How is the balance between boys and girls maintained?

[Kidlicious]

It's a learnt behaviour as Elok has pointed out...we recognise patterns and understand...those papers could not have been stacked through any other means because paper is a man-made product, ergo, man must have also stacked them.

Even if it is learned (don't think it is though), it's the way our minds work. So if we assume intelligent design when we see stacked paper then we assume intelligent design when we see order. We've learned that as you claim. That learning should follow into another context. Our mind doesn't just work in specific contexts like that. So when we see order in the universe we should remember our experience in human society and that order implies intelligent design. The only thing that prevents our mind from that natural thinking is our biases.

[Provost Harrison]

You mean to tell me that the stacking of paper is an innate knowledge? Oh come on, you cannot seriously believe that? There is no evidence for intelligent design, it is a lack of ability to understand the self perpetuating process of evolution. Initially we get the first basic organisms which are, basically, just a collection of macromolecules - self-replicating nucleic acids. And the rest perpetuates itself through evolution and selection. You know, for these components to combine in the correct combination in all the primordial oceans of earth in all the billions of years makes it rather probable you know? And providing the first prerequisite is reached, the rest is self perpetuating - reaching humanity is a relatively short step compared to the steps that have gone before. Changes in organisms can be explained through Neodarwinian evolution taking into account our modern knowledge of molecular biology/genetics. Selection for mutations that give an advantage in the environment. Intelligence being a massive advantage above strength.

But despite this, you want to assume intelligent design. Doesn't sound intelligent to me.

[Kidlicious]

I should say that a scientist should always be truly skeptical of everything. It shouldn't be accepted that a fine tuned universe means God created it, but science should always question that the same way that it should question everything else. It might be necessary or helpfull for a scientist not to jump to conclusions.

But for someone who is seeking evidence of the existance of God it is perfectly natural to consider a fine tuned universe evidence. Not everything is about science. But sometimes a hammer sees nothing but nails.

[Provost Harrison]

I should say that a scientist should always be truly skeptical of everything. It shouldn't be accepted that a fine tuned universe means God created it, but science should always question that the same way that it should question everything else. It might be necessary or helpfull for a scientist not to jump to conclusions.

I don't. Why do you fall short of this same mark and accept the answers of the church thrust upon you? Is it somehow acceptable to have double standards that the scientific community have to adhere to with rigour yet you do not?

But for someone who is seeking evidence of the existance of God it is perfectly natural to consider a fine tuned universe evidence. Not everything is about science. But sometimes a hammer sees nothing but nails.

Having your answer and trying to justify it is a ridiculous preposition. The answer follows the evidence.

Now anyway, you've not answered my point regarding intelligent design...don't step around it.

[Kidlicious]

1) No I don't think believing stacked papers were intelligently stacked specifically is innate. I'm saying that it's innate to believe that general order was intelligently ordered. We don't need to learn it. If anything it's difficult to counter.

2) I used intelligent design in small caps. This has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, does it?

[Provost Harrison]

1) No I don't think believing stacked papers were intelligently stacked specifically is innate. I'm saying that it's innate to believe that general order was intelligently ordered. We don't need to learn it. If anything it's difficult to counter.

Of course we attempt to perceive order from chaos...that's the way the mind works. But this isn't about design, this is an issue of entropy and work (laws of thermodynamics and all that). Was each crystal lattice designed that is found in nature - a very orderly structure? The complexity of haemoglobin can form without intervention, just simply from protein synthesis and folding and allosteric interaction between its subunits. Order can come from both intelligence and design and natural phenomenon - providing work is performed upon a system (for example the evaporation of water from a solution of a salt) a complex structure can be formed without intelligent interaction.

2) I used intelligent design in small caps. This has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, does it?

But we know to what you elude...no part of the universe and its existence lies in isolation. Evolution is a good illustration of how organisation can come from apparent chaos as a product of work being performed upon a system. From the power of the sun. As above.

[Kidlicious]

I don't. Why do you fall short of this same mark and accept the answers of the church thrust upon you? Is it somehow acceptable to have double standards that the scientific community have to adhere to with rigour yet you do not?

I think that you misunderstood me. Of course science should adhere to different principles. What does it matter if a nonscientist isn't as skeptical as a scientist. I'm actually saying that on a proffessional level I can see that a scientist would not believe in God for the sake of skepticism, but the rest of us shouldn't concern ourselves with such skepticism.

Having your answer and trying to justify it is a ridiculous preposition. The answer follows the evidence.

What does it concern you for if someone wants to believe in God?

[Lorizael]

Hmmm... but when we see order don't we all believe in an intelligent creator? get you that it's possible for there to be order without a creator but it's just not nearly as likely.

No, I don't assume an intelligent creator when I see order, because...

...I don't think we should make assumptions or try to figure out God's nature.

If God is an omnipotent, logic-breaking entity, then you can make no assumptions whatsoever about its behavior, or about its effect on the universe. You cannot* have logical statements that follow from an assumption of God, because God as so described is an inherently illogical thing. That doesn't mean that God does not exist, or that God is not exactly like the God as described in some religion's holy book; it just means you can't say anything about God.

Think about it. If God can truly do anything, then yes, it can declare that 2+2=5, and 2+2 will equal 5. And if God can upend our mathematics like that, then there is no way for the laws of probability to have anything useful to say about how likely something is or is not where it concerns God. So when you say that it is more likely, or more reasonable, or more natural for order to be a sign of intelligent design, you're appealing to what you believe to be logical. But God is not logical, and God's very nature (that is, being undefinable) forbids you from doing so.

And that means the only reasonable thing to do when confronted with order is to consider it from a naturalistic perspective. And from that perspective, evolution makes a giant **** ton of sense. Even if it is true that God is responsible for all order, no statements can be made about how likely that is to be, because you've put God in the picture.

* Unless God says you can.

[Provost Harrison]

I think that you misunderstood me. Of course science should adhere to different principles. What does it matter if a nonscientist isn't as skeptical as a scientist. I'm actually saying that on a proffessional level I can see that a scientist would not believe in God for the sake of skepticism, but the rest of us shouldn't concern ourselves with such skepticism.

So by your own admission, yours is an act of faith that is illogical? So, buddy, don't get all upset where in logical debate you get ripped a new one and look stupid. If you don't like being ridiculed for your beliefs, don't blurt them to the whole world.

What does it concern you for if someone wants to believe in God?

Like above...because you've come to a public forum and started beating everyone over the head with your beliefs and assumptions passed off as fact. And you need to be taken to task on it. Public forum remember?

[Kidlicious]

No, I don't assume an intelligent creator when I see order, because...



If God is an omnipotent, logic-breaking entity, then you can make no assumptions whatsoever about its behavior, or about its effect on the universe. You cannot* have logical statements that follow from an assumption of God, because God as so described is an inherently illogical thing. That doesn't mean that God does not exist, or that God is not exactly like the God as described in some religion's holy book; it just means you can't say anything about God.

Think about it. If God can truly do anything, then yes, it can declare that 2+2=5, and 2+2 will equal 5. And if God can upend our mathematics like that, then there is no way for the laws of probability to have anything useful to say about how likely something is or is not where it concerns God. So when you say that it is more likely, or more reasonable, or more natural for order to be a sign of intelligent design, you're appealing to what you believe to be logical. But God is not logical, and God's very nature (that is, being undefinable) forbids you from doing so.

And that means the only reasonable thing to do when confronted with order is to consider it from a naturalistic perspective. And from that perspective, evolution makes a giant **** ton of sense. Even if it is true that God is responsible for all order, no statements can be made about how likely that is to be, because you've put God in the picture.

* Unless God says you can.

Good point.

[Kidlicious]

Of course we attempt to perceive order from chaos...that's the way the mind works. But this isn't about design, this is an issue of entropy and work (laws of thermodynamics and all that). Was each crystal lattice designed that is found in nature - a very orderly structure? The complexity of haemoglobin can form without intervention, just simply from protein synthesis and folding and allosteric interaction between its subunits. Order can come from both intelligence and design and natural phenomenon - providing work is performed upon a system (for example the evaporation of water from a solution of a salt) a complex structure can be formed without intelligent interaction.



But we know to what you elude...no part of the universe and its existence lies in isolation. Evolution is a good illustration of how organisation can come from apparent chaos as a product of work being performed upon a system. From the power of the sun. As above.

I didn't imply that ID is correct, not the part regarding the theory of evolution. I don't form definite beliefs in that area because I don't see that the ToE disproves the existence of God. I don't have a problem with scientists believing in it. It's when you say that the order was just caused by evolution and is no part of God's intention that I disagree with. When I see order in nature it doesn't matter if it evolved or not, because God intends it's order.

[Provost Harrison]

See, it's still all about God. All this comes down to justifying this belief. Let go of the belief and then seek answers.

[Kidlicious]

So by your own admission, yours is an act of faith that is illogical? So, buddy, don't get all upset where in logical debate you get ripped a new one and look stupid. If you don't like being ridiculed for your beliefs, don't blurt them to the whole world.



Like above...because you've come to a public forum and started beating everyone over the head with your beliefs and assumptions passed off as fact. And you need to be taken to task on it. Public forum remember?

But I'm not an irrationalist. Logic is created by God to help us understand. But it's not the only thing. Faith is higher thinking than logic.

[Kidlicious]

See, it's still all about God. All this comes down to justifying this belief. Let go of the belief and then seek answers.

But it didn't start out as assuming God exists. I was once a person who didn't believe in faith. But I saw the problem with denying it's validity.

[Provost Harrison]

And this is where any discussion breaks down because I cannot and will not make such a fundamental assumption.