Theokhoth haths seen the movie?Good, it deserves it, unlike the cash Transformers 2 brought in. . .
Theokhoth
unholymight's forum posts
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="xTheExploited"]Already? Damn that was quick.ithilgore2006Hype tends to get people moving... It takes something else to keep them moving. I'm going to go with this.
I posted, it's in the post I made which is 3 above yours.[QUOTE="unholymight"][QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"]
He needs to explain to me why it's wrong..otherwise it's just his opinion..or lack of proof..
Xx_Hopeless_xX
That appears to be nothing more then sarcasm..
I wasn't being sarcastic. You believe that God created water because you supposed that it was the only possible explanation. Well, I showed that it was in fact, not the only possible explanation (for there could be an infinite number of explanations) and that also, just because an explanation is possible does not make it true.you provided one explanation and said its fact. he doesn't need an explanation to say you're wrong...[QUOTE="smc91352"][QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"]
But there are no other logical explanations besides that...and he ignored the rest of the proofs..
Xx_Hopeless_xX
He needs to explain to me why it's wrong..otherwise it's just his opinion..or lack of proof..
I posted, it's in the post I made which is 3 above yours.could be =/= is I think that's his point...[QUOTE="smc91352"][QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"]
I'm not sure i see the logic in this point...there are possible explanations that can be made as to why the car is there..there are none for the creation of water..
Xx_Hopeless_xX
But there are no other logical explanations besides that...and he ignored the rest of the proofs..
One possible explanation for the creation of water is that I made it using dark magic never seen or heard of before, brought from the realm of Azeroth. So God is not necessarily the only possible explanation for the creation of water.God must have been having a bad day when he 'designed' the pharyngeal nerve then. Your argument was refuted more than a 150 years ago, it's called evolution.[QUOTE="the_one34"][QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"]
Consider the following self-evident and universally recognized truth: Concept and design necessitate an intelligent designer. The presence of intelligent design proves the existence of an intelligent designer. It's simply cause and effect. In our search for proof of God's existence, we could examine the various claims of supernatural occurrences, determine whether or not these are legitimate experiences, and build a case for the existence of the supernatural, which would be a step towards identifying a supernatural Creator God. Or we can just apply what we already know and search for signs of intelligent design within creation itself. We know that design necessitates a designer. In fact, in accordance with this fundamental axiom, design detection methodology is a prerequisite in many fields of human endeavor, including archaeology, anthropology, forensics, criminal jurisprudence, copyright law, patent law, reverse engineering, crypto analysis, random number generation, and SETI. And how do we recognize intelligent design? In general, we find "specified complexity" to be a reliable indicator of the presence of intelligent design. Chance can explain complexity alone but not specification -- a random sequence of letters is complex but not specified (it's meaningless). A Shakespearean sonnet is both complex and specified (it's meaningful). We can't have a Shakespearean sonnet without Shakespeare
Xx_Hopeless_xX
Proofs against evolution..:
The instructions for how to build, operate, and repair living cells represent a vast amount of information (estimated at 12 billion bits). Information is a mental, non-material concept. It canneverarise from a natural process and isalwaysthe result of an intelligence. Just as a newspaper story transcends the ink on the paper, life's DNA itself (like the ink) isnotthe information, it is simply aphysical representationor housing of the information (the story).Modifying the DNA via mutation canneverproduce new genetic informationto drive upward evolution, just as spilling coffee on the newspaper, thereby modifying the distribution of the ink, will never improve the story.
Non-livingchemicals cannot become alive on their own. The cell is a miniature factory with many active processes, not a simple blob of "protoplasm" as believed in Darwin's day. Lightening striking a mud puddle or some "warm little pond" will never produce life. This is another view of the core issue of information as the simplest living cell requires a vast amount of information to be present. The "Law of Biogenesis" states that life comes only from prior life. Spontaneous generation has long been shown to be impossible (by Louis Pasteur in 1859). Numerous efforts to bring life from non-life (including the famous Miller-Urey experiment) have not succeeded. The probability of life forming from non-life has been likened to the probability of a tornado going through a junkyard and spontaneously assembling a working 747 airplane. The idea that life on earth may have been seeded from outer space just moves the problem elsewhere.
Design is apparent in the living world. Even Richard Dawkins in his anti-creation bookThe Blind Watchmakeradmits "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." The amazing defense mechanism of the Bombardier Beetle is a ***** example of design in nature, seemingly impossible to explain as the result of accumulating small beneficial changes over time, because if the mechanism doesn't work perfectly, "boom" – no more beetle! This is also another view of the core issue of information, as the design of living things is the result of processing the information in the DNA (following the blueprint) to produce a working organism.
The idea that"nothing works until everything works."The ***** example is a mousetrap, which is irreducibly complex in that if one of its several pieces is missing or not in the right place, it will not function as a mousetrap and no mice will be caught. The systems, features, and processes of life are irreducibly complex. What good is a circulatory system without a heart? An eye without a brain to interpret the signals? What good is a half-formed wing? Doesn't matching male and female reproductive machinery need to exist at the same time, fully-functioning if any reproduction is to take place? Remember, natural selection has no foresight, and works to eliminate anything not providing an immediate benefit.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics refers to the universal tendency for things, on their own, to "mix" with their surrounding environment over time, becoming less ordered and eventually reaching a steady-state. A glass of hot water becomes room temperature, buildings decay into rubble, and the stars will eventually burn out leading to the "heat death" of the universe. However, the evolutionary scenario proposes that over time things, on their own, becamemoreordered and structured. Somehow the energy of a "Big Bang" structured itself into stars, galaxies, planets, and living things,contrary to the Second Law. It is sometimes said that the energy of the Sun was enough to overcome this tendency and allow for the formation of life on earth. However, application of energy alone is not enough to overcome this tendency; the energy must be channeled by a machine. A human must repair a building to keep it from decaying. Likewise, it is the machinery of photosynthesis which harnesses the energy of the Sun, allowing life to exist, and photosynthesis is itself a complex chemical process. The maturing of an acorn into a tree, or a zygote (the first cell resulting from fertilization) into a mature human being does not violate the Second Law as these processes are guided by the information already present in the acorn or zygote.
By definition,something must be eternal(as we have "something" today and something cannot come from "nothing", so there was never a time when there was "nothing"). Either the universe itself is eternal, or something/someone outside of and greater than the universe is eternal. We know that the universe is not eternal, it had a beginning (as evidenced by its expansion). Therefore, God (the something/someone outside of the universe) must exist and must have created the universe. Einstein showed that space and time are related. If there is no space there is no time. Before the universe was created there was no space and therefore no concept of time. This is hard for us to understand as we are space-time creatures, but it allows for God to be an eternal being, completely consistent with scientific laws. The question "who created God" is therefore an improper/invalid question, as it is a time-based question (concerning the point in time at which God came into existence) but God exists outside of time as the un-caused first cause.
Dozens of parameters are "just right" for lifeto exist on this planet. For example, if the Earth were just a little closer to the Sun it would be too hot and the ocean's water would boil away, much further and it would be covered continually in ice. Earth's circular orbit (to maintain a roughly constant temperature year-round), its rotation speed (to provide days and nights not too long or short), its tilt (to provide seasons), and the presence of the moon (to provide tides to cleanse the oceans) are just some of many other examples.
The presence of large amounts of water, with its amazing special properties, is also required. Water is a rare compound in that it is lighter in a solid state than in a liquid state. This allows ponds to freeze with the ice on the surface allowing the life beneath to survive. Otherwise bodies of water would freeze from the bottom up and become solid ice. Water is also the most universal "solvent" known, allowing for dissolving/mixing with the many different chemicals of life. In fact, our bodies are 75-85% comprised of water.
And there are plenty more..
These explanations are unusually long. It's possible that the length was needed to cover some of the errors in the reasoning.Just because it is a possible explanation does not mean it is definitely a correct explanation.[QUOTE="unholymight"][QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"]
God's existence would explain how water came to be...since humans cannot...and obviously we didn't and it didn't happen through evolution..
Xx_Hopeless_xX
It is the most logical considering..
Possible explanations are not necessarily correct explanations. For example, there is a blue car in the driveway. It is possible that a man drove it there, but this doesn't mean it was definitely a man and not a woman who drove it there. I'm not sure I see the logic in your point.We're not sure how water came to be. But that doesn't definitely mean it was created by a God.[QUOTE="unholymight"][QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"]
I like how you pick one thing out of that...explain how water came to be then..
Xx_Hopeless_xX
God's existence would explain how water came to be...since humans cannot...and obviously we didn't and it didn't happen through evolution..
Just because it is a possible explanation does not mean it is definitely a correct explanation. For example, there is a glass on the table. A possible explanation could have been that my sister put it there, but it doesn't mean it was definitely her who put it there.
Log in to comment