This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

God is a logical necessity

#61chukie_suePosted 1/29/2013 7:57:26 PM
ScottSweatshirt, I would recommend looking into presuppositional apologetics. That's what your topic design reminded me of.
---
"Christ is with those of humble mind, not with those who exalt themselves over his flock." -St. Clement of Rome.
#62lastheroPosted 1/29/2013 9:06:33 PM
Wow, it's even worse than I thought it was going to be. It's like those videos you see where some poor grasshopper stumbles into an anthill, and...
---
X-Men: First Class RPG - Welcoming all new players!
[http://s1.zetaboards.com/New_Mutants/index/]
#63Heineken14Posted 1/29/2013 9:10:41 PM
From: ScottSweatshirt | #029
Im not really to familiar with pseudo science but what exactly is the consensus on abiogenesis? Last time I heard, they say it was some lighting storm that created life in its aftermath. Of course, I dont believe in such non sense. I just like to be familiar with it so I see where these these atheist are coming form that regurgitate these insane theories in hopes to try and substantiate the lies they believe.


trollface.jpg
---
"You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan
#64lastheroPosted 1/29/2013 10:27:57 PM
In comparison to the technological advances brought forth by man which obviously took varying degrees of intellect to create. The brain, however, is still unrivaled in comparison with something to match or replicate its complexity. The computer being the closest, yet still inadequate,which I why I mentioned it in the same post the answers the question very youre asking me.


1 - Why would you compare a human brain to a computer?
2 - How is a brain more or less 'complex' than a computer? How do you measure that?
3 - A computer can do quite a few things that no human brain could ever hope to do. It can make calculations that would take even the smartest human hours to do within seconds. It can hold and process more data than you could hope to learn in your lifetime. What, praytell, is the computer 'inadequate' for in comparison to a human brain, and how does this 'inadequacy' prove a brain is more complex?
---
X-Men: First Class RPG - Welcoming all new players!
[http://s1.zetaboards.com/New_Mutants/index/]
#65De EvolutionPosted 1/29/2013 10:57:22 PM
Really? A really bad presentation of the teleological argument from a user that appears to be a troll or a poe and people are actually wasting time?

---
All I got is beef with those that violate me
I shall annihilate thee
#66lastheroPosted 1/29/2013 11:06:49 PM
De Evolution posted...
Really? A really bad presentation of the teleological argument from a user that appears to be a troll or a poe and people are actually wasting time?


Slow night.
---
X-Men: First Class RPG - Welcoming all new players!
[http://s1.zetaboards.com/New_Mutants/index/]
#67halo07guyPosted 1/29/2013 11:26:16 PM
Wow. Where to begin?

First of all, evolution does not require a long timespan, nessecerily. While for the most part it occurs over very long periods of time, there have been recorded cases of evolution happening very quickly. One of the most famous is the Italian Wall Lizard experiment, which took insectivorous lizards and transplanted them to an island with a low insect population and few predators. Within 40 years, the descendants of the lizards introduced to the island developed wider, longer jaws, longer forelimbs, and, most importantly, cecal valves in the intestines to slow down the passage of plant matter. That organ did not exist in the parent population. Those are significant morphological changes happening to a species within the span of a human life.

Also, as has been mentioned before, hearts, lungs, and brains are not required to live for many organisms. Nematodes have no heart or brain or lung, their only internal organs being intestines and gonads. Starfish have no heart or brain either. Starfish don't even have gills. There's an entire phylum, echinoderms, that lack hearts and brains as organs. Aside from that, there's clams an oysters who, while having gills and hearts, have no brain. Also, blood vessels aren't a requirement either. Starfish don't have blood vessels, nor do lobsters or crayfish. Also, going back to the nematode? Nematodes don't even have blood.

Regarding abiogenesis, every step nessecery for it has been reproduced in a lab. Essentially the only thing that hasn't been done yet is creating a cell that way. What we have done, though, is:

Prove that the nessecery amino acids and nucleus acid bases can arise naturally.
Prove that RNA can self assemble.
Prove that lipid bilayers isolating the contents from the outside environment occur naturally.
Prove that self-replicating groups of organic molecules in a lipid bilayer can arise naturally. (Protobionts)

Protobionts are interesting because they are self-replicatng and have a metabolism, yet don't have DNA or RNA. Also, regarding RNA instead of DNA? Several viruses are known to use RNA as genetic material instead of DNA.
#68ravenomoarPosted 1/30/2013 5:54:23 AM
halo07guy posted...
Wow. Where to begin?

First of all, evolution does not require a long timespan, nessecerily. While for the most part it occurs over very long periods of time, there have been recorded cases of evolution happening very quickly. One of the most famous is the Italian Wall Lizard experiment, which took insectivorous lizards and transplanted them to an island with a low insect population and few predators. Within 40 years, the descendants of the lizards introduced to the island developed wider, longer jaws, longer forelimbs, and, most importantly, cecal valves in the intestines to slow down the passage of plant matter. That organ did not exist in the parent population. Those are significant morphological changes happening to a species within the span of a human life.

Also, as has been mentioned before, hearts, lungs, and brains are not required to live for many organisms. Nematodes have no heart or brain or lung, their only internal organs being intestines and gonads. Starfish have no heart or brain either. Starfish don't even have gills. There's an entire phylum, echinoderms, that lack hearts and brains as organs. Aside from that, there's clams an oysters who, while having gills and hearts, have no brain. Also, blood vessels aren't a requirement either. Starfish don't have blood vessels, nor do lobsters or crayfish. Also, going back to the nematode? Nematodes don't even have blood.

Regarding abiogenesis, every step nessecery for it has been reproduced in a lab. Essentially the only thing that hasn't been done yet is creating a cell that way. What we have done, though, is:

Prove that the nessecery amino acids and nucleus acid bases can arise naturally.
Prove that RNA can self assemble.
Prove that lipid bilayers isolating the contents from the outside environment occur naturally.
Prove that self-replicating groups of organic molecules in a lipid bilayer can arise naturally. (Protobionts)

Protobionts are interesting because they are self-replicatng and have a metabolism, yet don't have DNA or RNA. Also, regarding RNA instead of DNA? Several viruses are known to use RNA as genetic material instead of DNA.


+1 for halo07guy :)
#69almasbabyPosted 1/30/2013 6:13:56 AM
Lord_Ichmael posted...
Topic: Standard argument from design.

Standard rebuttal: Surely something complex enough to have created a complex universe needs an even more complex creator, and that creator needs a creator, and so on for infinity.


Isn't that just an assumption, that a complex universe needs a complex creator which in turn also needs a creator? It seems to me that the argument against a creator is not unlike the argument for design. It appears that if there is a creator he must be very complex, just as the order of the universe makes it appear that it was designed. Both arguments have there foundation in incredulity, not fact.
#70chareyPosted 1/30/2013 6:51:01 AM
almasbaby posted...
Lord_Ichmael posted...
Topic: Standard argument from design.

Standard rebuttal: Surely something complex enough to have created a complex universe needs an even more complex creator, and that creator needs a creator, and so on for infinity.


Isn't that just an assumption, that a complex universe needs a complex creator which in turn also needs a creator? It seems to me that the argument against a creator is not unlike the argument for design. It appears that if there is a creator he must be very complex, just as the order of the universe makes it appear that it was designed. Both arguments have there foundation in incredulity, not fact.

The complicated that the creator would need to be more complex attacking the complicated of incredulity, it is saying that adding a creator doesn't make the problem less complex it makes it a much more complicated problem.
---
I won't have it! I'm not having anyone talk about me in
the past tense! ~Squall Leonhart