ImaginalDisc, I was just reading your response again and it hit me, BAM!
You say that common sense, alone, is not enough to tell if something is true or not. Well, that's not "always" true so it's not very scientific of you, is it?
No, he is quite correct, and his statement is perfectly scientific. "Common sense", ill defined as it is, can sometimes lead to correct conclusions. However, it can also lead to incorrect conclusions. "Common sense" is therefor unreliable and must be tested using the scientific method to determine its validity in any given situation. It was once considered "common sense" by many bright people to conclude that time was a universal constant, and that the universe was static.
For example, my common sense tells me that if I should jump off the top of a skyscraper, without a parachute or anything else to slow my descent, and I land on the concrete, maybe 500 feet below, then I am going to suffer some pretty severe injuries, maybe even die, right? That's an example of using "only" common sense to determine whether or not something is true, right?
No. You know that such a fall will likely result in death because many people have suffered just such a fate. You know from experience that falling hurts, and you know from experience that falling from a great height usually kills.
You also say the universe "stuns" us, as if to infer that this universe is not only intelligent, but SUPER-intelligent, which all rational thinking folks must conclude.
This is complete nonsense. I can be stunned by the beauty of a mountain range without the inference that the mountain range is intelligent and is acting deliberately to impress me. I can also be stunned by utter stupidity. By the way, you really should learn the difference between "imply" and "infer".
Yet, you wish to continue this incredibly illogical argument that super-complex systems simply come into being WITHOUT any intelligence directing this orderliness? This is, without question, the single most absurd argument in the history of mankind.
There is plenty of evidence that complex arrangements of matter result from natural processes without the need for intelligent intervention. Evolutionary biology shows us exactly how simple, self replicating patters can add complexity to subsequent generations through a process of random mutations that are acted upon by the environment to "select" new arrangements that are better able to make copies of themselves.
You, on the other hand, have yet to demonstrate anything.
I understand that common sense told us the earth just had to be flat becaue people would fall off the side of a ball, right? Of course, this was before we understood what gravity is.
And in your case, your "common sense" telling you that complex things must have been deliberately designed by a consciousness is a result of your lack of understanding of the natural forces that add complexity to complex structures.
I simply can't get anyone on this forum to tell me how order can be established without some form of intelligence first existing to establish this orderliness. Believing that unintelligent matter just came together somehow, naturally, all by itself, is totally absurd, completely irrational, therefore false!!!!
Stop the madness!!!!!!
This is not true. Many people have attempted to explain it to you only to be ignored. Exactly why this is the case is something only you can really answer, assuming you can be honest with yourself.
Let's try one more time anyway:
There is nothing magical about the production of the various element in the universe. These elements are produced in stars through well understood processes of nuclear fusion. These various elements interact and interlock with one another to produce combinations with new properties. Some of these elements can interact in complex ways. Carbon, for example, can interact in a huge variety of ways to produce complex structures. We can demonstrate that organic (meaning "carbon based", not necessarily "alive") compounds generate more complex structures when exposed to energy sources. These more complex structures are the building blocks of life. We don't yet understand how these building blocks interacted to form the first rudimentary self-replication molecules, but the problem is being worked on with great energy and enthusiasm. At any rate, we know that self replicating molecules are subject to mutations that alter their structures. Many of these mutations can effect the further reproductive success of the molecules carrying the new combination in either beneficial or detrimental ways. If they make the molecules less reproductively successful within their environment then these new combinations will decrease in frequency among the population. If they lead to an increase in the reproductive success then the new combination will increase in frequency among the overall population. The factors that determine the success or failure of the mutations are environmental. This is "natural selection", random mutations being acted upon by environmental factors. In this way we can understand how great complexity can be generated from simpler origins. There is nothing that says that simple, self replicating molecules can't add complexity over hundreds of millions of years until we reach the point of a human brain.
