Why God??!!

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Obviously neither you nor UR has read the book.

What is the point of reading the book, when you failed to support your premises here in "The Great Information Debate?" Considering that many questions posted there to you were unanswered, one cannot imagine you approach the issue with an attitude of open inquiry in the book.

Originally posted by Lincoln
And many "actual scientists" support my view.

Who are these scientists? Henry Morris? Ken Hovind? Duane Gish? Michael Behe?Philip Johnson? Joshua Well?

I direct your attention to Project Steve, a fun list of scientists with the name Steve who support evolution.

Originally posted by Lincoln
Do you think that making false statements somehow supports your view if you repeat them enough times?

That would be funny if it is not so pathetic, Lincoln. Consider the number of false statements you have made on the issue, there is no ground you can make such an accusation.

Originally posted by Lincoln
Read my book and get back to me, so at least you know what you are talking about.

That's right, Lincoln, go ahead and answer the questions we posted to you in "The Great Information Debate."

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Sorry that you all lost that debate. Maybe you can search the archives for one that you won.

Sorry Lincoln - or should I call you Mr Hendrix? - it is not up to you to declare yourself as the winner. It is for the readers themselves to judge.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Lorizael
AH

People find just as much meaning in Hindu Scriptures, Daoist Scriptures, Jewish Scriptures, Muslim Scriptures. Why do Christian ones prevail?

Tee hee. Your words, not mine. I'm just not interested in such debates.

My point was the gospels have a kind of transcendent truth and beauty in them which is satisfying to Christians as to their authenticity as the word of God.

[Ted Striker]

AH is gay

[Yef]

I don't see Judaism in that list.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Kucinich
Here's what it boils down to: no matter how you put it, in the end life arose through natural processes. There simply isn't anything outside of nature. Any argument that a creator is necessary for the complexity/existance of life, misses that the complexity would simply be deferred to the creator.

There isn't anything outside of nature, as proven by science....a system of reasoning to explain phenomena under the assumption that there is a naturalistic source for everything. Not that I blame science for that limitation; it'd be impossible to determine anything if you couldn't take certain events for granted. But what you're saying is, "if we begin by assuming God doesn't exist, we arrive at the inevitable conclusion that God doesn't exist." For the sake of scientific inquiry, that's true, but there's more to it than that.

I'm not going to argue that a God is "necessary." I believe in God because of what I see in other people and myself, not for words shoved in the mouth of Reason by biased parties on this side or that, and besides, there's no scientific argument for or against either way. Unless, that is, there's an alternate universe handy that we know WAS created by a deity, so we can use it as a control...

Boris: distinction noted (writing a book vs. just arguing).
I could raise further questions about the molecules too though: where did they come from? What are they made of? And when you discover the answer to those, that the quarks or whatever minute subatomic mass we currently understand is made of "Flozzles," say, there's the same question to be applied to the Flozzles; what are they made of, and where did they come from? There are always more questions. You can argue that a certain particle is the most minute and discrete portion of matter existent, and it has always existed, but that's not much different from claiming a God, is it? You can add details, but you'll never "understand" the machine because you live on its inside. We can only describe the appearance of things relative to ourselves.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Please show us the steps. Or are you Telling us essentially that anything is possible given enough time?

What's the use? The proposed steps were given to you in the other thread, and you just moved the goal posts. You made it clear you wouldn't be satisfied until the movement of every molecule was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. If RNA can self-replicate, which it can, and DNA evolved its mechanisms from that, it's pretty clear that the evolution of such mechanisms from the smallest levels is possible.

Is anything possible given time? No, because evolution doesn't just depend on time, it depends on environment. Creationists always ignore the natural selection part, which is of course just as important as the random change part. Natural selection ensures that there are only finite possibilities. Saying you have the faintest clue about how "possible" or "impossible" the events leading to DNA are is a crock of BS, since any such "odds" calculations are meaningless without precise understanding of the conditions of that time or the nature of the materials involved. For all we know, the odds were 1:1 that it would occur on our planet.

This is all no different from when Creationists want to see fossils that show every single step in the evolution of species before they accept it. Of course, they are lying, as they will never accept it--they just want to establish a scientifically impossible goal as a shield around their beliefs.

That's what the information debate is here. It's just a "God of the Gaps" shield set up in area where there isn't complete scientific understanding (although the knowledge is increaing all the time and pushing your god further into the gaps). The logic that "We don't know how exactly, therefore GOD" is something a kindergartner might devise. You've just thrown in a lot of extra, unneccessary words. I do find it amusing that the evidence for god has been pushed so deeply into the cracks of scientific inquiry. Must be getting mighty tight for the old bugger there.

Even if one were to accept your false assertion that DNA = information and the generator of it were intelligent, then you'd be in the position of making a complete, unfounded supposition as to what that intelligence was. For all we know, the Raalians would be correct and it is the creation of a highly advanced alien species. Since over 90% of DNA is useless junk, this would make much more sense as being the source of intelligent design rather than a supposedly omnipotent god. Why would such a god make his "code" so rife with uselessness? Even the worst computer programmers don't write code with so much useless lines in it. If you're positing that god was the programmer, you're saying he was perhaps the worst code designer in history.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Please, just solve the problem are you can call Loingurger to help you. HEY LOINBURGER!! BORIS NEEDS YOU OVER HERE!!

Very mature. Did your god show you how to debate this way?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Elok
I could raise further questions about the molecules too though: where did they come from? What are they made of? And when you discover the answer to those, that the quarks or whatever minute subatomic mass we currently understand is made of "Flozzles," say, there's the same question to be applied to the Flozzles; what are they made of, and where did they come from? There are always more questions.

Yes, but at no point is "God did it!" a scientifically reasonable answer for someone seeking out how the universe and physics work. That would be either an unneccessary dead stop to research ("Well, since we can just chalk it up to god, let's go home."), or a completely unneccessary variable that has no effect on the issue, since you'd then have to still research how this god does it. See how it doesn't help the question?

You can argue that a certain particle is the most minute and discrete portion of matter existent, and it has always existed, but that's not much different from claiming a God, is it? You can add details, but you'll never "understand" the machine because you live on its inside. We can only describe the appearance of things relative to ourselves.

The notion that there is a finitely small particle as the basis for all things isn't the modern idea on how matter works on its most fundamental levels. See Superstring theory. Regardless, I disagree that we can "never" understand the machine. Who is to say? It's going to take a lot of work if it can happen, but like all fields of scientific inquiry, it's reasonable to believe we could, eventually, come upon a great understanding of how things work.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Why would such a god make his "code" so rife with uselessness?

I have just the answer for that, Boris.

See, we cannot comprehend what stuff is for with our limited minds. But God is different. We cannot comprehend God's mysterious ways.

[Spiffor]

Gotta love the circular logic here

"We cannot comprehend this phenomemnon, so it must be the work of God"
"We cannot comprehend God, so he must be the work of God".

At least the Greeks had the sense to have comprehendable Gods, to explain the natural phenomenons their science couldn't explain.

[Boris Godunov]

Ah yes, the "shut up and don't question the king!" argument.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Yef
I don't see Judaism in that list.

Noticed that. Seems almost antisemetic, don't it?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Elok
You can argue that a certain particle is the most minute and discrete portion of matter existent, and it has always existed, but that's not much different from claiming a God, is it?

The differences are enormous.

First of all, you can test the properties of said particle. Secondly, said particle does not posess any of the anthropic properties that God is supposed to have, such as mercy, justice, etc. Thirdly, said particle does not posess any of God's omni- attributes, such as omniscient, omnipotent, etc. Forthly, said particle exists inside this universe, not outside of it.

I can keep going, but I hope you get the drift.

[Spiffor]

And finally, if you are proven wrong, you can accept being wrong. For a long time, we thought atoms were the smallest component of the universe, and it is not.