feature=related

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Had to chuck it because they started talking about Allah.

hysterical

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
The universe is expanding hence it is not infinite.

actually no...the matter within the universe is expanding...i.e that which we can measure using light...thus the known galaxy we can see via measuring light is 15 billion light years. (the furtherst object actually observed is 13.7 billion light years) we measure this by calculating red shift..because as a light source expands away from us the dopplar effect applies (think of the way a siren sounds on an emergency vehicle passes by...the way it distorts...thats the dopplar effect) and so we see more of the lower energy wavelengths...the red...the more red is measured the further away an object is. (Hubble flow law)

Space itself works differently...Its expansion is not restricted by the speed of light because special relativity only applies to spacial motion and not space itself....space itself thus can expand at infinite speeds.

It should also be noted that when people say the universe began at the big bang it refers only to the matter within space....space itself was not compressed into a tiny ball

I think this might sum it up with your talk with JIA, there is another one that I asked him if he was shown absolute proof that God didn't exist would he still believe and his answer was yes. I couldn't remember where that one was.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I am not open to the possibility that the Bible may be wrong because [B]I believe that it is the Word of God; hence, I believe the Bible is infallible. I believe that the Bible is the absolute revelation from God to humanity, not any other book (this is my belief).[/B]

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
[B]But you just said that there is a evolutionary advantage to surviving. So the opposite must be true: there must be an evolutionary disadvantage to dying. My question is why is the need to live in the first place? Why does life tend toward living instead of toward non-existence, if you know what I mean?

Logic time. The inverse of a true statement is not always false, mathmateically or in practice.

The ball is red. If its not red, its not a ball.

Think on that.

As to the evolutionary advantages of death.

1. It may be impossible to overcome death, thus no matter how evolved a species, eventually biological matter breaks down. You know, that whole first law of thermo thing?

2. Longer lifespans tend to slow evolution. Because evolution happens over generations, the faster generations happen the greater potential there is for potential genetic changes in a population.

3. Competition. If the old guys that have already passed on their genes are still around, sucking up resources, the likelihood that their offspring, who are likely competing for the same resources, will die is increased. This is due to increased competition. Thus, once the dirty deed is done and the offspring are off and running, there is little need for the old guys to stick around.

So, WHY did you make this misconception? Because contrary to your claims, you know jack about evolution. If you were actually informed on this subject, you'd know that it is the survival of the OFFSPRING that matters, not the survival of the individual. Such a distinction is made in even the most elementary discussions of natural selection. YOu have some serious reading up to do.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Had to chuck it because they started talking about Allah.

whats wrong with Allah? and why didnt you know what you posted?

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
whats wrong with Allah? and why didnt you know what you posted?

He runs from that kind of thing. He also has a problem with The Golden Compass. 😄

i would like to know what he thinks about the chronicals of narnia...

Originally posted by Ordo
Logic time. The inverse of a true statement is not always false, mathmateically or in practice.

The ball is red. If its not red, its not a ball.

Think on that.

As to the evolutionary advantages of death.

1. It may be impossible to overcome death, thus no matter how evolved a species, eventually biological matter breaks down. You know, that whole first law of thermo thing?

2. Longer lifespans tend to slow evolution. Because evolution happens over generations, the faster generations happen the greater potential there is for potential genetic changes in a population.

3. Competition. If the old guys that have already passed on their genes are still around, sucking up resources, the likelihood that their offspring, who are likely competing for the same resources, will die is increased. This is due to increased competition. Thus, once the dirty deed is done and the offspring are off and running, there is little need for the old guys to stick around.

So, WHY did you make this misconception? Because contrary to your claims, you know jack about evolution. If you were actually informed on this subject, you'd know that it is the survival of the OFFSPRING that matters, not the survival of the individual. Such a distinction is made in even the most elementary discussions of natural selection. YOu have some serious reading up to do.

My question remains: why the need to pass on genes or to secure or foster the survival of offspring?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
My question remains: why the need to pass on genes or to secure or foster the survival of offspring?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I am not open to the possibility that the Bible may be wrong because [B]I believe that it is the Word of God; hence, I believe the Bible is infallible. I believe that the Bible is the absolute revelation from God to humanity, not any other book (this is my belief). [/B]