| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Budikka666" |
| Date: |
15 Apr 2006 08:01:26 PM |
| Object: |
Another "Missing Link" Hominid Found |
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7086/abs/nature04629.html
and
tinyurl.com/z7uu7
The creationists are being pushed further and further into the darkest
corners with their god of the gaps "argument". One wonders if
eventually they'll go >*poof*< and simply disappear. Hope springs
eternal.
Budikka
.
|
|
| User: "¬Saba Gracile¬" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation Challenge: Where is Positive Scientific Evidence for ID? |
20 Apr 2006 05:39:18 AM |
|
|
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> skrev i melding
news:1145494660.090448.37120@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
¬ Saba Gracile¬ wrote:
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> skrev i melding
I can see why you're too chicken to take up the debate offer if this
weak and ancient blind faith approach is all you have. But please note
that the debate requested **POSITIVE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE** not blind
belief and grade-school debating society "argument".
--->blind faith like you have in a Darwin guy who dissed his own work?
Real scientists are always skeptics, even about their own work, but
since we have 150 years of solid scientific support for the Theory that
Darwin first put together, your comments serve to show only the depth
of your profound ignorance.
The Theory of Evolution is far, far, far from blind faith - it is a
scientific theory which has gained a wealth of support over the last
150 years.
--->if you want to cook up evidence for some theory then it would be possible,
but that's all that they have done. NO evidence for evolution happening in big-scaled
events like it's claimed to be, from these fantasy images they have in their heads.
And, Darwin assumed they would find all his missing links, and they didn't which
would make any scientist with respect for his work deny that this was valid at all!
Case closed.
S
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Goren" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation Challenge: Where is Positive Scientific Evidence forID? |
20 Apr 2006 11:54:39 AM |
|
|
¬Saba Gracile¬ wrote:
And, Darwin assumed they would find all his missing links, and
they didn't
Ah, I see. You're a bog-standard liar-for-Jesus.
Dude, just this past week or two, paleontologists have announced
transitional fish, snakes, and proto-humans.
Here's a hint: if you want to be taken seriously, don't contradict
what the front pages of every newspaper agree on.
Cheers,
b&
--
EAC Memographer
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
``All but God can prove this sentence true.''
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
| User: "-¬Saba Gracile-¬" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation Challenge: Where is Positive Scientific Evidence for ID? |
22 Apr 2006 07:04:42 AM |
|
|
"Ben Goren" <ben@trumpetpower.com> skrev i melding news:gvqkh3-fqr.ln1@reiche.trumpetpower.com...
¬Saba Gracile¬ wrote:
And, Darwin assumed they would find all his missing links, and
they didn't
Ah, I see. You're a bog-standard liar-for-Jesus.
Dude, just this past week or two, paleontologists have announced
transitional fish, snakes, and proto-humans.
Here's a hint: if you want to be taken seriously, don't contradict
what the front pages of every newspaper agree on.
Cheers,
b&
FYI, strange looking fish, snakes, and ugly humans with longer forehead is not the
same as transitions, even if you evolutionists want it so bad to be that. See?
Saba
--
EAC Memographer
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
``All but God can prove this sentence true.''
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mindfucked" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation Challenge: Where is Positive Scientific Evidence for ID? |
19 Apr 2006 09:15:22 PM |
|
|
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1145494660.090448.37120@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Answer the question or you will be labeled a coward on top of the
hypocrite and liar labels you've garnered for yourself in this message
alone.
Logically then, you qualify for the labels of coward, hypocrite and liar for
your repeated refusal to answer the following question, despite having
conditionally agreeing to answer the question then deceitfully running away
when the conditions you set were complied with:
Why, specifically, is saying:
"How is standing next to a nuclear missile about to detonate like
refusing to take the perceptual leap required to believe that because
something concievably or demonstrably could have occurred a certain
way, it did happen that way?"
Inconsistent with saying:
"evolution (which is an abstract noun) is a provisional
understanding, subject to revision if and when a more cogent understanding
is arrived at."?
A question you have been running from for several weeks, ever since the
question was asked in thread:
http://tinyurl.com/zueb3
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "¬Saba Gracile¬" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation Challenge: Where is Positive Scientific Evidence for ID? |
19 Apr 2006 12:34:14 PM |
|
|
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> skrev i melding
news:1145406285.298921.283940@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
¬ Saba Gracile¬ wrote:
"Les Hellawell" <myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> skrev i melding
news:f1e94212kaurtmpp4rit26q01icsif1bjj@4ax.com...
On 17 Apr 2006 15:51:40 -0700, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net>
wrote:
¬ Saba Gracile¬ wrote:
"R. Pierce Butler" <spamsucks@google.com> skrev i melding
news:Xns97A76CA151FA9mc2500183316chgoill@10.232.1.1...
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in
news:1145165495.795094.327100@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com:
Dork ***** wrote:
This is more than likely another hoax in a long list of evolutionist
hoaxes
I'd be delighted to debate with you the positive scientific evidence
for creation or ID in the news group or on the web site of your choice,
provided that I can access it. Simply post your ~25K openign argument
and I'll knock it flat. I set only two conditions:
1. You have to find the evidence. So far you have failed 100% in
this.
2. You have to summon up the guts to debate me. So far you have
failed 100% in this, too.
Meanwhile the Theory of Evolution - the *only* scientifically
established explanation for the **FACT** of evolution - garners ever
more scientifically established evidence almost daily.
Budikka
The creationists motto seems to be "Don't bother me with facts".
Ever single one of them has and likely will continue to run away when asked
for concrete evidence.
pierce
o duh, if I find something in the garden while digging in it, I'll just assume it's
a missing link ho hoho...
I'm throwing open the same offer I made to the Dork, since he fled it
like a startled cat. Let's see if any of you can field it better than
he. Anyone can post idiotic messages on Usenet. The creationists
prove that repeatedly. But can even one of you stand behind your
assertions with scientific facts to support you? My assertion is that
you cannot. Let's test that assertion.
I am still waiting for these scientists to find god. For all their
claimed scientific knowledge and college degrees they do not even
seem to know where to look.
If one takes a computer and looks inside it how neatly it is designed and
also comes with software and all the programs necessary for it's particular
function fully functioning in all its glory, would you ask where the human
who made it can be found? You wouldn't even assume that it wasn't a
designer of it somewhere.
Saba
I can see why you're too chicken to take up the debate offer if this
weak and ancient blind faith approach is all you have. But please note
that the debate requested **POSITIVE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE** not blind
belief and grade-school debating society "argument".
The only reason we know that computers are designed is that we know
that computers are designed. It really is that simple.
The very definition of "artificial" is something that doesn't occur
naturally. We have examples of computers that we know for a fact were
designed by humans, so *naturally* when we see another computer, even
if we do not know who designed it, we can state quite confidently that
it was designed by humans.
On the other hand, we have no examples of universes that we know for a
fact to have been designed by gods, so we have nothing with which to
compare *this* universe.
Let me ask you a question. Suppose someone - a human - designed a tree
and constructed it from scratch using only natural materials, emulating
a natural tree exactly. Then supposing this human planted that tree
right next to the one from which it was copied. What criteria would
you use to distinguish the two trees?
Exactly.
You lose. Buh-bye now. Next please.
Budikka
----> I believe in science I believe in what I see I see intelligent work at hand I see that
the evidence support spontaneous creation of beings, new speices popping up what
are you whining about, that your scientists can't get their finger out of their ***** and get
with the program and turns fantasycreatures that don't even exist in earths layers into
evolution theories? You are the stupid gullible laughing stock who believes in things that
does not exist!
Saba
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mindfucked" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation Challenge: Where is Positive Scientific Evidence for ID? |
19 Apr 2006 02:09:20 PM |
|
|
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1145406285.298921.283940@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
I can see why you're too chicken
Are you free-range or battery, Budikka? - Inquiring minds want to know...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation Challenge: Where is Positive Scientific Evidence for ID? |
18 Apr 2006 10:08:36 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 12:41:10 +0200, in alt.atheism , "¬ Saba Gracile¬"
<veronisc@frisurf.no> in <r6CdnULvn4nSX9nZRVnzvA@telenor.com> wrote:
[snip]
If one takes a computer and looks inside it how neatly it is designed and
also comes with software and all the programs necessary for it's particular
function fully functioning in all its glory, would you ask where the human
who made it can be found? You wouldn't even assume that it wasn't a
designer of it somewhere.
Do you think that computers resemble biological organisms? If so, how?
And do you know of anything in the world that, in your view, does not
look designed?
[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "¬ Saba Gracile¬" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation Challenge: Where is Positive Scientific Evidence for ID? |
18 Apr 2006 12:50:01 PM |
|
|
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> skrev i melding
news:k50a42lgcn3moho5ao2bk0bis8jhu3pgec@4ax.com...
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 12:41:10 +0200, in alt.atheism , "¬ Saba Gracile¬"
<veronisc@frisurf.no> in <r6CdnULvn4nSX9nZRVnzvA@telenor.com> wrote:
[snip]
If one takes a computer and looks inside it how neatly it is designed and
also comes with software and all the programs necessary for it's particular
function fully functioning in all its glory, would you ask where the human
who made it can be found? You wouldn't even assume that it wasn't a
designer of it somewhere.
Do you think that computers resemble biological organisms? If so, how?
And do you know of anything in the world that, in your view, does not
look designed?
[snip]
TEch resemble biological technology yes, very much so. And one day they
will be able to combine the too, the bio technology is still very much in its infancy.
No I can't come up with an organism that doesn't *look* created as of now. I'll think
about that one.
Saba
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation Challenge: Where is Positive Scientific Evidence for ID? |
18 Apr 2006 07:42:55 PM |
|
|
=AC Saba Gracile=AC wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> skrev i m=
elding
news:k50a42lgcn3moho5ao2bk0bis8jhu3pgec@4ax.com...
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 12:41:10 +0200, in alt.atheism , "=AC Saba Gracile=
=AC"
<veronisc@frisurf.no> in <r6CdnULvn4nSX9nZRVnzvA@telenor.com> wrote:
[snip]
If one takes a computer and looks inside it how neatly it is designed a=
nd
also comes with software and all the programs necessary for it's partic=
ular
function fully functioning in all its glory, would you ask where the hu=
man
who made it can be found? You wouldn't even assume that it wasn't a
designer of it somewhere.
Do you think that computers resemble biological organisms? If so, how?
And do you know of anything in the world that, in your view, does not
look designed?
[snip]
TEch resemble biological technology yes, very much so. And one day they
will be able to combine the too, the bio technology is still very much in=
its infancy.
No I can't come up with an organism that doesn't *look* created as of now=
.. I'll think
about that one.
We're waiting. We're not holding our breath. Meanwhile, why not turn
that razor-sharp intellect of yours into thinking up sources for
**POSTIVE SCIENTIFICALLY VALID EVIDENCE SUPPORTING INTELLIGENT DESIGN
CREATION**?
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "¬ Saba Gracile¬" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation Challenge: Where is Positive Scientific Evidence for ID? |
19 Apr 2006 04:52:55 AM |
|
|
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> skrev i melding
news:1145407375.520805.212940@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
¬ Saba Gracile¬ wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> skrev i melding
news:k50a42lgcn3moho5ao2bk0bis8jhu3pgec@4ax.com...
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 12:41:10 +0200, in alt.atheism , "¬ Saba Gracile¬"
<veronisc@frisurf.no> in <r6CdnULvn4nSX9nZRVnzvA@telenor.com> wrote:
[snip]
If one takes a computer and looks inside it how neatly it is designed and
also comes with software and all the programs necessary for it's particular
function fully functioning in all its glory, would you ask where the human
who made it can be found? You wouldn't even assume that it wasn't a
designer of it somewhere.
Do you think that computers resemble biological organisms? If so, how?
And do you know of anything in the world that, in your view, does not
look designed?
[snip]
TEch resemble biological technology yes, very much so. And one day they
will be able to combine the too, the bio technology is still very much in its infancy.
No I can't come up with an organism that doesn't *look* created as of now. I'll think
about that one.
We're waiting. We're not holding our breath. Meanwhile, why not turn
that razor-sharp intellect of yours into thinking up sources for
**POSTIVE SCIENTIFICALLY VALID EVIDENCE SUPPORTING INTELLIGENT DESIGN
CREATION**?
Budikka
--YOU try come up with one organism, even the smallest, stupidest fuckups of organism
you can think of, that doesn't play out anything man has made on earth, that man can not
create because of it's complexity? you can't figure out ONE thing that's without unfathomable
intelligent care of design.
Saba
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dill Weed Doris" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation Challenge: Where is Positive Scientific Evidence for ID? |
19 Apr 2006 09:28:51 AM |
|
|
"¬ Saba Gracile¬" <veronisc@frisurf.no> wrote in message
news:mPidnSGZSawcldvZRVnzvA@telenor.com...
--YOU try come up with one organism, even the smallest, stupidest fuckups
of organism
you can think of,
How can you say this when there are hundreds of thousands of examples of
Evolution out there and nothing for a creation but a few old scrolls written
by a small sect in a small part of the earth 2000 years ago? Haven't you
ever visited a good Museum? All the larger Museums have excellent displays
of ancient life and it's progression. I can also tell you've read nothing
but Creationist literature there evolution is concerned. You seem to have
no idea what it is or what it means.
that doesn't play out anything man has made on earth, that man can not
create because of it's complexity? you can't figure out ONE thing that's
without unfathomable
intelligent care of design.
Saba
--
Dill.......
Hellooooooo I will reprint it for you...."The Watchtower is not the
instrument of any man or any set of men...." In that case how did they get
the 1914 prediction flat wrong??? This statement is a clear indicator that
they are saying the WT is from GOD and no other. Where is the proof thet the
WT is God's instrument and not just the blatherings of men??? IT CAN'T BE
BOTH. Would a JW consider the bible to be the blatherings of men?? NO, it's
inspired by God himself they say. It isn't both, how can the WT be?
(Credit Derek)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "¬Saba Gracile¬" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation Challenge: Where is Positive Scientific Evidence for ID? |
19 Apr 2006 12:16:46 PM |
|
|
"Dill Weed Doris" <none@none.none> skrev i melding
news:4Or1g.4010$MM6.3412@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
"¬ Saba Gracile¬" <veronisc@frisurf.no> wrote in message
news:mPidnSGZSawcldvZRVnzvA@telenor.com...
--YOU try come up with one organism, even the smallest, stupidest fuckups
of organism
you can think of,
How can you say this when there are hundreds of thousands of examples of
Evolution out there and nothing for a creation but a few old scrolls written
by a small sect in a small part of the earth 2000 years ago? Haven't you
ever visited a good Museum? All the larger Museums have excellent displays
of ancient life and it's progression. I can also tell you've read nothing
but Creationist literature there evolution is concerned. You seem to have
no idea what it is or what it means.
that doesn't play out anything man has made on earth, that man can not
create because of it's complexity? you can't figure out ONE thing that's
without unfathomable
intelligent care of design.
I believe in science I believe in what I see I see intelligent work at hand I see that
the evidence support spontaneous creation of beings, new speices popping up what
are you whining about, that your scientists can't get with the program and turns
fantasycreatures that doesn't even exist in earths layers into evolution theories?
You are the stupid gullible laughing stock who believes in things that does not
exist!
Saba
Saba
--
Dill.......
Hellooooooo I will reprint it for you...."The Watchtower is not the
instrument of any man or any set of men...." In that case how did they get
the 1914 prediction flat wrong??? This statement is a clear indicator that
they are saying the WT is from GOD and no other. Where is the proof thet the
WT is God's instrument and not just the blatherings of men??? IT CAN'T BE
BOTH. Would a JW consider the bible to be the blatherings of men?? NO, it's
inspired by God himself they say. It isn't both, how can the WT be?
(Credit Derek)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "Momma Mia" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation Challenge: Where is Positive Scientific Evidence for ID? |
20 Apr 2006 12:40:03 AM |
|
|
"¬Saba Gracile¬" <veronisc@frisurf.no> wrote in message
news:huqdnffiHpMU7dvZRVnzvA@telenor.com...
I believe in science I believe in what I see I see intelligent work at
hand I see that
the evidence support spontaneous creation of beings, new speices popping
up what
are you whining about,
What new species popping up? Where are they suddenly appearing?
that your scientists can't get with the program and turns
fantasycreatures that doesn't even exist in earths layers into evolution
theories?
You are the stupid gullible laughing stock who believes in things that
does not
exist!
What fantasy creatures? What are you talking about? Dinosaurs?
Neanderthals? How could they have left their skeletons if they never
existed?
MM........
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jabriol" <jabriol1@excite.com> Antonio L Santana
news:9e9431eb.0408131047.227f1e7@posting.google.com
Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2004 2:45 AM message inciting murder:
youre doomed.. you know it.
Help put this woman out of her misery
Note: Antonio L Santana then goes on to suggest slitting
her throat or suffocation as a means of death for his victim.
````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
-------------
Get FREE newsgroup access from http://www.cheap56k.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation Challenge: Where is Positive Scientific Evidence for ID? |
18 Apr 2006 02:40:33 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 19:50:01 +0200, in alt.atheism , "¬ Saba Gracile¬"
<veronisc@frisurf.no> in <A_idnWurF95Lu9jZRVnzvA@telenor.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> skrev i melding
news:k50a42lgcn3moho5ao2bk0bis8jhu3pgec@4ax.com...
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 12:41:10 +0200, in alt.atheism , "¬ Saba Gracile¬"
<veronisc@frisurf.no> in <r6CdnULvn4nSX9nZRVnzvA@telenor.com> wrote:
[snip]
If one takes a computer and looks inside it how neatly it is designed and
also comes with software and all the programs necessary for it's particular
function fully functioning in all its glory, would you ask where the human
who made it can be found? You wouldn't even assume that it wasn't a
designer of it somewhere.
Do you think that computers resemble biological organisms? If so, how?
And do you know of anything in the world that, in your view, does not
look designed?
[snip]
TEch resemble biological technology yes, very much so.
They reproduce themselves?
And one day they
will be able to combine the too, the bio technology is still very much in its infancy.
Which will say what, exactly, regarding the design of biological
organisms.
No I can't come up with an organism that doesn't *look* created as of now. I'll think
about that one.
No, I want to know what non-organism does not look designed. That is,
if you think life was designed are there non-designed things in the
world?
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "¬ Saba Gracile¬" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation Challenge: Where is Positive Scientific Evidence for ID? |
19 Apr 2006 04:51:07 AM |
|
|
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> skrev i melding
news:93ga42h63dcgqm1dqb9tjs9c0nhlputkju@4ax.com...
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 19:50:01 +0200, in alt.atheism , "¬ Saba Gracile¬"
<veronisc@frisurf.no> in <A_idnWurF95Lu9jZRVnzvA@telenor.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> skrev i melding
news:k50a42lgcn3moho5ao2bk0bis8jhu3pgec@4ax.com...
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 12:41:10 +0200, in alt.atheism , "¬ Saba Gracile¬"
<veronisc@frisurf.no> in <r6CdnULvn4nSX9nZRVnzvA@telenor.com> wrote:
[snip]
If one takes a computer and looks inside it how neatly it is designed and
also comes with software and all the programs necessary for it's particular
function fully functioning in all its glory, would you ask where the human
who made it can be found? You wouldn't even assume that it wasn't a
designer of it somewhere.
Do you think that computers resemble biological organisms? If so, how?
And do you know of anything in the world that, in your view, does not
look designed?
[snip]
TEch resemble biological technology yes, very much so.
They reproduce themselves?
is that the only thing required for you to make them similar? the intelligence in it, the
intelligence.
And one day they
will be able to combine the too, the bio technology is still very much in its infancy.
Which will say what, exactly, regarding the design of biological
organisms.
No I can't come up with an organism that doesn't *look* created as of now. I'll think
about that one.
No, I want to know what non-organism does not look designed. That is,
if you think life was designed are there non-designed things in the
world?
Like rocks on the ground that are not created singlehandedly, if that's what your after?
what the hell does that prove?
Saba
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation Challenge: Where is Positive Scientific Evidence for ID? |
19 Apr 2006 09:54:15 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 11:51:07 +0200, in alt.atheism , "¬ Saba Gracile¬"
<veronisc@frisurf.no> in <bf6dnccC1baIldvZRVnzvA@telenor.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> skrev i melding
news:93ga42h63dcgqm1dqb9tjs9c0nhlputkju@4ax.com...
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 19:50:01 +0200, in alt.atheism , "¬ Saba Gracile¬"
<veronisc@frisurf.no> in <A_idnWurF95Lu9jZRVnzvA@telenor.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> skrev i melding
news:k50a42lgcn3moho5ao2bk0bis8jhu3pgec@4ax.com...
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 12:41:10 +0200, in alt.atheism , "¬ Saba Gracile¬"
<veronisc@frisurf.no> in <r6CdnULvn4nSX9nZRVnzvA@telenor.com> wrote:
[snip]
If one takes a computer and looks inside it how neatly it is designed and
also comes with software and all the programs necessary for it's particular
function fully functioning in all its glory, would you ask where the human
who made it can be found? You wouldn't even assume that it wasn't a
designer of it somewhere.
Do you think that computers resemble biological organisms? If so, how?
And do you know of anything in the world that, in your view, does not
look designed?
[snip]
TEch resemble biological technology yes, very much so.
They reproduce themselves?
is that the only thing required for you to make them similar? the intelligence in it, the
intelligence.
Do you understand that assuming your conclusion is not a valid
argument. I pointed out a major difference, perhaps you can show, from
the evidence, the resemblance. If you think there is "intelligence" in
them then please present your evidence and argument.
And one day they
will be able to combine the too, the bio technology is still very much in its infancy.
Which will say what, exactly, regarding the design of biological
organisms.
No I can't come up with an organism that doesn't *look* created as of now. I'll think
about that one.
No, I want to know what non-organism does not look designed. That is,
if you think life was designed are there non-designed things in the
world?
Like rocks on the ground that are not created singlehandedly, if that's what your after?
what the hell does that prove?
So you think that rocks are not created items. I am just trying to
understand the limits here. Plenty of people tell me life looks
designed, then tell me God designed life. Then they say that God
designed everything. But if everything is designed how can we somehow
distinguished the designed from the designed?
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "¬Saba Gracile¬" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation Challenge: Where is Positive Scientific Evidence for ID? |
19 Apr 2006 12:14:39 PM |
|
|
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> skrev i melding
news:9jjc42ho2cndsv9e4d1jn5fuanbkih8qs2@4ax.com...
On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 11:51:07 +0200, in alt.atheism , "¬ Saba Gracile¬"
<veronisc@frisurf.no> in <bf6dnccC1baIldvZRVnzvA@telenor.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> skrev i melding
news:93ga42h63dcgqm1dqb9tjs9c0nhlputkju@4ax.com...
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 19:50:01 +0200, in alt.atheism , "¬ Saba Gracile¬"
<veronisc@frisurf.no> in <A_idnWurF95Lu9jZRVnzvA@telenor.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> skrev i melding
news:k50a42lgcn3moho5ao2bk0bis8jhu3pgec@4ax.com...
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 12:41:10 +0200, in alt.atheism , "¬ Saba Gracile¬"
<veronisc@frisurf.no> in <r6CdnULvn4nSX9nZRVnzvA@telenor.com> wrote:
[snip]
If one takes a computer and looks inside it how neatly it is designed and
also comes with software and all the programs necessary for it's particular
function fully functioning in all its glory, would you ask where the human
who made it can be found? You wouldn't even assume that it wasn't a
designer of it somewhere.
Do you think that computers resemble biological organisms? If so, how?
And do you know of anything in the world that, in your view, does not
look designed?
[snip]
TEch resemble biological technology yes, very much so.
They reproduce themselves?
is that the only thing required for you to make them similar? the intelligence in it, the
intelligence.
Do you understand that assuming your conclusion is not a valid
argument. I pointed out a major difference, perhaps you can show, from
the evidence, the resemblance. If you think there is "intelligence" in
them then please present your evidence and argument.
And one day they
will be able to combine the too, the bio technology is still very much in its infancy.
Which will say what, exactly, regarding the design of biological
organisms.
No I can't come up with an organism that doesn't *look* created as of now. I'll think
about that one.
No, I want to know what non-organism does not look designed. That is,
if you think life was designed are there non-designed things in the
world?
Like rocks on the ground that are not created singlehandedly, if that's what your after?
what the hell does that prove?
So you think that rocks are not created items. I am just trying to
understand the limits here. Plenty of people tell me life looks
designed, then tell me God designed life. Then they say that God
designed everything. But if everything is designed how can we somehow
distinguished the designed from the designed?
your' outdoing yourself, find a philosophy group I don't know where you're heading
with this.
S
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tim K." |
|
| Title: Re: Creation Challenge: Where is Positive Scientific Evidence for ID? |
22 Apr 2006 12:45:40 PM |
|
|
"¬Saba Gracile¬" <veronisc@frisurf.no> wrote in message
news:E-idnZx9iIqU7dvZRVnzvA@telenor.com...
your' outdoing yourself, find a philosophy group I don't know where you're
heading
with this.
Translation: I just got my ***** handed to me and I don't have the guts to
admit my argument "goddit" is inherently circular.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation Challenge: Where is Positive Scientific Evidence for ID? |
19 Apr 2006 09:48:01 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 19:14:39 +0200, "¬Saba Gracile¬"
<veronisc@frisurf.no> wrote:
- Refer: <E-idnZx9iIqU7dvZRVnzvA@telenor.com>
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> skrev i melding
news:9jjc42ho2cndsv9e4d1jn5fuanbkih8qs2@4ax.com...
On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 11:51:07 +0200, in alt.atheism , "?Saba Gracile?
<veronisc@frisurf.no> in <bf6dnccC1baIldvZRVnzvA@telenor.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> skrev i melding
news:93ga42h63dcgqm1dqb9tjs9c0nhlputkju@4ax.com...
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 19:50:01 +0200, in alt.atheism , "?Saba Gracile?
<veronisc@frisurf.no> in <A_idnWurF95Lu9jZRVnzvA@telenor.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> skrev i melding
news:k50a42lgcn3moho5ao2bk0bis8jhu3pgec@4ax.com...
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 12:41:10 +0200, in alt.atheism , "?Saba Gracile?
<veronisc@frisurf.no> in <r6CdnULvn4nSX9nZRVnzvA@telenor.com> wrote:
[snip]
If one takes a computer and looks inside it how neatly it is designed and
also comes with software and all the programs necessary for it's particular
function fully functioning in all its glory, would you ask where the human
who made it can be found? You wouldn't even assume that it wasn't a
designer of it somewhere.
Do you think that computers resemble biological organisms? If so, how?
And do you know of anything in the world that, in your view, does not
look designed?
[snip]
TEch resemble biological technology yes, very much so.
They reproduce themselves?
is that the only thing required for you to make them similar? the intelligence in it, the
intelligence.
Do you understand that assuming your conclusion is not a valid
argument. I pointed out a major difference, perhaps you can show, from
the evidence, the resemblance. If you think there is "intelligence" in
them then please present your evidence and argument.
And one day they
will be able to combine the too, the bio technology is still very much in its infancy.
Which will say what, exactly, regarding the design of biological
organisms.
No I can't come up with an organism that doesn't *look* created as of now. I'll think
about that one.
No, I want to know what non-organism does not look designed. That is,
if you think life was designed are there non-designed things in the
world?
Like rocks on the ground that are not created singlehandedly, if that's what your after?
what the hell does that prove?
So you think that rocks are not created items. I am just trying to
understand the limits here. Plenty of people tell me life looks
designed, then tell me God designed life. Then they say that God
designed everything. But if everything is designed how can we somehow
distinguished the designed from the designed?
your' outdoing yourself, find a philosophy group I don't know where you're heading
with this.
At least you finally recognise that you are not mentally up to the
task.
That may give an indication of what your next logical step is.
Hint: "Give up"
--
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation Challenge: Where is Positive Scientific Evidence for ID? |
20 Apr 2006 08:33:53 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 19:14:39 +0200, in alt.atheism , "¬Saba Gracile¬"
<veronisc@frisurf.no> in <E-idnZx9iIqU7dvZRVnzvA@telenor.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> skrev i melding
news:9jjc42ho2cndsv9e4d1jn5fuanbkih8qs2@4ax.com...
On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 11:51:07 +0200, in alt.atheism , "¬ Saba Gracile¬"
<veronisc@frisurf.no> in <bf6dnccC1baIldvZRVnzvA@telenor.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> skrev i melding
news:93ga42h63dcgqm1dqb9tjs9c0nhlputkju@4ax.com...
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 19:50:01 +0200, in alt.atheism , "¬ Saba Gracile¬"
<veronisc@frisurf.no> in <A_idnWurF95Lu9jZRVnzvA@telenor.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> skrev i melding
news:k50a42lgcn3moho5ao2bk0bis8jhu3pgec@4ax.com...
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 12:41:10 +0200, in alt.atheism , "¬ Saba Gracile¬"
<veronisc@frisurf.no> in <r6CdnULvn4nSX9nZRVnzvA@telenor.com> wrote:
[snip]
If one takes a computer and looks inside it how neatly it is designed and
also comes with software and all the programs necessary for it's particular
function fully functioning in all its glory, would you ask where the human
who made it can be found? You wouldn't even assume that it wasn't a
designer of it somewhere.
Do you think that computers resemble biological organisms? If so, how?
And do you know of anything in the world that, in your view, does not
look designed?
[snip]
TEch resemble biological technology yes, very much so.
They reproduce themselves?
is that the only thing required for you to make them similar? the intelligence in it, the
intelligence.
Do you understand that assuming your conclusion is not a valid
argument. I pointed out a major difference, perhaps you can show, from
the evidence, the resemblance. If you think there is "intelligence" in
them then please present your evidence and argument.
And one day they
will be able to combine the too, the bio technology is still very much in its infancy.
Which will say what, exactly, regarding the design of biological
organisms.
No I can't come up with an organism that doesn't *look* created as of now. I'll think
about that one.
No, I want to know what non-organism does not look designed. That is,
if you think life was designed are there non-designed things in the
world?
Like rocks on the ground that are not created singlehandedly, if that's what your after?
what the hell does that prove?
So you think that rocks are not created items. I am just trying to
understand the limits here. Plenty of people tell me life looks
designed, then tell me God designed life. Then they say that God
designed everything. But if everything is designed how can we somehow
distinguished the designed from the designed?
your' outdoing yourself, find a philosophy group I don't know where you're heading
with this.
I am sorry you don't understand, I thought I was clear. Let me try
again. I see a large number of people who claim that life looks
designed. They do some arm waving and apparently random number
claiming and say that they can detect design in life because life
somehow differs from other things. They then go on and say that God
designed everything. But you can't distinguish designed from not
designed if everything is designed. So if you are going to claim that
everything is designed you have to tell me what the difference is
between designed life and designed rocks. If, OTOH, you don't think
that everything is designed then we can discuss design in some ways.
How about this, lets start with some basics. What does "design" mean
to you? Given that you know nothing at all about the designers, you
know nothing about what they want and need, you know nothing about
what they can and can't do, you know nothing about when and where they
existed how can you tell something is designed?
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "-¬Saba Gracile-¬" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation Challenge: Where is Positive Scientific Evidence for ID? |
23 Apr 2006 01:53:13 PM |
|
|
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> skrev i melding
news:c33f429abbsffdvs1mhrbsq9ih3llft3sd@4ax.com...
On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 19:14:39 +0200, in alt.atheism , "¬Saba Gracile¬"
<veronisc@frisurf.no> in <E-idnZx9iIqU7dvZRVnzvA@telenor.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> skrev i melding
news:9jjc42ho2cndsv9e4d1jn5fuanbkih8qs2@4ax.com...
On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 11:51:07 +0200, in alt.atheism , "¬ Saba Gracile¬"
<veronisc@frisurf.no> in <bf6dnccC1baIldvZRVnzvA@telenor.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> skrev i melding
news:93ga42h63dcgqm1dqb9tjs9c0nhlputkju@4ax.com...
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 19:50:01 +0200, in alt.atheism , "¬ Saba Gracile¬"
<veronisc@frisurf.no> in <A_idnWurF95Lu9jZRVnzvA@telenor.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> skrev i melding
news:k50a42lgcn3moho5ao2bk0bis8jhu3pgec@4ax.com...
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 12:41:10 +0200, in alt.atheism , "¬ Saba Gracile¬"
<veronisc@frisurf.no> in <r6CdnULvn4nSX9nZRVnzvA@telenor.com> wrote:
[snip]
If one takes a computer and looks inside it how neatly it is designed and
also comes with software and all the programs necessary for it's particular
function fully functioning in all its glory, would you ask where the human
who made it can be found? You wouldn't even assume that it wasn't a
designer of it somewhere.
Do you think that computers resemble biological organisms? If so, how?
And do you know of anything in the world that, in your view, does not
look designed?
[snip]
TEch resemble biological technology yes, very much so.
They reproduce themselves?
is that the only thing required for you to make them similar? the intelligence in it, the
intelligence.
Do you understand that assuming your conclusion is not a valid
argument. I pointed out a major difference, perhaps you can show, from
the evidence, the resemblance. If you think there is "intelligence" in
them then please present your evidence and argument.
And one day they
will be able to combine the too, the bio technology is still very much in its infancy.
Which will say what, exactly, regarding the design of biological
organisms.
No I can't come up with an organism that doesn't *look* created as of now. I'll think
about that one.
No, I want to know what non-organism does not look designed. That is,
if you think life was designed are there non-designed things in the
world?
Like rocks on the ground that are not created singlehandedly, if that's what your after?
what the hell does that prove?
So you think that rocks are not created items. I am just trying to
understand the limits here. Plenty of people tell me life looks
designed, then tell me God designed life. Then they say that God
designed everything. But if everything is designed how can we somehow
distinguished the designed from the designed?
your' outdoing yourself, find a philosophy group I don't know where you're heading
with this.
I am sorry you don't understand, I thought I was clear. Let me try
again. I see a large number of people who claim that life looks
designed. They do some arm waving and apparently random number
claiming and say that they can detect design in life because life
somehow differs from other things. They then go on and say that God
designed everything. But you can't distinguish designed from not
designed if everything is designed. So if you are going to claim that
everything is designed you have to tell me what the difference is
between designed life and designed rocks. If, OTOH, you don't think
that everything is designed then we can discuss design in some ways.
I don't think everything is designed, I told you that a ton of time ago.
How about this, lets start with some basics. What does "design" mean
to you? Given that you know nothing at all about the designers, you
know nothing about what they want and need, you know nothing about
what they can and can't do, you know nothing about when and where they
existed how can you tell something is designed?
How can someone imagine something happening in their heads, and saying
that is proof? They imagine a largescaled evolusion from few examples of *true*,
if any, evolusioned creatures who changed speices, and that is their belif.
Saba
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation Challenge: Where is Positive Scientific Evidence for ID? |
24 Apr 2006 08:32:11 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 20:53:13 +0200, in alt.atheism , "-¬Saba
Gracile-¬" <veronisc@frisurf.no> in
<ItmdnajEWtG8UNbZ4p2dnA@telenor.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> skrev i melding
news:c33f429abbsffdvs1mhrbsq9ih3llft3sd@4ax.com...
On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 19:14:39 +0200, in alt.atheism , "¬Saba Gracile¬"
<veronisc@frisurf.no> in <E-idnZx9iIqU7dvZRVnzvA@telenor.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> skrev i melding
news:9jjc42ho2cndsv9e4d1jn5fuanbkih8qs2@4ax.com...
On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 11:51:07 +0200, in alt.atheism , "¬ Saba Gracile¬"
<veronisc@frisurf.no> in <bf6dnccC1baIldvZRVnzvA@telenor.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> skrev i melding
news:93ga42h63dcgqm1dqb9tjs9c0nhlputkju@4ax.com...
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 19:50:01 +0200, in alt.atheism , "¬ Saba Gracile¬"
<veronisc@frisurf.no> in <A_idnWurF95Lu9jZRVnzvA@telenor.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> skrev i melding
news:k50a42lgcn3moho5ao2bk0bis8jhu3pgec@4ax.com...
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 12:41:10 +0200, in alt.atheism , "¬ Saba Gracile¬"
<veronisc@frisurf.no> in <r6CdnULvn4nSX9nZRVnzvA@telenor.com> wrote:
[snip]
If one takes a computer and looks inside it how neatly it is designed and
also comes with software and all the programs necessary for it's particular
function fully functioning in all its glory, would you ask where the human
who made it can be found? You wouldn't even assume that it wasn't a
designer of it somewhere.
Do you think that computers resemble biological organisms? If so, how?
And do you know of anything in the world that, in your view, does not
look designed?
[snip]
TEch resemble biological technology yes, very much so.
They reproduce themselves?
is that the only thing required for you to make them similar? the intelligence in it, the
intelligence.
Do you understand that assuming your conclusion is not a valid
argument. I pointed out a major difference, perhaps you can show, from
the evidence, the resemblance. If you think there is "intelligence" in
them then please present your evidence and argument.
And one day they
will be able to combine the too, the bio technology is still very much in its infancy.
Which will say what, exactly, regarding the design of biological
organisms.
No I can't come up with an organism that doesn't *look* created as of now. I'll think
about that one.
No, I want to know what non-organism does not look designed. That is,
if you think life was designed are there non-designed things in the
world?
Like rocks on the ground that are not created singlehandedly, if that's what your after?
what the hell does that prove?
So you think that rocks are not created items. I am just trying to
understand the limits here. Plenty of people tell me life looks
designed, then tell me God designed life. Then they say that God
designed everything. But if everything is designed how can we somehow
distinguished the designed from the designed?
your' outdoing yourself, find a philosophy group I don't know where you're heading
with this.
I am sorry you don't understand, I thought I was clear. Let me try
again. I see a large number of people who claim that life looks
designed. They do some arm waving and apparently random number
claiming and say that they can detect design in life because life
somehow differs from other things. They then go on and say that God
designed everything. But you can't distinguish designed from not
designed if everything is designed. So if you are going to claim that
everything is designed you have to tell me what the difference is
between designed life and designed rocks. If, OTOH, you don't think
that everything is designed then we can discuss design in some ways.
I don't think everything is designed, I told you that a ton of time ago.
So there are parts of the world that God did not plan. Ok.
How about this, lets start with some basics. What does "design" mean
to you? Given that you know nothing at all about the designers, you
know nothing about what they want and need, you know nothing about
what they can and can't do, you know nothing about when and where they
existed how can you tell something is designed?
How can someone imagine something happening in their heads, and saying
that is proof?
I don't know, but you seem to have somehow imagined that I said
something about proof. And you seem to have missed that I asked you to
define design.
They imagine a largescaled evolusion from few examples of *true*,
if any, evolusioned creatures who changed speices, and that is their belif.
Actually they concluded evolution sort of like people concluded
momentum and gravity, they built a public predictive parsimonious
model from millions of pieces of evidence.
Now how about that definition of design? Got one for me?
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "-¬Saba Gracile-¬" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation Challenge: Where is Positive Scientific Evidence for ID? |
26 Apr 2006 04:48:08 PM |
|
|
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> skrev i melding
news:1mkp425649upgflqs82n6l6ecns5t1jem9@4ax.com...
On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 20:53:13 +0200, in alt.atheism , "-¬Saba
Gracile-¬" <veronisc@frisurf.no> in
<ItmdnajEWtG8UNbZ4p2dnA@telenor.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> skrev i melding
news:c33f429abbsffdvs1mhrbsq9ih3llft3sd@4ax.com...
On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 19:14:39 +0200, in alt.atheism , "¬Saba Gracile¬"
<veronisc@frisurf.no> in <E-idnZx9iIqU7dvZRVnzvA@telenor.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> skrev i melding
news:9jjc42ho2cndsv9e4d1jn5fuanbkih8qs2@4ax.com...
On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 11:51:07 +0200, in alt.atheism , "¬ Saba Gracile¬"
<veronisc@frisurf.no> in <bf6dnccC1baIldvZRVnzvA@telenor.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> skrev i melding
news:93ga42h63dcgqm1dqb9tjs9c0nhlputkju@4ax.com...
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 19:50:01 +0200, in alt.atheism , "¬ Saba Gracile¬"
<veronisc@frisurf.no> in <A_idnWurF95Lu9jZRVnzvA@telenor.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> skrev i melding
news:k50a42lgcn3moho5ao2bk0bis8jhu3pgec@4ax.com...
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 12:41:10 +0200, in alt.atheism , "¬ Saba Gracile¬"
<veronisc@frisurf.no> in <r6CdnULvn4nSX9nZRVnzvA@telenor.com> wrote:
[snip]
If one takes a computer and looks inside it how neatly it is designed and
also comes with software and all the programs necessary for it's particular
function fully functioning in all its glory, would you ask where the human
who made it can be found? You wouldn't even assume that it wasn't a
designer of it somewhere.
Do you think that computers resemble biological organisms? If so, how?
And do you know of anything in the world that, in your view, does not
look designed?
[snip]
TEch resemble biological technology yes, very much so.
They reproduce themselves?
is that the only thing required for you to make them similar? the intelligence in it, the
intelligence.
Do you understand that assuming your conclusion is not a valid
argument. I pointed out a major difference, perhaps you can show, from
the evidence, the resemblance. If you think there is "intelligence" in
them then please present your evidence and argument.
And one day they
will be able to combine the too, the bio technology is still very much in its infancy.
Which will say what, exactly, regarding the design of biological
organisms.
No I can't come up with an organism that doesn't *look* created as of now. I'll think
about that one.
No, I want to know what non-organism does not look designed. That is,
if you think life was designed are there non-designed things in the
world?
Like rocks on the ground that are not created singlehandedly, if that's what your after?
what the hell does that prove?
So you think that rocks are not created items. I am just trying to
understand the limits here. Plenty of people tell me life looks
designed, then tell me God designed life. Then they say that God
designed everything. But if everything is designed how can we somehow
distinguished the designed from the designed?
your' outdoing yourself, find a philosophy group I don't know where you're heading
with this.
I am sorry you don't understand, I thought I was clear. Let me try
again. I see a large number of people who claim that life looks
designed. They do some arm waving and apparently random number
claiming and say that they can detect design in life because life
somehow differs from other things. They then go on and say that God
designed everything. But you can't distinguish designed from not
designed if everything is designed. So if you are going to claim that
everything is designed you have to tell me what the difference is
between designed life and designed rocks. If, OTOH, you don't think
that everything is designed then we can discuss design in some ways.
I don't think everything is designed, I told you that a ton of time ago.
So there are parts of the world that God did not plan. Ok.
eh, the whole point was for God not to control EVERYTHING. How boring
wouldn't that be?
How about this, lets start with some basics. What does "design" mean
to you? Given that you know nothing at all about the designers, you
know nothing about what they want and need, you know nothing about
what they can and can't do, you know nothing about when and where they
existed how can you tell something is designed?
How can someone imagine something happening in their heads, and saying
that is proof?
I don't know, but you seem to have somehow imagined that I said
something about proof. And you seem to have missed that I asked you to
define design.
Oh ok, so there isn't proof, thanks. Finally. Design.. I thihk you know what it is.
They imagine a largescaled evolusion from few examples of *true*,
if any, evolusioned creatures who changed speices, and that is their belif.
Actually they concluded evolution sort of like people concluded
momentum and gravity, they built a public predictive parsimonious
model from millions of pieces of evidence.
millions of thoughts in their heads made it evidence, it doesn't exist millions
or even 100's of REAL and TRUE incomplete forms, when it should in fact be
millions of them. Hello, can you even imagine how many strange creatures there
would've had to have existed from the early seacreatures to what we have on land?
Do you?
Now how about that definition of design? Got one for me?
look up the word design, jerk.
S
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation Challenge: Where is Positive Scientific Evidence for ID? |
26 Apr 2006 05:14:46 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 23:48:08 +0200, "-¬Saba Gracile-¬" <veronisc@frisurf.no>
wrote:
I don't think everything is designed, I told you that a ton of time ago.
So there are parts of the world that God did not plan. Ok.
eh, the whole point was for God not to control EVERYTHING.
Where does the bible tell you that?
How boring wouldn't that be?
If your god was all powerful; How would you know the difference?
How about this, lets start with some basics. What does "design" mean
to you? Given that you know nothing at all about the designers, you
know nothing about what they want and need, you know nothing about
what they can and can't do, you know nothing about when and where they
existed how can you tell something is designed?
How can someone imagine something happening in their heads, and saying
that is proof?
I don't know, but you seem to have somehow imagined that I said
something about proof. And you seem to have missed that I asked you to
define design.
Oh ok, so there isn't proof, thanks. Finally. Design.. I thihk you know what it is.
So you can't define it: Fair enough.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation Challenge: Where is Positive Scientific Evidence for ID? |
26 Apr 2006 08:02:23 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 23:48:08 +0200, in alt.atheism , "-¬Saba
Gracile-¬" <veronisc@frisurf.no> in
<zfadnVTd9YUGd9LZ4p2dnA@telenor.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> skrev i melding
news:1mkp425649upgflqs82n6l6ecns5t1jem9@4ax.com...
On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 20:53:13 +0200, in alt.atheism , "-¬Saba
Gracile-¬" <veronisc@frisurf.no> in
<ItmdnajEWtG8UNbZ4p2dnA@telenor.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> skrev i melding
news:c33f429abbsffdvs1mhrbsq9ih3llft3sd@4ax.com...
On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 19:14:39 +0200, in alt.atheism , "¬Saba Gracile¬"
<veronisc@frisurf.no> in <E-idnZx9iIqU7dvZRVnzvA@telenor.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> skrev i melding
news:9jjc42ho2cndsv9e4d1jn5fuanbkih8qs2@4ax.com...
On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 11:51:07 +0200, in alt.atheism , "¬ Saba Gracile¬"
<veronisc@frisurf.no> in <bf6dnccC1baIldvZRVnzvA@telenor.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> skrev i melding
news:93ga42h63dcgqm1dqb9tjs9c0nhlputkju@4ax.com...
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 19:50:01 +0200, in alt.atheism , "¬ Saba Gracile¬"
<veronisc@frisurf.no> in <A_idnWurF95Lu9jZRVnzvA@telenor.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> skrev i melding
news:k50a42lgcn3moho5ao2bk0bis8jhu3pgec@4ax.com...
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 12:41:10 +0200, in alt.atheism , "¬ Saba Gracile¬"
<veronisc@frisurf.no> in <r6CdnULvn4nSX9nZRVnzvA@telenor.com> wrote:
[snip]
If one takes a computer and looks inside it how neatly it is designed and
also comes with software and all the programs necessary for it's particular
function fully functioning in all its glory, would you ask where the human
who made it can be found? You wouldn't even assume that it wasn't a
designer of it somewhere.
Do you think that computers resemble biological organisms? If so, how?
And do you know of anything in the world that, in your view, does not
look designed?
[snip]
TEch resemble biological technology yes, very much so.
They reproduce themselves?
is that the only thing required for you to make them similar? the intelligence in it, the
intelligence.
Do you understand that assuming your conclusion is not a valid
argument. I pointed out a major difference, perhaps you can show, from
the evidence, the resemblance. If you think there is "intelligence" in
them then please present your evidence and argument.
And one day they
will be able to combine the too, the bio technology is still very much in its infancy.
Which will say what, exactly, regarding the design of biological
organisms.
No I can't come up with an organism that doesn't *look* created as of now. I'll think
about that one.
No, I want to know what non-organism does not look designed. That is,
if you think life was designed are there non-designed things in the
world?
Like rocks on the ground that are not created singlehandedly, if that's what your after?
what the hell does that prove?
So you think that rocks are not created items. I am just trying to
understand the limits here. Plenty of people tell me life looks
designed, then tell me God designed life. Then they say that God
designed everything. But if everything is designed how can we somehow
distinguished the designed from the designed?
your' outdoing yourself, find a philosophy group I don't know where you're heading
with this.
I am sorry you don't understand, I thought I was clear. Let me try
again. I see a large number of people who claim that life looks
designed. They do some arm waving and apparently random number
claiming and say that they can detect design in life because life
somehow differs from other things. They then go on and say that God
designed everything. But you can't distinguish designed from not
designed if everything is designed. So if you are going to claim that
everything is designed you have to tell me what the difference is
between designed life and designed rocks. If, OTOH, you don't think
that everything is designed then we can discuss design in some ways.
I don't think everything is designed, I told you that a ton of time ago.
So there are parts of the world that God did not plan. Ok.
eh, the whole point was for God not to control EVERYTHING. How boring
wouldn't that be?
How did you figure out this was the point? How can we tell what God
controlled and what God did not control?
How about this, lets start with some basics. What does "design" mean
to you? Given that you know nothing at all about the designers, you
know nothing about what they want and need, you know nothing about
what they can and can't do, you know nothing about when and where they
existed how can you tell something is designed?
How can someone imagine something happening in their heads, and saying
that is proof?
I don't know, but you seem to have somehow imagined that I said
something about proof. And you seem to have missed that I asked you to
define design.
Oh ok, so there isn't proof, thanks. Finally.
Finally? I am sure that you have been told over and over that science
does not deal with proof. Proof is for math, gunpowder, and baking.
Design.. I thihk you know what it is.
No, I don't. I see Design Advocates do everything they can to avoid
discussing it. Please tell me what design means.
They imagine a largescaled evolusion from few examples of *true*,
if any, evolusioned creatures who changed speices, and that is their belif.
Actually they concluded evolution sort of like people concluded
momentum and gravity, they built a public predictive parsimonious
model from millions of pieces of evidence.
millions of thoughts in their heads made it evidence,
Nope, millions of fossils, millions of DNA analysis, millions of
morphological examinations.
it doesn't exist millions
or even 100's of REAL and TRUE incomplete forms,
What is an "incomplete form"? Evolution does *not* predict incomplete
forms. Evolution predict *complete* forms. It predicts changes in
populations over generations. But each step is complete.
when it should in fact be
millions of them. Hello, can you even imagine how many strange creatures there
would've had to have existed from the early seacreatures to what we have on land?
Do you?
Lots. You do realize that there are millions of fossils of "strange"
creatures, each one complete for its time.
Now how about that definition of design? Got one for me?
look up the word design, jerk.
Wow, you are polite. Do you tell people you are a Christian or that
you have morality on your side or something like that?
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "¬Saba Gracile¬" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation Challenge: Where is Positive Scientific Evidence for ID? |
28 Apr 2006 08:45:36 AM |
|
|
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> skrev i melding
news:vo5052de58bm4g6vgoh8tl3coqtd593qbb@4ax.com...
On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 23:48:08 +0200, in alt.atheism , "-¬Saba
Gracile-¬" <veronisc@frisurf.no> in
<zfadnVTd9YUGd9LZ4p2dnA@telenor.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> skrev i melding
news:1mkp425649upgflqs82n6l6ecns5t1jem9@4ax.com...
On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 20:53:13 +0200, in alt.atheism , "-¬Saba
Gracile-¬" <veronisc@frisurf.no> in
<ItmdnajEWtG8UNbZ4p2dnA@telenor.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> skrev i melding
news:c33f429abbsffdvs1mhrbsq9ih3llft3sd@4ax.com...
On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 19:14:39 +0200, in alt.atheism , "¬Saba Gracile¬"
<veronisc@frisurf.no> in <E-idnZx9iIqU7dvZRVnzvA@telenor.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> skrev i melding
news:9jjc42ho2cndsv9e4d1jn5fuanbkih8qs2@4ax.com...
On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 11:51:07 +0200, in alt.atheism , "¬ Saba Gracile¬"
<veronisc@frisurf.no> in <bf6dnccC1baIldvZRVnzvA@telenor.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> skrev i melding
news:93ga42h63dcgqm1dqb9tjs9c0nhlputkju@4ax.com...
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 19:50:01 +0200, in alt.atheism , "¬ Saba Gracile¬"
<veronisc@frisurf.no> in <A_idnWurF95Lu9jZRVnzvA@telenor.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> skrev i melding
news:k50a42lgcn3moho5ao2bk0bis8jhu3pgec@4ax.com...
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 12:41:10 +0200, in alt.atheism , "¬ Saba Gracile¬"
<veronisc@frisurf.no> in <r6CdnULvn4nSX9nZRVnzvA@telenor.com> wrote:
[snip]
If one takes a computer and looks inside it how neatly it is designed and
also comes with software and all the programs necessary for it's particular
function fully functioning in all its glory, would you ask where the human
who made it can be found? You wouldn't even assume that it wasn't a
designer of it somewhere.
Do you think that computers resemble biological organisms? If so, how?
And do you know of anything in the world that, in your view, does not
look designed?
[snip]
TEch resemble biological technology yes, very much so.
They reproduce themselves?
is that the only thing required for you to make them similar? the intelligence in it, the
intelligence.
Do you understand that assuming your conclusion is not a valid
argument. I pointed out a major difference, perhaps you can show, from
the evidence, the resemblance. If you think there is "intelligence" in
them then please present your evidence and argument.
And one day they
will be able to combine the too, the bio technology is still very much in its infancy.
Which will say what, exactly, regarding the design of biological
organisms.
No I can't come up with an organism that doesn't *look* created as of now. I'll think
about that one.
No, I want to know what non-organism does not look designed. That is,
if you think life was designed are there non-designed things in the
world?
Like rocks on the ground that are not created singlehandedly, if that's what your after?
what the hell does that prove?
So you think that rocks are not created items. I am just trying to
understand the limits here. Plenty of people tell me life looks
designed, then tell me God designed life. Then they say that God
designed everything. But if everything is designed how can we somehow
distinguished the designed from the designed?
your' outdoing yourself, find a philosophy group I don't know where you're heading
with this.
I am sorry you don't understand, I thought I was clear. Let me try
again. I see a large number of people who claim that life looks
designed. They do some arm waving and apparently random number
claiming and say that they can detect design in life because life
somehow differs from other things. They then go on and say that God
designed everything. But you can't distinguish designed from not
designed if everything is designed. So if you are going to claim that
everything is designed you have to tell me what the difference is
between designed life and designed rocks. If, OTOH, you don't think
that everything is designed then we can discuss design in some ways.
I don't think everything is designed, I told you that a ton of time ago.
So there are parts of the world that God did not plan. Ok.
eh, the whole point was for God not to control EVERYTHING. How boring
wouldn't that be?
How did you figure out this was the point? How can we tell what God
controlled and what God did not control?
He wanted us to be able to chose - remember? free will?
How about this, lets start with some basics. What does "design" mean
to you? Given that you know nothing at all about the designers, you
know nothing about what they want and need, you know nothing about
what they can and can't do, you know nothing about when and where they
existed how can you tell something is designed?
How can someone imagine something happening in their heads, and saying
that is proof?
I don't know, but you seem to have somehow imagined that I said
something about proof. And you seem to have missed that I asked you to
define design.
Oh ok, so there isn't proof, thanks. Finally.
Finally? I am sure that you have been told over and over that science
does not deal with proof. Proof is for math, gunpowder, and baking.
Science is a belief and it uses proof both which makes it hard for regular folks to
discriminate when the ***** has started to dominate the scene.
Design.. I thihk you know what it is.
No, I don't. I see Design Advocates do everything they can to avoid
discussing it. Please tell me what design means.
They imagine a largescaled evolusion from few examples of *true*,
if any, evolusioned creatures who changed speices, and that is their belif.
Actually they concluded evolution sort of like people concluded
momentum and gravity, they built a public predictive parsimonious
model from millions of pieces of eviden | | | | | | | | | | | | |
