18 Jul 23
@indonesia-phil saidHe's been claiming on another forum that I don't answer questions. Let's see if that was a legitimate complaint or just a distraction to cloud an actual issue he couldn't debate.
A better idea might be to suggest that you ask alternate questions of one another. Kellyjay is the master of asking questions, completely ignoring any answers or explanations given, then ignoring any questions put to him.
19 Jul 23
@vivify saidDo you believe all of the specified functional complexity in life as on-off mechanisms, error checking, and systems working in and with other systems are all due to mindless processes? If so what are the positive reasons for such a conclusion?
Okay, Kelly. What questions do you want me to answer?
19 Jul 23
@kellyjay saidThere's no reason at this time to believe otherwise. It's all about evidence. I'm not closed to the idea there's just nothing yet pointing that way.
Do you believe all of the specified functional complexity in life as on-off mechanisms, error checking, and systems working in and with other systems are all due to mindless processes? If so what are the positive reasons for such a conclusion?
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 121483
19 Jul 23
@indonesia-phil saidExactly.
A better idea might be to suggest that you ask alternate questions of one another. Kellyjay is the master of asking questions, completely ignoring any answers or explanations given, then ignoring any questions put to him.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 121483
19 Jul 23
@kellyjay saidSecond verse same as the first
Do you believe all of the specified functional complexity in life as on-off mechanisms, error checking, and systems working in and with other systems are all due to mindless processes? If so what are the positive reasons for such a conclusion?
I'm Henry the eighth I am
Henry the eighth I am, I am
I got married to the widow next door
She's been married seven times before
19 Jul 23
@vivify saidWhen we see things we can read and even more important that also carry instructional information guide processes are without exception through a mind that isn't nothing. You can read your name with a few letters arranged specifically spelling your name that points to you, you know someone wrote it, your genetic name is with billions of pieces of code that also point to you, and you cannot see that as something even more significant. With a few letters, you can recognize a mind behind it due to the meaning of the arrangement of the letters. So, with more than a few letters we see an arrangement of billions you think it is reasonable that DNA can be arranged to point to you is a result of only time, chance, and necessity through a mindless process, that is evidence. You can ignore it, but you cannot say it is meaningless and not there.
There's no reason at this time to believe otherwise. It's all about evidence. I'm not closed to the idea there's just nothing yet pointing that way.
19 Jul 23
@kellyjay saidI can see why you think this and I don't blame you. The problem is identifying what is "design" in nature.
When we see things we can read and even more important that also carry instructional information guide processes are without exception through a mind that isn't nothing. You can read your name with a few letters arranged specifically spelling your name that points to you, you know someone wrote it, your genetic name is with billions of pieces of code that also point to you, ...[text shortened]... s process, that is evidence. You can ignore it, but you cannot say it is meaningless and not there.
For example: are rainbows designed? Did an intelligent being specifically create them? Or are they just an accident of refracted light?
Did a creator deliberately make the Island Rail, a small bird without the ability to fly? Evolution better explains this bird since it has no natural enemies and lost the ability to fly, which takes up energy.
Or what about the immense vast empty expanse of space: did a creator purposely create a universe that's mostly emptiness? Did a creator purposely design a universe that's mostly hostile to life as we know it?
This is why "design" doesn't work for science and a naturalistic answer is preferred.
And the biggest flaw with intelligent design is that it's used by Christians as an alternative to evolution. If Intelligent design is to have any hope of being accepted as a scientific premise, you have to accept that a designer also created the process of evolution. You have to accept that humans evolved from ape ancestors rather than the Biblical account.
19 Jul 23
@vivify saidI believe He created it all without exception. The way it is setup is understandable to us, and I believe Albert E. said one of the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is, it is comprehensible.
I can see why you think this and I don't blame you. The problem is identifying what is "design" in nature.
For example: are rainbows designed? Did an intelligent being specifically create them? Or are they just an accident of refracted light?
Did a creator deliberately make the Island Rail, a small bird without the ability to fly? Evolution better explains this bir ...[text shortened]... lution. You have to accept that humans evolved from ape ancestors rather than the Biblical account.
We can tell when something is done with intelligence and that which mindless processes do something, they are both found here. As right and wrong!
19 Jul 23
1 edit
@kellyjay saidWas a rainbow designed? Or is it an accident of refracted light?
I believe He created it all without exception. The way it is setup is understandable to us, and I believe Albert E. said one of the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is, it is comprehensible.
We can tell when something is done with intelligence and that which mindless processes do something, they are both found here. As right and wrong!
19 Jul 23
1 edit
@kellyjay saidAnd this is why supporters of intelligent design are not taken seriously. Rainbows don't actually exist, they are an effect of water droplets scattering light. It's no different from shadows cast on a wall; the shadow is not an actual physical thing it's merely an effect of blocked light.
You ever read about Noah?
Proponents of intelligent design have no way to differentiate between what is designed and what is not apart from their opinion, which is often wrong as illustrated by the Noah story.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
19 Jul 23
@kellyjay saidDude... get off the weed.
When we see things we can read and even more important that also carry instructional information guide processes are without exception through a mind that isn't nothing. You can read your name with a few letters arranged specifically spelling your name that points to you, you know someone wrote it, your genetic name is with billions of pieces of code that also point to you, ...[text shortened]... s process, that is evidence. You can ignore it, but you cannot say it is meaningless and not there.
20 Jul 23
@vivify saidThey are visible to us, and how they are manifested with water seems poetic. I find it amazing you don't concern yourself with the instructions in life but with rainbows and shadows all over it. Just so I know who said that rainbows and shadows were actually physical things? The arrangement of proteins and other such things that make up life are physical things, you seem to ignore those.
And this is why supporters of intelligent design are not taken seriously. Rainbows don't actually exist, they are an effect of water droplets scattering light. It's no different from shadows cast on a wall; the shadow is not an actual physical thing it's merely an effect of blocked light.
Proponents of intelligent design have no way to differentiate between what is desi ...[text shortened]... ned and what is not apart from their opinion, which is often wrong as illustrated by the Noah story.