How can you possibly be an athiest?

[Lincoln]

Again, the questions:

Originally posted by Lincoln
In the mean time why don't you and Boris tell us what law of physics requires this order of DNA (for example):

CGATTACCGATTGAC and not this one: CGATACCATAGCCA

And while you are at it please explain how the laws of physic divide the code into triplets or codons. Then you can tell us how the code came about and how it came to be translated and by what mechanism, without the aid of intelligent input. Finally you can tell us all how the laws of physics gives meaning to a chemical smbol and translates that meaning to the appropriate parts of the cellular machinery so that the interactive part know how to asemble themselves properly.

The Blind Atheist

[Agathon]

The intelligent design argument is actually better than people give it credit for.

What is not often realised is that it depends on a "likelihood principle" which goes: given the evidence, the likelier of any two hypotheses which are consistent with appearance is the rational one.

Since the competing hypotheses are:

(1) The organised complexity of the physical (especially the organic) world is caused by design.

and

(2) The organised complexity of the world was caused by completely random processes.

(1) Is obviously more likely given what we know about designs and designers vs randomness. Thus, it's rational to believe that the universe was most likely created by an intelligent designer.

So the intelligent design argument is actually a good one (there is a further problem, but lets not p*ss on the parade).

[yavoon]

agathon are u saying that the laws of nature are random? or that say "living organisms came about through random chance."

cuz obviously we know nothing about why the laws act the way they do. but as for the other, we certainly know that the complexity of the universe is not random, it is due to the laws of the universe.

if u can't test a hypothesis its called a guess.=p

[Spiffor]

Can anyone explain me why this thread has become yet again creation vs evolution ?
Is it the godwin's law of every thread wrt religion ?

[yavoon]

its a very combustable topic from my perspective cuz religious ppl can't help but throw logical fallacies and misuses of science around haphazardly. and its very annoying to read them.

[Elok]

Originally posted by yavoon
its a very combustable topic from my perspective cuz religious ppl can't help but throw logical fallacies and misuses of science around haphazardly. and its very annoying to read them.

Well, nobody's forcing you to read them, so you needn't act so smugly faux-irritated. The actual reason, so far as I can tell, is that evolution is one of the most solid bones of contention between die-hard fundamentalists and die-hard skeptics. Evolution directly challenges a literal reading of the bible, so it's the logical opponent to try to take down.

[yavoon]

no1 sed I was forced to read them, dont act like I avoid debate. I'm on a forum!

and besides I never did believe in the see no evil hear no evil thing neway.

[Elok]

Originally posted by yavoon
no1 sed I was forced to read them, dont act like I avoid debate. I'm on a forum!
and besides I never did believe in the see no evil hear no evil thing neway.

I didn't mean to imply that you avoid debate, just that your condescending editorializing irritated me.

[yavoon]

the fact that they use logical fallacies and misuse science isnt editorializing.

tho I guess saying it annoyed me is wut u meant, whoops.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Oooh, link, link, link. I was looking for that before. I wanted to see again how loinburger et al demolished Lincoln's nonsense so handily...

Wasn't that hanily.

On one side there were Ethelred, MrBaggins, loinburger and I. Lincoln and some other creationists formed the other side.

From the archives: The great information debate

P.S. I found out that you managed to caught the last train, so to speak.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Are you talking about the "Great Information Debate" thread? If so, please link to it. I recall it perfectly. That would save me the effort here of trashing your arguments again.

Like how you neatly explained how an omnipotent god who can change the laws of physics could not defeat iron chariots?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Or to put it in a less negative light, atheism is blind acceptance that the laws of physics are applicable everywhere (and at every time), with absolutely no evidence.

Which is a smaller leap to make (in my mind) on pure faith than is belief in an omnipotent omniscient Creator intimately involved in his Creation.

[KrazyHorse]

Lincoln, your information argument is based on a few false premises...

Most important is the complete avoidance of discussion of intermediate steps in evolution, each of which were a result of evolutionary pressure in a certain direction and the sum of which resulted in current biodiversity.

Classic example is the human eye...

[KrazyHorse]

Other information arguments are based on misinterpretations of the 2nd law. Those are too boring to even discuss.

[yavoon]

rogan, nowhere in science does it say that wut we might consider the normal laws of physics apply everywhere.

perfect example, relativity.

better example, black holes.