RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (37) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Daniel Smith's "Argument from Impossibility", in which assumptions are facts< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2009,12:02   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 23 2009,11:13)
Quote (Quack @ Mar. 22 2009,08:33)
Quote
The "first review" was obviously skewed.  The Face on Mars was used as an example of something that looks designed at a distance but upon closer examination fails the test.  It is the direct opposite of what we find in life.
As is your opinion skewed.

You fail to see the difference: We KNOW that if we find a face on Mars, it’s GOT TO BE DESIGNED, somebody would have had to MAKE it there. Because we KNOW about faces, have known for a long time, we have a lot of experience with faces; they are very common here on Earth. (You don’t mind some caps, do you?)

OTOH, we do NOT know anything about designed enzymes. Therefore we have no reason to believe they are designed. NO previous knowledge or evidence about DESIGNED enzymes. Therefore, since we know nothing about designed enzymes in nature the only option available is that they are not designed.

But we are always willing to look at evidence. You got some to show?
So all faces are designed then?

Let me try this one more time to chat with you and explain things.

You see design, I see patterns.  They are the same thing but they cause different reactions in us both.  You want to see your god in everything you do.  for myself, I don't believe in any god (I don't disbelieve in gods I just haven't seen a need for any of them).  So of course we will look at it differently, much like a glass half full/empty thing.

When you look at the rock formations in "Arches National Park", do you see your god's handiwork in it?  I don't.  I understand that the rocks are actually made out of different types on minerals.  Some are hard and resilient.  Others firm and tough but can be worn down when put under pressure.  Others are soft and crumble at a touch.

So these formations are the patterns made by the various conglomerations of the different rocks and their resiliency to erosion.  There is no "design" there, just patterns.

If you can't fathom that then don't read on as it will only confuse you.

Still here?  Good.

Now let's go deeper.  Let's go to something we can't see but have tons of evidence for, namely the structure of atoms.  Do you think that atoms were "designed" to fit together as they do?  Or are you like me and think that they form covalent or ionic bonds due to there structure?  Does Carbon form into long and complex polymer molecules due to chemical properties or that it was designed to do just that?

Now that is a primer on how you see design and I see naturalistic patterns.  Be careful about saying, "That's how my god did it" as each time we look we get a little bit deeper into why and how it is all done.  If we were just to take "god did it", we'd still be living in caves and throwing rocks at the moon.

Do you see where this is going?  If you can understand that, I'll write more.

You see god, I see pattern and we're looking at the same thing.  Again, why is your god better than say, Osiris?  After all, a lot of your god's reported history seems to have been taken from the history of Osiris.

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
  1103 replies since Jan. 26 2009,15:45 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (37) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]