Athiest's are wrong, God Exists, Science proves it

tsig said:
If the designer uses nothing but natural process how can you tell it's designed?

The puddle you made is a natural puddle.

When I piddled a puddle on the ground was I a designer?
Click to expand...

Then there is the issue of design (which implies intentionality) or unintentional creation. Unintentional creation may be even more difficult to distinguish from natural happenstance.
 
Leumas said:
....so she asked why is the rainbow just made out of the 7 colors and not 8 or 6 or 10....so I explained the spectrum and excitation quantum levels of electrons in atoms and the photon nature of light....
Click to expand...

The better explanation is that Isaac Newton thought that there should be a prime number of colours, so he chose to divide up the colours in the spectrum into seven colours instead of six (which is why we have "indigo" stuck in between blue and violet, even though the difference isn't distinct enough to warrant it).

What we know now is that the rainbow, as we see it, is actually made up of different mixtures of three colours, because we're only capable of perceiving three primary colours.

(And if she asks why we can only perceive three primary colours, the answer is that there's no particular reason. Some creatures can perceive more primary colours than we do, while others perceive less.)
 
Elf Grinder 3000 said:
We are pointing out that evolution has very little evidence. So judging it in a scientific lens tells us that there is little supporting it.
Click to expand...


You have demonstrated time and again that you know virtually nothing about science in general and the scientific method in particular. Your opinions on science are uninformed and therefore irrelevant.

Your science needs to improve
Click to expand...


Science agrees! That's why it is constantly learning new things and improving on (or if necessary disproving) existing theories. This isn't a bug, it's a feature. It also means job security for untold generations of future scientists. Science knows it doesn't know everything. Religion on the other hand thinks it knows everything and revels in embarrassing, undeserved smugness.

If you want to find a group of people who stubbornly hold onto preconceived notions and falsehoods, you need look no further than hardcore religious types. The same group of geniuses who took over 300 years to realize that Galileo was right.
 
tsig said:
If the designer uses nothing but natural process how can you tell it's designed?

The puddle you made is a natural puddle.

When I piddled a puddle on the ground was I a designer?
Click to expand...


That reminds me of that joke about finding a message written in the snow on the White House's front lawn.

I wonder if the same applies to the universe... is it a message as below, and if so who was the writer and whose "pen" did s/he/it use to write it???

What will it read when we can eventually read it....will it be "We apologize for the inconvenience"???

WARNING!!! NSFW

The message read: "Obama is a loser".

Irate the President commissioned the FBI to investigate. They came back later and told him that they had bad news and good news.

The good news was that they have identified the culprit since DNA analysis revealed that it was written using urine piddled directly out of Mitt Romney.

The bad news is that the handwriting analysis revealed that it was written by Hillary Clinton.


N.B. I updated the joke for contemporary players but the joke might not work given the rarity of snow these days.:p
 
Last edited:
Trakar said:
If the universe was here exactly as it is but sans us, would "design" be an issue? The entire Christian creation mythos is human centric, elimination of the human element pretty much unravels the entire fabric of the foundational story. At the very least a universe sans humanity would be irrelevant to Christian considerations regardless of scientific interest or impact.
Click to expand...

Is the obverse true then? Since we are here, the questions are worth asking?
 
tsig said:
If the designer uses nothing but natural process how can you tell it's designed?

The puddle you made is a natural puddle.

When I piddled a puddle on the ground was I a designer?
Click to expand...

Is it possible to design something (and make it) without using natural processes? But, other than that, a good restatement of the questions under discussion - how can we tell, or can't we?
 
Brian-M said:
The better explanation is that Isaac Newton thought that there should be a prime number of colours, so he chose to divide up the colours in the spectrum into seven colours instead of six (which is why we have "indigo" stuck in between blue and violet, even though the difference isn't distinct enough to warrant it).

What we know now is that the rainbow, as we see it, is actually made up of different mixtures of three colours, because we're only capable of perceiving three primary colours.

(And if she asks why we can only perceive three primary colours, the answer is that there's no particular reason. Some creatures can perceive more primary colours than we do, while others perceive less.)
Click to expand...


That is interesting information about Newton... I didn't know that.

On a later why-session I had to explain to her about rods and cones and so forth. But as a radiologist she is now past my teaching her things since she "knows it all and better than an old fart". :mad:
 
Last edited:
Leumas said:
It is more like what I used to tell my daughter after an endless session of "why?".... Because .

She once asked why is the sky blue.... I explained the rainbow and refraction and wave nature of light....so she asked why is the rainbow just made out of the 7 colors and not 8 or 6 or 10....so I explained the spectrum and excitation quantum levels of electrons in atoms and the photon nature of light.... so she asked why there were atoms and electrons.... so I finally had to say .... BECAUSE.

Do you think mountains were designed? Do you think the paths of rivers were designed? Do you think the ripples in the sand dunes of the Sahara were designed?

http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4026/4376429711_3848a5ecbe_o.gif

Edited by zooterkin: 
Edited for rule 5. See the list of sites that permit hotlinking. Flickr requires a link back to the original image.



Why should the universe be any more designed than the rocks in the above picture? Or do you think some Designer designed the above rock?

Just because you can envisage the shape of a bunny rabbit in the fluffy cumulous clouds it does not mean that there is such a pattern nor even if in fact there happened to be a real shape there that it was designed.

I cannot see why would anyone even think that there is any apparent (let alone actual) design in the CHAOS that is the universe in the first place to even proceed to ponder over who designed it.

When primitive people used to rattle the bones of a dead animal and then throw them on the ground and proceed to divine significance in the resulting patterns, they really took it seriously that they were being given divine messages.

Nowadays most people are too sophisticated to take seriously the patterns in the entrails of flayed animals, but many still think there are divine messages in the stars and cosmos..... more advanced primitive thinking.... that is all there is to it.... people have swapped the patterns in the dried up bones and entrails of dead animals for the patterns they imaginatively conceive in the cosmos.
Click to expand...

Indeed,

One slight niggle - you can see many more colours in the rainbow than seven, Issac Newton just decided to name another purplish colour "Indigo" to fit with his penchant for numerology as seven was a more magical number than six.

One can separate loads of hues within the rainbow.

ETA ninjad by Brian M.
 
Last edited:
I'm not so sure there is a single "theistic viewpoint" to address. Beliefs among theists are as varied as they are among atheists. I have gone to great lengths to understand the viewpoints of specific religions and ideologies, but theism as a whole is too broad to make generalizations about.

I can sort of see Dinwar's point though, and I'm not going to broad-brush theists either way. The ones I have a problem with are the specific individuals who abuse their religion to harm others or spread ignorance. Therefore if the OP decides to participate in this thread again and says something specific that I can respond to, I certainly will, without going on to say that "all theists believe this" and therefore "all theists are ignorant dolts."
 
Elf Grinder 3000 said:
We are pointing out that evolution has very little evidence. So judging it in a scientific lens tells us that there is little supporting it.

Your science needs to improve
Click to expand...

Do yourself a favor and read all the responses that have been made to your inquiries in this thread. The people here have very patiently provided you with links, sources, and evidence. The least you could do is show them the same courtesy by studying what they have given you. Just because you're unwilling to read it doesn't mean it's not there. I don't know where you're getting your definition of "science" but it does not mean ignoring things that contradict your preconceived notions.
 
Elf Grinder 3000 said:
We are pointing out that evolution has very little evidence. So judging it in a scientific lens tells us that there is little supporting it.

Your science needs to improve
Click to expand...

In support of your point of view, falsifying evolution is incredibly easy. All you have to do is find evidence of a modern mammal, even man, living at the same time as a dinosaur. Something indisputably in the same strata of rock, laid down at the same time (rather than disturbed later)...........and the whole story collapses. It's genuinely as simple as that.

Any reason why you creationists haven't managed that in 200 years?
 
MikeG said:
In support of your point of view, falsifying evolution is incredibly easy. All you have to do is find evidence of a modern mammal, even man, living at the same time as a dinosaur. Something indisputably in the same strata of rock, laid down at the same time (rather than disturbed later)...........and the whole story collapses. It's genuinely as simple as that.

Any reason why you creationists haven't managed that in 200 years?
Click to expand...

Or they could find the half-one-thing-half-another "crocoduck" that they think the TOE is in search of for a transitional fossil.
 
Nonpareil said:
No need. We found it for them.
Click to expand...

Well, that's an actual transitional fossil; what I had in mind was (from that article)
...a crocoduck, an imagined hybrid animal with the head of a crocodile and the body of a duck.
Click to expand...

IOW, the creationist (specifically, Kirk Cameron's) cartoony misunderstanding of "transitional fossil." Since the TOE doesn't actually predict such a thing, it would go a long way toward falsifying it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom