Why Creation Is The Only Logical Explanation...

a reply to: daskakik
Noticing you won't quote (edit: or bring up, respond, have people see how it relates to what you quoted from me or show you understand my full point as it considers both ways of thinking and how they contrast and compare) the sentence from me that starts with "In contrast,..." when you swap out "intelligent being" with "god" as you paint another straw man or Don Quijote Windmill Giant to fight and conquer on me. My point is spelled out quite well in that sentence (edit: that starts with "In contrast"; there, twisting doors closed I hope now, I really felt I didn't need to spell all that out which sentence or whole point I was talking about, too bad, I'm wrong again; and I'm sorry for not being able to fit everything right next to eachother all the time to avoid quote-mining for things to nitpick on and picking that which is twisted or ridiculed more easily, or some place where I didn't spell out every little detail about inductive reasoning that gets twisted as well by many here). Hiding what you're doing with your paintjob by phrasing part of it as a question isn't going to fly by me. I'm not going to be your Don Quijote Windmill Giant, I've made my points and I've made them clear.

I also refer back to Newton's question about "phenomena" regarding your way of talking about this subject. In the video I shared in this comment.

And the quotations in this comment.

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: daskakik
Noticing you won't quote the sentence from me that starts with "In contrast,..."

Don't know what you are talking about. I quoted that sentence in full.

ETA: Did a search for "In contrast" on that page and nothing came up. What did I miss?

I also refer back to Newton's question about "phenomena" regarding your way of talking about this subject. In the video I shared in this comment.

Is newton supposed to be a wiseman or prophet for me? He had some good ideas and some of them panned out. Science isn't my religion. I thought that was understood.

originally posted by: daskakik
What's your point, [straw man or Don Quijote Windmill Giant]?

I'll help you out by leaving out some stuff this time and changing the order:

They are machines, as was discovered and published many decades ago by a variety of scientists studying them and can be accurately referred to as what the Encyclopaedia Britannica calls "established facts" and Isaac Newton calls "certain Truths" in my previous quotations about inductive reasoning.

Thus one needs to look those up if your question about my point is genuine rather than a paintjob, I've linked them now in my previous comment.
Baseless claim from article (as in no evidence or logical reasons in support of this claim):

However, nature has already spent millennia developing its own machines,...

Never seen the laws of nature alone develop (or design and create) a machine.
In contrast, that intelligent beings can design and create machinery (interdependent within a system of machinery or otherwise) is again an established fact that I have observed personally many times in my life.

Notice that I'm only using the word "develop" in that sentence in response to that article's refusal to admit machines require a designing process at some point being involved* by their choice of words (even more so when they have self-assembly, replication and reproductive capabilities). Also, that's not my main point, but a sidenote that might have been a distraction before but it's for those who like to twist and an attempt to prevent a bit of that. Apparently it opens the door for other twists again, sigh, tiresome.

* = perhaps admitted to or acknowledged or suggested by Barcs though when he said "nature can design things" instead of a possible 'nature can develop things' (machines for example, cause "things" is nice and vague, and it doesn't matter to spell everything out anyway if you never have to worry about people twisting your points to fit with their straw men and Don Quijote Windmill Giants)

What you end up with is people denying either that machines require the process of designing (at some point, initially for those who want specifics to nitpick on if I'm overlooking something, I prefer the general conclusions Newton spoke about in his explanation regarding inductive reasoning), that they ARE machines, or that the process of designing requires a certain type and level of intelligence rather than just the laws of nature alone as Barcs suggested when he said "nature can design things" supported by examples of patterns in rock formations conflated with both the words "complexity", 'things that have been designed' (by implication of his logic or argumentation) and then later "biomolecular machines" (I'm sure he wasn't suggesting these rock formations in the pictures are biomolecular machines but that's what his line of thinking and his arguments ended up saying or suggesting or would have the reader think; actually drawing the topic away from the biomolecular machinery I brought up, and I'm not misrepresenting or twisting it). Or those who do something very similar to Baldrick in the video I shared earlier. I think Barcs might want to deny all 3 of the above, but I'm not sure about the first since he's so adamant on the latter 2 that I almost have to take his argumentation regarding those summed up with "nature can design things" as the earlier mentioned possible acknowledgement of the first reminder (of a factual requirement for machines, assuming machines still count as "things", but perhaps I should read his commentary to see if he actually responded to that reminder or point at all, regarding the correct usage and meaning of the word "machines" and the verb "design" or said process of designing). There are more points that could be made related to the same realities or different ways one can phrase them (or emphasize the meaning of different words such as "code" and "encoded", "programs" and "programmed", all of which share similar patterns in selective denial and sometimes outright "deny everything", Baldrick-style).

I'm sure I have been way too specific again, everything after "notice" is beyond my initial intention for this comment.

originally posted by: whereislogic
I'll help you out by leaving out some stuff this time and changing the order:

Guess you missunderstood. I'm not asking about the bio machines. I asked what was the point of repeating the same thing over and over because some people disagree with your conlcusion.

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: daskakik
What's your point, [straw man or Don Quijote Windmill Giant]?

I'll help you out by leaving out some stuff this time and changing the order:

They are machines, as was discovered and published many decades ago by a variety of scientists studying them and can be accurately referred to as what the Encyclopaedia Britannica calls "established facts" and Isaac Newton calls "certain Truths" in my previous quotations about inductive reasoning.

Thus one needs to look those up if your question about my point is genuine rather than a paintjob, I've linked them now in my previous comment.
Baseless claim from article (as in no evidence or logical reasons in support of this claim):

However, nature has already spent millennia developing its own machines,...

Never seen the laws of nature alone develop (or design and create) a machine.
In contrast, that intelligent beings can design and create machinery (interdependent within a system of machinery or otherwise) is again an established fact that I have observed personally many times in my life.

Notice that I'm only using the word "develop" in that sentence in response to that article's refusal to admit machines require a designing process at some point being involved* by their choice of words (even more so when they have self-assembly, replication and reproductive capabilities). Also, that's not my main point, but a sidenote that might have been a distraction before but it's for those who like to twist and an attempt to prevent a bit of that. Apparently it opens the door for other twists again, sigh, tiresome.

* = perhaps admitted to or acknowledged or suggested by Barcs though when he said "nature can design things" instead of a possible 'nature can develop things' (machines for example, cause "things" is nice and vague, and it doesn't matter to spell everything out anyway if you never have to worry about people twisting your points to fit with their straw men and Don Quijote Windmill Giants)

What you end up with is people denying either that machines require the process of designing (at some point, initially for those who want specifics to nitpick on if I'm overlooking something, I prefer the general conclusions Newton spoke about in his explanation regarding inductive reasoning), that they ARE machines, or that the process of designing requires a certain type and level of intelligence rather than just the laws of nature alone as Barcs suggested when he said "nature can design things" supported by examples of patterns in rock formations conflated with both the words "complexity", 'things that have been designed' (by implication of his logic or argumentation) and then later "biomolecular machines" (I'm sure he wasn't suggesting these rock formations in the pictures are biomolecular machines but that's what his line of thinking and his arguments ended up saying or suggesting or would have the reader think; actually drawing the topic away from the biomolecular machinery I brought up, and I'm not misrepresenting or twisting it). Or those who do something very similar to Baldrick in the video I shared earlier. I think Barcs might want to deny all 3 of the above, but I'm not sure about the first since he's so adamant on the latter 2 that I almost have to take his argumentation regarding those summed up with "nature can design things" as the earlier mentioned possible acknowledgement of the first reminder (of a factual requirement for machines, assuming machines still count as "things", but perhaps I should read his commentary to see if he actually responded to that reminder or point at all, regarding the correct usage and meaning of the word "machines" and the verb "design" or said process of designing). There are more points that could be made related to the same realities or different ways one can phrase them (or emphasize the meaning of different words such as "code" and "encoded", "programs" and "programmed", all of which share similar patterns in selective denial and sometimes outright "deny everything", Baldrick-style).

I'm sure I have been way too specific again, everything after "notice" is beyond my initial intention for this comment.

You ramble a lot, I've noticed that.

originally posted by: whereislogic
There is conclusive proof/evidence that DNA was created originally (or initially, from the start). You twist it and then pretend to not understand it, then you promote that feigned misunderstanding to others in an attempt to really get people to misunderstand it.

LMAO. There is no way to twist the fact that there is NO objective evidence that suggests DNA was created from the start, regardless of how much you are in awe about the intricate inner workings of the cell. To prove design you need evidence of a designer or you need to prove that it is computer code by downloading it to a storage device. Nobody has ever observed the origin of life, so there is nothing to compare what Behe calls "design" in order to verify. The only thing being twisted here is the definition of design by Behe. You assumed that I was using Behe's "definition" of design when I said "nature can design things". I was not because his definition is basically like saying intelligent design, not simply design. Why do you feel that DNA could not have slowly emerged over time? You use the phrase "conclusive proof/evidence" when you haven't even come close to objective, let alone conclusive. According to logic, you can't compare things without a direct connection.

A lack of evidence for your 'pink unicorn' in the form of a baseless claim that it could have arisen naturally (by natural causes, the laws of nature, and as you phrased it before about your rock formations, "nature can design things") now hidden by an attempt to shift the burden of proof with a question for proof that it couldn't have arisen naturally (supported by that conflation of rock formations with designs or machines), is sufficient reason for me to not take it seriously (except the effect it has on other people, which I take very seriously).

How is that a baseless claim when we have several scientific experiments that show how it could happen? Remember, DNA has been around for a long time. Life started some 4 billion years ago. It is downright fallacious and silly to assume that the very first RNA/DNA was just as complex as modern DNA. Again, I'm not saying ID has been ruled out or that it's impossible, just that we don't have hard objective evidence of such, while with abiogenesis, there is some backing. No, I'm not shifting anything. If you are suggesting that creation is the "only logical explanation" as per the OP, the burden of proof is already on you. Pointing out what's in a cell doesn't prove anything, we already know what's in there. The question is, HOW DO YOU KNOW that it was designed originally? "OMG they look like robots and function LIKE machines", doesn't cut it.

In contrast, that intelligent beings can design and create machinery (interdependent within a system of machinery or otherwise) is again an established fact that I have observed personally many times in my life.

We are talking about the origin of life, not human made technology. Comparing the 2 things as equal is a fallacy.

But nice try in making this about me and pretending it's just my interpretation so people can more easily dismiss it because they've already been nicely setup to not take anything I say seriously because of the many other twists of anything I say on here (combined with ad hominems towards either me or anyone in the videos from ID-proponents I might share).

You are full of it. You have specifically directed a large portion of your response at me personally and now you accuse me of this. You won't address my arguments. Yes, machine is an interpretation and even if it were proven beyond that shadow of a doubt with live video from inside the cell it STILL wouldn't prove that DNA is designed. The problem with your responses for the most part is that there is no hard proof.

Careers in Nanobiotechnology: Biomolecular Machines | Science | AAAS:

However, nature has already spent millennia developing its own machines,...

And the very FIRST line, already says nature did it, and yet you are trying to claim this article supports design?

Never seen the laws of nature alone develop (or design and create) a machine.

Really? So you think the sun is just a ball of fire in the sky? Sorry, but it's a giant nuclear fusion reactor, certainly comparable to a machine, just like our bodies, just like planet earth, just like galaxies and gravity holding them together. Tons of things function like machines out there in the universe, that doesn't mean they were designed by intelligence.

Pointing to machinery that has been programmed and designed to self-assemble, replicate and reproduce

You now have proof that it was programmed?

avoiding acknowledging or spelling out that that requires design and creation otherwise they aren't machines or designs, the purposeful arrangement of parts

That does NOT require design. You assume it does.

but then Barcs complains about me using the word "machines" as if that's not OK and they aren't really machines,

Says the guy that complained for almost 2 pages about my use of the words "complexity" and "design".

They are LIKE machines. They function LIKE machines, they look LIKE machines. You can't say for certain that they ARE machines. The Sun is like a machine as well. Unless you can prove they were designed with interchangeable parts, you really don't have an argument here, especially with the several abiogenesis experiments out there that show parts of how it could have arisen naturally over time. Funny how this argument has been flat out ignored several times now in favor of nitpicking terminology and semantics.

I don't remember who it was in the thread with "axiom" in the title, but there was someone who acknowledged that DNA as it is found in the genomes of living organisms IS a code (the "IS" makes it a statement of fact, or an acknowledgement of a fact in this case)

So because somebody says that DNA IS a code, that counts as statement of fact for you? DNA functions LIKE a code.

Either they are machines whose self-assembly capabilities are encoded into their DNA codes (genomes of living organisms, part of it, cause there's more involved and interdependent regarding these capabilities, just DNA or just RNA won't get you anywhere) or they're not (denial).

Yes, this statement here shows no bias whatsoever.

You're going to believe and promote your fantasy and myth that nature did it either way ("nature can design things"). The least you can do is not make your denial of the meaning of language and your warping or twisting of logic and people's ability to use reason on these subjects that obvious (for me, it's so 'in my face', there, you can't reason with us, "go away" is what someone just told me on youtube somewhere).

The problem is you think that seeing DNA function LIKE a machine automatically makes it designed. Unfortunately, it does not. This is your opinion. Why won't you at least admit that?

a reply to: whereislogic

Could it be that you simply want it all designed? In this way you can say your specific deity did it? Even if you could prove such a thing it tells us nothing of the how your deity did it or how your deity was designed. Ultimately saying your god did is useless, unless your trying to sell a god to the gullible at which point I'm not interested.

a reply to: Barcs

Still denying they ARE machines I see...

Still denying the meaning of the word "design" I see... (disagreeing with a perfectly fine definition from a dictionary -it's not Behe's personally invented definition- and using a definition you won't even specify, so you can apply it to things that aren't designed and then pretend nature can design things)

Still telling yourself and others "that there is NO objective evidence that suggests DNA was created from the start". How do people often say it again? 'If you repeat a lie often enough people will believe it?' It won't make it true however and it's not going to change the reality and fact that there is evidence for that. Plenty actually, to use a word that was used in the video in this comment. Which discusses why you and many others either can't understand or don't want to accept the evidence as being valid, logical and reasonable.

a reply to: whereislogic

No, that is just where you would like things to be. Nobody has to share your subjective view. You are just as guilty of saying things over and over hoping for whatever.

So, you found proof of god, that you probably never needed, good for you. Others need more. Who are you to judge them? Even your god has told you that that isn't your job.

originally posted by: Barcs

How is that a baseless claim when we have several scientific experiments that show how it could happen? ...It is downright fallacious and silly to assume that the very first RNA/DNA was just as complex as modern DNA. ... we don't have hard objective evidence of such, while with abiogenesis, there is some backing. ...
...
Unless you can prove they were designed with interchangeable parts, you really don't have an argument here, especially with the several abiogenesis experiments out there that show parts of how it could have arisen naturally over time. Funny how this argument has been flat out ignored several times now in favor of nitpicking terminology and semantics.

I'll just quote again from my previous comments (since we're going around in circles anyway):

I don't need to disprove something that hasn't been proven or demonstrated to be possible in order to refuse to believe it is possible. ... And imaginations and "wishful speculations" (such as stories about life not coming from life involving abiogenesis/chemical evolution by natural causes, i.e. the laws of 'nature did it') aren't going to change that.

The quotation of "wishful speculations" above is from evolutionist and biochemist Franklin M. Harold who wrote a book called "The Way of the Cell" which was published by "Oxford University Press" which is the largest university press in the world, the same publishers of the Oxford English Dictionary. In it he admits:

"we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
...
I have found the following method to be of extremely good use to me, please do not get confused by Newton's usage of the word "philosophy" (see last quotation for clarity):

“As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For Hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy.”
- Isaac Newton (from Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica)

The Encyclopaedia Britannica on inductive reasoning:

"When a person uses a number of established facts to draw a general conclusion, he uses inductive reasoning. THIS IS THE KIND OF LOGIC NORMALLY USED IN THE SCIENCES. ..."

Newton: Principia mathematica:

His work Principia mathematica (1687) is generally regarded as the most important work of the Scientific Revolution.
...
"Rule I. We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
...
Rule IV. In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions collected by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, 'till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions,

This rule we must follow, that the argument of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses."
...
They are machines, as was discovered and published many decades ago by a variety of scientists studying them and can be accurately referred to as what the Encyclopaedia Britannica calls "established facts" and Isaac Newton calls "certain Truths" in my previous quotations about inductive reasoning.
...
Never seen the laws of nature alone ...design and create a machine.
In contrast, that intelligent beings can design and create machinery (interdependent within a system of machinery or otherwise) is again an established fact that I have observed personally many times in my life.

Pardon the lazy format, since I already did it neat before.

Myths/false stories, just-so stories, maybe-so stories, wishful speculations, hypotheses that may be imagined is what you refer to as "several scientific experiments that show how it could happen" and "with abiogenesis, there is some backing" and "several abiogenesis experiments out there that show parts of how it could have arisen naturally over time." (they show no such thing, that would be the fancy storytelling part using your techniques of warping language and logic and then complaining about it when someone says something about it and explains in detail what and how you're doing that and how you're evading the argument of induction by fancy talk and references to supposed progress in the field of abiogenesis/chemical evolution filled with myths that don't even qualify as hypotheses anymore, but still sold as such to the public; talked about that before as well and also admitted in the term "wishful speculations" by Franklin M. Harold)

Just as a reminder, I've never observed (see requirement 1 below) the laws of nature alone design and create a machine (in the experiments you are referring to or otherwise).

What qualifies a theory as a scientific theory? According to the Encyclopedia of Scientific Principles, Laws, and Theories, a scientific theory, such as Albert Einstein’s theory of gravity, must

1. Be observable

2. Be reproducible by controlled experiments

3. Make accurate predictions

... The same encyclopedia defines a hypothesis as “a more tentative observation of facts [than a theory],” yet lends itself “to deductions that can be experimentally tested.”

"Wishful speculations" don't qualify for that description taken from the article:
Your Cells and DNA—Living Libraries!

originally posted by: Barcs
So because somebody says that DNA IS a code, that counts as statement of fact for you? DNA functions LIKE a code.

I notice you didn't flat out deny that it is a code ("as it is found in the genomes of living organisms", notice you left that out of your response as well, I wonder if you know why I added that to specify or for clarity and to close a particular door; and if that might have some influence on you leaving that out or whether you were just keeping it short). But who knows, perhaps you were building up to denying that though (or want people like me to be a bit more agnostic Pontius Pilatus-style about it)?
From the previously mentioned article again:

Nearly all cells have DNA, complex molecules that resemble long twisted ladders. In the human genome, or our complete set of DNA, the ladders have approximately three billion chemical “rungs.”...In 1957, Crick proposed that it is the linear sequence of the chemical rungs that forms coded instructions. In the 1960’s, that code began to be understood.

There was a different reason I brought up the other persons commentary about the word "code" and response to my statement about DNA as it is found in the genomes of living organisms then to debate whether or not that was a statement of fact (also indicated by my mention of it being "an acknowledgement of a fact in this case", and the whole notion that I used this response as an example of a way of thinking about language and logic if you look at the full sentence in that comment).

originally posted by: Barcs
And the very FIRST line, already says nature did it, and yet you are trying to claim this article supports design?

And again with the straw man fallacies and twisting why I brought up that quote that clearly shows that I wasn't claiming the article supports design and claims nature did it (and intentionally chooses to use the word "develop" rather than the verb "design" that you used when you said "nature can design things"; which I also pointed out as a sidenote).

originally posted by: Barcs

Really? So you think the sun is just a ball of fire in the sky? Sorry, but it's a giant nuclear fusion reactor, certainly comparable to a machine, just like our bodies, just like planet earth, just like galaxies and gravity holding them together. Tons of things function like machines out there in the universe, that doesn't mean they were designed by intelligence.

I know you love changing the subject and draw attention away from what those scientific articles you pretend to be such a fan of have referred to as biomolecular machines for decades now. You want to deny they are machines so instead of acknowledging what these articles have acknowledged for decades and distract away from example the google search link I also left (which demonstrates the same well established fact, that they are machines and therefore called or referred to as such, since that is one of the purposes of words when used in a language) you start talking about suns and galaxies cause they're easier subjects to confuse people about then whether or not biomolecular machines are machines or not?
To me someone who selectively denies the few actual important facts published by what they may sometimes refer to as "peer reviewed scientific articles" so blatantly while pretending to be such a fan of such articles is just being hypocritical and a...

originally posted by: whereislogic
Still telling yourself and others "that there is NO objective evidence that suggests DNA was created from the start". How do people often say it again? 'If you repeat a lie often enough people will believe it?' It won't make it true however and it's not going to change the reality and fact that there is evidence for that. Plenty actually, to use a word that was used in the video in this comment. Which discusses why you and many others either can't understand or don't want to accept the evidence as being valid, logical and reasonable.

Still won't admit that design is your OPINION eh?

Still ignoring the abiogenesis experiments I see.

Experiments are not just wishful thinking. You tried to dismiss them via semantics, but once again offer nothing tangible or objective. Please address the experiments instead of quoting some previous response about hypotheses being wishful thinking and nothing more, while at the same time suggesting that your guess on the cell functionality is anything more than wishful thinking. You really have to do better than blatant hypocrisy if you wish to suggest your opinion is more than an opinion. Where are your experiments that prove those "machines" were designed? What's that? You don't have any? Oh right... scientific experiments on abiogenesis are just wishful thinking, while your opinion on cell complexity is absolute truth. Where is logic?

If you think what you stated is actually evidence of anything, then you do not know what "objective evidence" means. You think that complicated functionality (machines) of the cell proves design. The rest of us agree that more research needs to be done before making such grandiose claims. Maybe if you actually proved something... anything... it would change things. I respect your opinion, but stop treating it as fact. I don't state for a fact that DNA was developed by nature. I say that the evidence for your side is severely lacking.

What qualifies a theory as a scientific theory? According to the Encyclopedia of Scientific Principles, Laws, and Theories, a scientific theory, such as Albert Einstein’s theory of gravity, must

1. Be observable

2. Be reproducible by controlled experiments

3. Make accurate predictions

... The same encyclopedia defines a hypothesis as “a more tentative observation of facts [than a theory],” yet lends itself “to deductions that can be experimentally tested.”

Are you kidding me? All 3 of those immediately disqualify intelligent design of DNA, since the creation ( or design) of DNA has never been observed and there are no experiments whatsoever to test it. Who is promoting straw mans now? I never claimed that abiogenesis was a scientific theory. It's a hypothesis with some supporting experimental evidence.

Please stop with the faulty fallacy accusations. Nothing you posted proves anything. That's the bottom line. You are more hung up on semantics and word meanings than my actual argument.

Bringing up how the sun is a machine, is not changing the subject.

Never seen the laws of nature alone develop (or design and create) a machine.

This is what you said. Scientists have observed stars being developed. Stars are machines. If you disagree, then you should understand why I disagree that the internal workings of a cell are actual designed machines. I will refer to them as machines from now on, just so you stop deviating from the topic every single time I bring it up.

a reply to: whereislogic

How can Logic and Creationism be in the same sentence without a punchline?

a reply to: prizim

That is easy:

"There is no logical basis to creationism or intellegent design."

See same sentence

a reply to: Noinden

hahahah! well played.

a reply to: prizim

The Genesis Account and How it Refutes Creationism

You can check out some of the history of the usage of the word "creationism" (which stands for or was used for young earth creationism historically) in this comment.

a reply to: edmc^2

If you grew up alone with out talking to another human being, would you even know what a god/creator is?

But... If you were hungry, you definitely would know that you needed to eat something.

God or a creator?... We are not meant to know.

Adaptation is key.

a reply to: kyleplatinum

could also cull for unreasonably...you're gone...hahahahaha

originally posted by: kyleplatinum
a reply to: edmc^2

If you grew up alone with out talking to another human being, would you even know what a god/creator is?

But... If you were hungry, you definitely would know that you needed to eat something.

God or a creator?... We are not meant to know.

Adaptation is key.

Now that you've mentioned it - do you know that...

Children are born believers in God, academic claims Children are "born believers" in God and do not simply acquire religious beliefs through indoctrination, according to an academic.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

Dr Justin Barrett, a senior researcher at the University of Oxford's Centre for Anthropology and Mind, claims that young people have a predisposition to believe in a supreme being because they assume that everything in the world was created with a purpose. He says that young children have faith even when they have not been taught about it by family or at school, and argues that even those raised alone on a desert island would come to believe in God. "The preponderance of scientific evidence for the past 10 years or so has shown that a lot more seems to be built into the natural development of children's minds than we once thought, including a predisposition to see the natural world as designed and purposeful and that some kind of intelligent being is behind that purpose," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. "If we threw a handful on an island and they raised themselves I think they would believe in God." In a lecture to be given at the University of Cambridge's Faraday Institute on Tuesday, Dr Barrett will cite psychological experiments carried out on children that he says show they instinctively believe that almost everything has been designed with a specific purpose.

a reply to: edmc^2

I would have to disagree with Dr Barret.

"claims that young people have a predisposition to believe in a supreme being" - Key word, claims.

"If we threw a handful on an island and they raised themselves I think they would believe in God." - Key word, think.

If an individual truly grew up by themselves they would act and think like an animal, because that is what we are.