Design

  • Thread starter Thread starter tonyrey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
tonyrey said:
The fatal flaw in scientific materialism is its reduction of truth, beauty, goodness, freedom, justice and love to human ideas. Its atomistic interpretation of reality inevitably leads to nihilism because it rejects the purpose of life. Everything is regarded as ultimately valueless and pointless yet if nothing is true, good or beautiful all our thoughts, values and decisions are subjective and worthless. There is no logical halt on the descent from insight to ignorance nor is there any rational foundation for science. In Hume’s words “Thought is a little agitation of the brain” - and therefore of little significance in the darkness of eternity…
Click to expand...
True. A bit from Macbeth.

“The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle! Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.”

Nihilism. Biological robots that reproduce, or not, and die.

Ed
 
Regularity and beauty are obviously seen in creation. Prove purpose means trying to prove their is an intellect behind it and not simple determinalism. I just thought I’d through that in their to clarify
 
tonyrey said:
The fatal flaw in scientific materialism is its reduction of truth, beauty, goodness, freedom, justice and love to human ideas. Its atomistic interpretation of reality inevitably leads to nihilism because it rejects the purpose of life. Everything is regarded as ultimately valueless and pointless yet if nothing is true, good or beautiful all our thoughts, values and decisions are subjective and worthless. There is no logical halt on the descent from insight to ignorance nor is there any rational foundation for science. In Hume’s words “Thought is a little agitation of the brain” - and therefore of little significance in the darkness of eternity…
Click to expand...
Slow your roll. Evolutionists think nature is breathtakingly beautiful, too. They draw a different conclusion from that beauty, obviously. To your point:

Basing your entire worldview solely on the scientific method and materialism? I agree; tis the height of foolishness. They’re merely two tools in a toolbox (your brain) that should certainly have other tools within it.

However, scientific testing and philosophical inquiry do yield truth, on the odd occasion. If you can internalize that all truth is God-Breathed, you’ll feel far less threatened by the concept of evolution. Although, is evolution proven as truth? No. But it tests better than any of its rival claimants, thus it currently enjoys “primacy” in the question of how we got here.

By no means is it mutually exclusive from a creator God. If all things occur to ultimately fulfill God’s will, you can even say that evolution is “guided” in that metaphysical way.

Genesis states that the things upon the Earth were created by God. I would like to suggest that nowhere in the text does it say that the act of creating these critters was spontaneous and void of development - a la poof, they exist.

The “how” of God’s creation is simply not provided by the text - only the fact of it.

One thing worse than bad science is trying to dress-up religion to look like science (design).
 
All things were made by God. Did God know what Adam would look like? The body’s internal workings are too complex to place human beings in the biological robot category. DNA will tell anyone that complex codes do not randomly spring into existence.

Ed
 
Vonsalza said:
Slow your roll. Evolutionists think nature is breathtakingly beautiful, too. They draw a different conclusion from that beauty, obviously. To your point:

Basing your entire worldview solely on the scientific method and materialism? I agree; tis the height of foolishness. They’re merely two tools in a toolbox (your brain) that should certainly have other tools within it.

However, scientific testing and philosophical inquiry do yield truth, on the odd occasion. If you can internalize that all truth is God-Breathed, you’ll feel far less threatened by the concept of evolution. Although, is evolution proven as truth? No. But it tests better than any of its rival claimants, thus it currently enjoys “primacy” in the question of how we got here.

By no means is it mutually exclusive from a creator God. If all things occur to ultimately fulfill God’s will, you can even say that evolution is “guided” in that metaphysical way.

Genesis states that the things upon the Earth were created by God. I would like to suggest that nowhere in the text does it say that the act of creating these critters was spontaneous and void of development - a la poof, they exist.

The “how” of God’s creation is simply not provided by the text - only the fact of it.

One thing worse than bad science is trying to dress-up religion to look like science (design).
Click to expand...
The modern synthesis is dying right now.

The death of NeoDarwinism, No Selfish Gene
 
tonyrey said:
Ad hominem…
Click to expand...
No, have a look, the Discovery Institute is funded largely by evangelicals. And it is successfully setting Catholics against Catholics.
tonyrey said:
Ad hominem… So far no one has refuted my argument:
Click to expand...
Attenborough refuted it. I quoted him saying “Are you telling me that the God you believe in, who you also say is an all-merciful God, who cares for each one of us individually, are you saying that God created this worm that can live in no other way than in an innocent child’s eyeball?” - skeptical-science.com/atheism/atheism-coping-grief-sir-david-attenborough-case-study/

That’s not ad hominem, and you found that article yourself. Attenborough totally rejects the fairy-tale nonsense of ID, and yet they copied that YouTube onto their website trying to pretend his voice-over for an advert supports their nonsense.
tonyrey said:
I forgot to add that the breathtaking beauty of nature in *What a Wonderful World *is a powerful reason for believing in Design. Its significance far exceeds the ugly aspects of life which are often used as an objection to Creation by a loving God. To expect to have such a great gift without any disadvantages is unreasonable. The burden of proof is on the sceptic to explain how they could be prevented.
Click to expand...
That child Attenborough speaks of, the boy with a worm in his eye, may not see the fairy-tale ID world of raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens.

We may stop to ask: who is closer to Christ - Attenborough in his compassion for that boy’s suffering, or ID fans who try to explain away the boy’s suffering as a disadvantage.

But in any event, on behalf of all Christians who don’t believe the fantasy world of ID, please stop calling us sceptics, and please stop pretending we have any burden of proof here. Thankyou.
 
tonyrey said:
The Designed Body: Irreducible Complexity on Steroids = Exquisite Engineering - See more at: evolutionnews.org/2017/03/designed-body-engineered-system-displaying-irreducible-complexity-steroids/#sthash.JaaBAyvt.dpuf

The website has a reference to an inspiring video What a Wonderful World.
Click to expand...
First, the human body is not well designed. It contains errors inherited from other species, like the failty GULO pseudogene, which is why we are susceptible to scurvy. Since chimps and many other primates have the same error (while non-primate mammals do not) it is obvious that the designer copied an error into our genome when a correct version was available,

Second, you should be aware that irreducible complexity can evolve. See Behe and Snoke (2004) Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues. Yes, that is the same Professor Behe.

Third, Google “cdesign proponentsists”. The Discovery Institute is an attempt at a legal end-run around the law preventing the teaching of Creationism in American public schools. It replaced “God” with “Designer” and refuses to specify any dates or details. The DI does not do science, as shown by the Wedge Strategy document.

rossum
 
Dropped a logic course back in 1970; not sure if what’s being argued constitutes Ignoratio Elenchi or Strawman. I’m thinking people are missing Tony’s point, most definitely that of the message that flows from the article and movie linked in the OP.
 
I think it would be revealing to this particular crowd to identify some vestigial structures that still exist in our bodies because we have yet to fully “evolve” them away. They are the remains of anatomy/physiology we used when we were not yet Homo Sapiens.
  1. The Appendix - When we were more plant-based in our diet
  2. Human Tail Bones - When we used to live in trees
  3. Wisdom Teeth - Our jaws used to be big enough to accommodate them
  4. Wiggling your ears - as to turn a more top-mounted ear to listen for predators
  5. This pink blob in the inner corner of your eye is what remains of a third “lid” like you see in your cat and capuchin monkeys. It serves zero purpose today.
This list is by no means exhaustive. It just contains the more obvious ones you can observe on yourself right now.

His great-times-1,600,000 grandfather and your great-times-800,000 grandfather (you have a longer life-cycle) are likely the same dude. I bet his name was “Merle”.
 
Aloysium said:
I suppose I should never have watched the wonderful film clip because the narrator is an atheist.
It reminds me of some people, who sort of do something like that but in regards to Christians, and end up having no idea what they are missing.
Click to expand...
It’s not a film clip. It’s an advertisement for the BBC Natural History unit made up of clips from programs.

The original video is on the BBC website, captioned “This short film presents David Attenborough’s unique and beautiful take on natural history highlights on BBC One”.

The BBC also uploaded it on YouTube (“Originally uploaded by the BBC on Dec 7, 2011 on their youtube channel: youtube.com/bbc re uploaded for everyone thats not located in the UK and can’t view it there”).

The video is to inspire people to watch the tv channel.
Aloysium said:
Dropped a logic course back in 1970; not sure if what’s being argued constitutes Ignoratio Elenchi or Strawman. I’m thinking people are missing Tony’s point, most definitely that of the message that flows from the article and movie linked in the OP.
Click to expand...
The OP doesn’t make an argument.

The web page is very poor. The claim that “Every one of the body’s control systems is irreducibly complex” is obviously wrong. Etc.

The last section is a misunderstanding of Aristotle, and emergence is not “a defining characteristic of engineered systems”. It can be a bad thing in an engineered system if it means the system will have unexpected behaviors.
 
Vonsalza said:
I think it would be revealing to this particular crowd to identify some vestigial structures that still exist in our bodies because we have yet to fully “evolve” them away. They are the remains of anatomy/physiology we used when we were not yet Homo Sapiens.
  1. The Appendix - When we were more plant-based in our diet
  2. Human Tail Bones - When we used to live in trees
  3. Wisdom Teeth - Our jaws used to be big enough to accommodate them
  4. Wiggling your ears - as to turn a more top-mounted ear to listen for predators
  5. This pink blob in the inner corner of your eye is what remains of a third “lid” like you see in your cat and capuchin monkeys. It serves zero purpose today.
This list is by no means exhaustive. It just contains the more obvious ones you can observe on yourself right now.

His great-times-1,600,000 grandfather and your great-times-800,000 grandfather (you have a longer life-cycle) are likely the same dude. I bet his name was “Merle”.
Click to expand...
He would have a name, being human. It’s something we do.
Homo sapiens is a scientific designation based on morphology. We are defined by a spiritual soul.
There was no time when we were not children of Adam and Eve. With Adam, we came into being.
How God fashioned our bodies from the dust is not specified. It is not important.
The creation of persons is far more complex than is imagined by material evolutionists.
 
Aloysium said:
"For the human body, though, the whole is much more than the sum of its parts. . . as if the body was designed specifically to enable the mind: thought, language, love, nobility, self-sacrifice, art, creativity, industry, and my favorite enigma (for Darwinists): music.
Click to expand...
I have believed for a long time now that Mozart is one of the best proofs for the existence of the soul in relation to its Creator.

youtube.com/watch?v=6KUDs8KJc_c
 
Dawkins doesn’t speak for thousands of Catholic scientists. The ‘evolutionists’ among them alone may be more than there are Catholic ID fans.

Pope Francis declares evolution and Big Bang theory are real and God is not ‘a magician with a magic wand’ - independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-declares-evolution-and-big-bang-theory-are-right-and-god-isnt-a-magician-with-a-magic-9822514.html

w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2014/october/documents/papa-francesco_20141027_plenaria-accademia-scienze.html
 
If only we meant the same thing
when we used the word evolution,
I don’t know,
at least that would be something,
I think.
It does makes it easier to argue
the way things are,
I suppose.
I personally don’t like the word
not only because i have no idea what the person means
but mainly because it suggests a process,
one that goes on by itself,
which all this here does not,
being brought into each moment,
as it is,
a stroke of God’s heavenly brush.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top