Conclusive evidence for Design!

  • Thread starter Thread starter tonyrey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Scientists have a special responsibility, but also a special difficulty. When their training has been restricted to puzzles with just one right answer, scientists may find it hard to comprehend honest error, and may condemn those who persist in apparently wrong beliefs. But amid all the uncertainties of science in the digital age, if quality assurance is to be effective, this lesson of civility will need to be learned by us all. — Jerome Ravetz (Oxford), Nature 1/04/2012
 
buffalo said:
Scientists have a special responsibility, but also a special difficulty. When their training has been restricted to puzzles with just one right answer, scientists may find it hard to comprehend honest error, and may condemn those who persist in apparently wrong beliefs. But amid all the uncertainties of science in the digital age, if quality assurance is to be effective, this lesson of civility will need to be learned by us all. — Jerome Ravetz (Oxford), Nature 1/04/2012
Click to expand...
Yet another fitting conclusion! 🙂
 
Most living things have long gone out of existence.

What kind of a designer is that?

A lousy one, certainly not my God.

Then of course science has proven that life evolves!
 
To know if a design is good or bad one must know the designers intent. Yours is a bogus argument.

“The temptation to believe that the Universe is the product of some sort of design, a manifestation of subtle aesthetic and mathematical judgment, is overwhelming. The belief that there is “something behind it all” is one that I personally share with, I suspect, a majority of physicists… The force of gravity must be fine-tuned to allow the universe to expand at precisely the right rate. The fact that the force of gravity just happens to be the right number with stunning accuracy is surely one of the great mysteries of cosmology…
The equations of physics have in them incredible simplicity, elegance and beauty. That in itself is sufficient to prove to me that there must be a God who is responsible for these laws and responsible for the universe.”

  • Davies, Paul C.W."
 
buffalo said:
To know if a design is good or bad one must know the designers intent. Yours is a bogus argument.

“The temptation to believe that the Universe is the product of some sort of design, a manifestation of subtle aesthetic and mathematical judgment, is overwhelming. The belief that there is “something behind it all” is one that I personally share with, I suspect, a majority of physicists… The force of gravity must be fine-tuned to allow the universe to expand at precisely the right rate. The fact that the force of gravity just happens to be the right number with stunning accuracy is surely one of the great mysteries of cosmology…
The equations of physics have in them incredible simplicity, elegance and beauty. That in itself is sufficient to prove to me that there must be a God who is responsible for these laws and responsible for the universe.”

  • Davies, Paul C.W."
Click to expand...
👍
It is simplistic to believe species have to survive indefinitely to justify belief in Design.

Every dog has his day!

To think God has no plan whatsoever is infantile… 😉
 
ManRay said:
I think it’s awesome when theists refer to their god thing as “intelligent”…If you really think about it…well…let’s just say that - in and of itself - is enough for me to get a little tickled.
Click to expand...
Hmm, so we? as a society are intelligent to rub out the FACT that God does exist? Evolution and big bang are nothing more than a hypothesis, it is neither fact nor theory. Why do you ask? Well, if you ask an evolutionist to explain their position they always come to a point where science can’t answer what happened. If science can’t answer the whole of evolution…then it was never proven in the first place. I love science (REAL SCIENCE) and right now I’m in a biology class. The scientific method goes all the way to a peer review…However, if the peer review has a bias, their hypothesis is thrown out as “Junk science” Please allow me to give you a quote by one of your own;
George Wald, an evolutionist, states, “When it comes to the origin of life there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance!” (“The Origin of Life,” Scientific American, 191:48. May 1954). [2] I have other quotes from credible scientists who say they would rather believe in the impossible than God. Personal opinions are not how science works. Thank you for your time!👍
 
tonyrey said:
👍
It is simplistic to believe species have to survive indefinitely to justify belief in Design.

Every dog has his day!

To think God has no plan whatsoever is infantile… 😉
Click to expand...
Approximately 99% of all species have died off.
 
Jesusaves777 said:
Hmm, so we? as a society are intelligent to rub out the FACT that God does exist? Evolution and big bang are nothing more than a hypothesis, it is neither fact nor theory. Why do you ask? Well, if you ask an evolutionist to explain their position they always come to a point where science can’t answer what happened. If science can’t answer the whole of evolution…then it was never proven in the first place. I love science (REAL SCIENCE) and right now I’m in a biology class. The scientific method goes all the way to a peer review…However, if the peer review has a bias, their hypothesis is thrown out as “Junk science” Please allow me to give you a quote by one of your own;
George Wald, an evolutionist, states, “When it comes to the origin of life there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance!” (“The Origin of Life,” Scientific American, 191:48. May 1954). [2] I have other quotes from credible scientists who say they would rather believe in the impossible than God. Personal opinions are not how science works. Thank you for your time!👍
Click to expand...
Bravo! Thank you for your** positive **post. We are surrounded by negativity in our pseudoscientific society. 🙂
 
epan said:
Approximately 99% of all species have died off.
Click to expand...
Precisely how long would they have to live to satisfy your implicit demand for prolonged survival? Do you consider their lives utterly worthless, insignificant and meaningless?
 
tonyrey said:
Precisely how long would they have to live to satisfy your implicit demand for prolonged survival? Do you consider their lives utterly worthless, insignificant and meaningless?
Click to expand...
That depends - are things only worthwhile if they last forever? That does, after all, seem to be the argument deployed by those who suggest that we need an eternal afterlife in order to establish any meaning to our existence.

Of course, if you’re tying this supposition in with the notion of a perfect god who provides this eternal afterlife and hence ultimate significance to our existence, then it really does seem odd that this incomparable ‘designer’ would deliberately create animals that would live for a time and then just die out. Unless all these creatures are waiting in heaven for the rest of us to get there, but that assumption would be rather at odds with the idea that only humans have souls worthy of eternal existence…I could go on, but you get the idea.
 
I have not read any of this post, sorry.

If I am causing trouble, it will not happen again.

Scientists all are looking for design–they see it in the consistency of nature.

They see it in the manifestation of math. From Pythagoras to Galileo to Hawkins, they are looking to math’s design.

They are staring design in the face–and we all know it.

The interpretation is what causes the problem.

The reasonable, but it is only analogously reasonable. The reason is like ours, but a jillion times more.

Each little plant, animal and human are design. Plus the orchestration of all those and the planets, stars, and galaxies.

If I caused trouble, I apologize.
 
Sair said:
Precisely how long would they have to live to satisfy your implicit demand for prolonged survival? Do you consider their lives utterly worthless, insignificant and meaningless?
Click to expand...
Non sequitur. The issue is **living things **- not persons - that have long gone out of existence.
Of course, if you’re tying this supposition in with the notion of a perfect god who provides this eternal afterlife and hence ultimate significance to our existence, then it really does seem odd that this incomparable ‘designer’ would deliberately create animals that would live for a time and then just die out.
Click to expand...
Your supposition about my supposition is a misrepresentation! Can you explain why animals have to live forever to justify belief in Design?
Unless all these creatures are waiting in heaven for the rest of us to get there, but that assumption would be rather at odds with the idea that only humans have souls worthy of eternal existence…
Click to expand...
It is not a question of worthiness because life is a gift. It is absurd to think we deserve anything before we are born. If we are born capable of understanding the concept of an afterlife then it is reasonable to believe we are given the opportunity to live forever.
That depends - are things only worthwhile if they last forever?
Click to expand...
Of course not but how did you reach that conclusion?
Click to expand...
 
Jim_Baur said:
I have not read any of this post, sorry.

If I am causing trouble, it will not happen again.

Scientists all are looking for design–they see it in the consistency of nature.

They see it in the manifestation of math. From Pythagoras to Galileo to Hawkins, they are looking to math’s design.

They are staring design in the face–and we all know it.

The interpretation is what causes the problem.

The reasonable, but it is only analogously reasonable. The reason is like ours, but a jillion times more.

Each little plant, animal and human are design. Plus the orchestration of all those and the planets, stars, and galaxies.

If I caused trouble, I apologize.
Click to expand...
👍 A delightful post. There is no need to apologise for presenting the truth. 🙂
 
tonyrey

If we are born capable of understanding the concept of an afterlife then it is reasonable to believe we are given the opportunity to live forever.

The concept of an afterlife is our heart’s desire. There is nothing absurd or impossible about the concept, such as you would find in the notion of a square circle. If one believes in God, one may suppose that God can give us not only life, but eternal life in the spirit, even when it is obvious that our bodies will die and decay into bones and dust. If God can give us eternal life, He must also be able to give us a rational desire to earn that life. It all begins with God. Once God is allowed into our hearts, all other gifts are possible.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
If we are born capable of understanding the concept of an afterlife then it is reasonable to believe we are given the opportunity to live forever.
Click to expand...
👍 It would cast doubt on God’s goodness if He let us disappear forever - regardless of what we deserve after living in a world with so much heroic love and self-sacrifice on the one hand and evil and injustice on the other…
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top