Evolution? The most GDed ridiculous Fing thing ever to have been imagined

originally posted by: Xtrozero
...
At this point in time neither side can prove anything, right?

I disagree with that statement, but see little point in discussing it with you. You've already made up your mind to play the agnostic card regarding this subject. As if no one can be certain either way, whether life evolved from lifeless matter or was created by at least 1 person who knew what he/she was doing. And yes, those who promote the first idea use the verb "evolve" to describe this idea of abiogenesis, life evolving from lifeless matter, that is the correct description for their abiogenesis storylines. You can keep repeating mantras such as "evolution starts after that spark", but it won't make it true and I'll never go along with it given the fact how evolutionists themselves describe (and described) their storylines regarding abiogenesis. Also, the searchterm "evol" still has 72 results on the wikipedia page for abiogenesis (it used to also attribute the term "the chemical evolution theory of life" to Haldane and Oparin, but they removed that part). It describes abiogenesis as "the transition from non-living to living entities" and that it "was not a single event, but an evolutionary process". Nick Lane counts it as one of "The Ten Great Inventions of Evolution." (as per the title of the book mentioned in the section you didn't want to read; in my commentary on the previous page there are more such examples of evolutionists who use similar wording to describe their ideas for the origin of life by chance and mindless processes, or abiogenesis)

...so I do not know what you want from me.

Nothing, I was just responding to the Nick Lane video with some relevant facts that everyone has a right to be made aware of and that Nick Lane doesn't want to talk about or anyone paying any attention to (the real reason why that section in the video is so short and lacking inconvenient details, so there's no need to complain or give the impression that I'm doing something wrong by only responding to "a few mins of almost 4 hours"; I know why both you and Nick Lane don't want to talk about this subject in too much detail, as explained throughout my commentary so far). Which apparently he has achieved with you, if your commentary is honestly and accurately describing how you feel about the parts in my commentary that share those facts of chemistry and physics that are relevant to the naturalistic storylines ("lost interest" for example). It is not surprising to me that you lose interest in that which doesn't 'tickle your ears'* and prefer that which does (such as all the stuff Nick Lane is talking about in the video you shared, which no doubt, takes a lot more time to take in than those facts of chemistry and physics I was talking about, as acknowledged in the quotations by leading researchers in the field). My commentary hasn't been nearly 4 hours of reading.

*: “For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome* [Or “healthful; beneficial.”] teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled.* [Or “to tell them what they want to hear.”] They will turn away from listening to the truth and give attention to false stories.” (2 Timothy 4:3,4)

originally posted by: Xtrozero

The rest of your babble I lost interest in reading because you do not answer a single question and only attack with your ad hoc fallacy crap.

The usual false accusations (after I answered several questions) and painting of that which you're doing on another as a debate tactic. To make it about that and those few questions I didn't answer because they were intended as red herrings, distractions from the relevant facts of chemistry and physics I was referring to in this comment. Let's do a summary of them as shared and acknowledged in the quotations used in my commentary so far:

A theory that life on earth began at hydrothermal (hot water) vents in the ocean floor has been proved false by recent experiments. “This is probably the most unlikely area for the origin of life to occur,” said chemist Jeffrey L. Bada of the University of California. The theory had been advanced after the discovery of thriving bacteria and other organisms, such as giant clams and worms, around the hydrothermal vents. Simulating the temperatures and pressures of the vents, Bada and his colleague, Stanley L. Miller, found that amino acids, the building blocks of life, decomposed rapidly under such conditions. “The combination of amino acids into larger peptide molecules, known as polymerization, was found to be impossible in the presence of water at any temperature,” notes The New York Times. “And more complex molecules carrying the genetic code, a requirement for living organisms, did not last long in the extreme heat.” According to the Times, the researchers concluded “that the hot waters in the primitive oceans would have destroyed rather than created organic compounds in the primitive oceans.”

For example, as Stanley Miller has pointed out, the polymers are “too unstable to exist in a hot prebiotic environment.” Miller has also noted that the RNA bases are destroyed very quickly in water when the water boils. Intense heating also has the tendency to degrade amino acids such as serine and threonine. A more damning problem lies in the fact that the homochirality of the amino acids is destroyed by heating.

Conclusion: the idea that life began (evolved) by chance and natural mindless processes near hydrothermal vents is not "grounded in science" as Nick Lane implies in the video you shared on page 37. My original point in response to that video and I have no reason to change the subject. Nor have you said anything in response to my commentary that would lead me to conclude otherwise. Lots of talk about everything I'm supposedly doing wrong in your eyes though, but nothing of significance that is actually about my original comment and point on page 37, and the facts that support that conclusion.

Coming back to one of your first complaints made in response to my original comment, and my quotation of wikipedia literally describing abiogenesis as "not a single event, but an evolutionary process", and "the transition from non-living to living entities", which you chose to call the "spark of life" instead (possibly to capitalize on the ambiguity of language):

originally posted by: Xtrozero

The other thing I find completely frustrating is your side always mixes in the "spark of life" with the evolutionary process.

Can you be honest about the fact that at least wikipedia in describing the prevailing view for abiogenesis (supposedly a "scientific hypothesis"; implying that it is the view held be scientists, "grounded in science" as Nick Lane puts it), literally describes it as "an evolutionary process"? Since wikipedia and those scientists who hold such a view, are definitely on "your side" regarding the topic of evolution, is it not your side that is doing what you are complaining about as being "completely frustrating"?

That complaint is very unreasonable. But on ATS, you're not the only one using that tactic. It shows a certain pattern of trained behaviour and ways of arguing or conversing with someone who does not share the same beliefs/opinions/views, a standard modus operandi (that also involves some of the techniques described in the article linked in my signature).

If evolution is true the please explain to me how the VERY FIRST seed came INTO existence?

Also, the complexity of the human form, the complexity of the human eye. You really believe the eye evolved?

Thanks

originally posted by: spaceflyr
If evolution is true the please explain to me how the VERY FIRST seed came INTO existence?

Also, the complexity of the human form, the complexity of the human eye. You really believe the eye evolved?

Thanks

Think about things sequentially. The seed is made of atoms. The eye is made of atoms. The dna is made of atoms.

Somehow atoms have to assemble. They dont come pre assembled, planets do not come fully formed, they start off as atoms or tiny pieces of stuff if you dont like the word atom.

Without getting too complicated because it takes years to understand this, so you wont understand in a small space of time if you already dont but lets just say there was a point where all energy was condensed into a very small area and because of this it "exploded" apart. Whilst it was exploding at first, it would be impossible for basically anything you recognise to exist, the energy is so great that it can't be in this form we see here - think the difference between something being a room temperature and it being on fire then eventually mostly "disappearing".

All this energy had to "cool" down before it can form into things you can recognise like suns, planets, gases, even light it does this by spreading apart, the spreading of the energy is how different pieces of this stuff lose energy. Just to add, it would be impossible for life forms to exist or survive in these conditions.

Or it can also clump together. You can literally get some iron and expose it to water or air and you can see it rust, this process happens due to the tiny pieces having affinity for each other, this "rust" is actually iron and oxygen combined.

you must understand also that 1 grain of sand contains around 40 quintillion atoms, so there are alot of moving pieces in the entire universe anyway to cut a long story very short at one point there would be no life at all, just the lifeless atoms.

Nobody knows exactly how the first self replicating molecule formed but this is the thing that made this molecule different to others, it can make more of itself and because its made of atoms and they all react EXACTLY to whats EXACTLY around them, changes always occur permanently.

Due to the energetic surroundings being different all the time, this alters the molecule when it replicates itself. Another way of looking at it would be, try drawing the same exact picture exactly the same, every time, except the ink quantity has to be exactly the same, every pore on the paper has to be exactly the same, the amount the ink soaked in exactly the same, every single line size exactly the same and by the way, the entire page is constantly moving around at the atomic level.

"evolution" is simply a name for how atomic organisations we call "life forms" and or "dna" has changed as it is passed on, like you have a kid, the kid wont be identical to you, a spider has a kid, the spider wont be identical, it literally cant be due to the fact every single atom of a life form is assembled atom by atom as it is being born and living.

Hope that makes things slightly clearer.

All we can do is think more and know more, its impossible to know everything and every detail because you'd have to know about every quanta of energy and what its doing in the entire universe. We're the only life form we know of that can think like this and even if there was billions of others, it would still be that 99.9999999999% of all materials in the universe have absolutely no idea anything is happening at all.

This also doesnt mean there isnt a god, just your interpretation of what god is maybe isnt what you think. I mean people were only trying to describe the reality they're in to the best of their ability at the time, it clearly appears they're talking about what energy is doing. They made some very clever observations and very creative when they knew absolutely nothing.

So you know humans were created in god's image, right? Does that include everything or was it just a general low res 90s internet outline?

Does it include the old johnson and the twin sisters? If so, why? Procreation is obviously out of the question, and playing with oneself is not really becoming of the almighty.

Does god poop? If so, why? There's no 'bad things' in heaven so I guess not, but if he does there must be toilets. Who cleans the toilets? Imagine working as a toilet attendant and then you get to heaven and now have to clean toilets, that would suck.

Does god have a digestive system? If so, what does he eat? Is there ice cream in heaven? I hope so, otherwise I'm gonna be pissed.

Are there cows in heaven? I don't like soya based ice cream.

Does god have nipples?

a reply to: thethinkingman

Which Approach Is More Reasonable? (Awake! | November 2011)

NO HUMAN witnessed the beginning of life on earth. Nor has anyone seen one kind of life evolve into another kind​—a reptile into a mammal, for example. * [Although he firmly believed in evolution, biologist Ernst Mayr admitted that “the fossil record is one of discontinuities,” in that new types of organisms appear suddenly.] Therefore, we must rely on the available evidence to draw conclusions about the origin of life. And we need to let the evidence speak for itself rather than force it to say what we want it to say.

Many atheists, however, view science through the lens of materialism​—a philosophy that assumes purely material causes for the origin of life. “We have a prior commitment . . . to materialism,” wrote evolutionist Richard C. Lewontin. “That materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” Hence, materialists embrace the only alternative they have​—evolution.

Religious people too may have preconceptions that distort their attitude toward science. For instance, as mentioned earlier, some creationists cling to the erroneous notion that God formed the world in six literal days a few thousand years ago. Having made that prior commitment, they try to force the evidence to fit their extremely literal interpretation of the Bible. (See the box “How Long Is a ‘Day’?” on page 9.) People who have such extreme interpretations of both the Bible and science are left without satisfying answers when they try to seek evidence for their faith.

Which View Fits All the Facts?

With regard to the origin of the complex molecules that make up living organisms, some evolutionists believe the following:

1. Key elements somehow combined to form basic molecules.

2. Those molecules then linked together in the exact sequences required to form DNA, RNA, or protein with the capacity to store the information needed to carry out tasks essential to life.

3. The molecules somehow formed the specific sequences required to replicate themselves. Without replication, there can be neither evolutionary development nor, indeed, life itself.

How did the molecules of life form and acquire their amazing abilities without an intelligent designer? Evolutionary research fails to provide adequate explanations or satisfying answers to questions about the origin of life. In effect, those who deny the purposeful intervention of a Creator attribute godlike powers to mindless molecules and natural forces. [whereislogic: such as what Nick Lane refers to as "precision engineering" regarding ATP synthase, a term highlighted in lightblue in the video I used in my 1st response to xtrozero on page 37, which is incidentally also a concise answer to his/her quesion: "How did God do it then?" So these people described here attribute the power of precision engineering "to mindless molecules and natural forces", as Nick Lane also does, providing us with an example of this behaviour, way of reasoning and choice of words.]

What, though, do the facts indicate? The available evidence shows that instead of molecules developing into complex life-forms, the opposite is true: Physical laws dictate that complex things​—machines, houses, and even living cells—​in time break down. * Yet, evolutionists say the opposite can happen. For example, the book Evolution for Dummies says that evolution occurred because the earth “gets loads of energy from the sun, and that energy is what powers the increase in complexity.”

To be sure, energy is needed to turn disorder into order​—for example, to assemble bricks, wood, and nails into a house. That energy, however, has to be carefully controlled and precisely directed because uncontrolled energy is more likely to speed up decay, just as the energy from the sun and the weather can hasten the deterioration of a building. * Those who believe in evolution cannot satisfactorily explain how energy is creatively directed.

On the other hand, when we view life and the universe as the work of a wise Creator who possesses an “abundance of dynamic energy,” we can explain not only the complexity of life’s information systems but also the finely tuned forces that govern matter itself, from vast galaxies to tiny atoms. *​—Isaiah 40:26.

Belief in a Creator also harmonizes with the now generally accepted view that the physical universe had a beginning. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” says Genesis 1:1.

Invariably, new discoveries tend to make the philosophy of materialism increasingly hard to defend, a fact that has moved some atheists to revise their views. * Yes, some former atheists have come to the conclusion that the wonders of the universe are visible evidence of the “invisible qualities” and “eternal power” of our Creator, Jehovah God. (Romans 1:20) Would you consider giving the matter further thought? No subject could be more important or of greater consequence. *

[Footnotes] [whereislogic: I'll do only 2, the 2nd and 3rd, cause I already added the 1st in between.]

Such decay is a result of what scientists call the second law of thermodynamics. Put simply, this law states that the natural tendency is for order to degenerate into disorder.

DNA can be altered by mutations, which can be caused by such things as radiation and certain chemicals. But these do not lead to new species.​—See the article “Is Evolution a Fact?” in the September 2006 issue of Awake!

Regarding the 2nd bolded part above, compare with the findings of Bada, Miller and the quotations of The New York Times in relation to the hydrothermal vents storyline regarding abiogenesis (the chemical evolution of life by chance and mindless processes). I summarized those in my previous comment in the bottem half. They also demonstrate this reality/truth/fact (the bolded description in the article above).

a reply to: whereislogic

Id prefer to hear your personal take on it otherwise it's like im talking to someone elses points through a person who never made them, so i can't really think to much of it.

Thoughts are all im bothered about, if someone is willing to think, i am willing to listen to those thoughts. I have no interest in who's right or wrong, i only have interest in the overall logic of someones brain, this will display how their memories combine.

I dont want to hear how someone tries to object to someone elses thoughts, i want to hear their thoughts like they are not trying to convince anyone of anything but simply just displaying their logic.

This kind of discussion is personal and is not something you can "win" at. I am simply interested in how someone else thinks things work.

In regard to the concept about thermodynamics and entropy, disorder simply means that the energy tries to balance itself out, it means that as energy is converted into various forms it loses momentum until "matter" essentially "evaporates" into lower and lower forms until a point in which energy becomes re-condensed back into matter and this event occurs again in some way. Endlessly because energy is the only thing that exists. This is the beginning of "this universe" so its very high energy (close together) compared to what it will be like in 6'000'000'000'000'000'000'000'000'000'0 years time or more.

This being said it will also be the exact same amount of energy that exists now, it will just be spread out so far its as close to "nothing" as is possible whilst there is still absolutely "everything" in terms of energy, there is always the same quantity of energy forever, it just changes its organisation and state.

Of course we also must include the idea that life forms may evolve to such a great level of advancement they themselves become a force of nature and completely alter the entire order of all energy and at that point, its difficult to say if these natural events would occur and then what that would lead too.

originally posted by: thethinkingman
i only have interest in the overall logic of someones brain, this will display how their memories combine.

Logic is how humans conduct science. We address observable phenomenon and measure its behavior and compile it to make theories about the world. We have found that biological beings and cosmological structures are VERY logical. Meaning they behave according to very precise physics that allow them to persist. Given the logic discovered in the creation itself, it is a proper theory to suppose that there was also a Logical Creator who designed this world. Not simply a human, but a sentience we don't quite understand yet, that is not limited to time or space. For such a Being that is unrestricted by time or space, and also the Creator of physical laws, it would be easy to create vast multitudes of ordered cosmos and organisms to have a material interface for their existence.

Random chance mutations is remarkably unlikely to be the culprit for the origin of things. Order is an exhibition of logic. Whatever put the physicals laws and the ensuing matter into order was also Logical. This is the Intelligent Designer that I call God.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: thethinkingman
i only have interest in the overall logic of someones brain, this will display how their memories combine.

Logic is how humans conduct science. We address observable phenomenon and measure its behavior and compile it to make theories about the world. We have found that biological beings and cosmological structures are VERY logical. Meaning they behave according to very precise physics that allow them to persist. Given the logic discovered in the creation itself, it is a proper theory to suppose that there was also a Logical Creator who designed this world. Not simply a human, but a sentience we don't quite understand yet, that is not limited to time or space. For such a Being that is unrestricted by time or space, and also the Creator of physical laws, it would be easy to create vast multitudes of ordered cosmos and organisms to have a material interface for their existence.

Random chance mutations is remarkably unlikely to be the culprit for the origin of things. Order is an exhibition of logic. Whatever put the physicals laws and the ensuing matter into order was also Logical. This is the Intelligent Designer that I call God.

I would say that humans super ability is infact illogic. No other creature we can see is capable of it. The reason we can even notice things like this is because we can make things up. Our brain for whatever reason has the ability to freely create memories in a way no other animal has. We make "bull#" "non sense" "stories" and then we compare that to what reality does and hey presto! We have a kind of brain level spot the difference going on...which more quickly allows us to notice things.

We are able to very very very easily make up completely impossible things by combining strings of memories in novel ways in our brain. For example, i can literally stand on the back of a great white shark and say "GO FORTH!!!" whilst it flaps its tail through the air, through space all the way to the moon.

Thats absolutely impossible. I know thats also impossible cause im the one who made it up. Our brain can see the possibilities PLUS everything that is totally not possible, so thats more stuff than technically the universe is even capable of. Our issue is, since we're at the mercy of our memories, you totally believe your memories and its up to you to discern what is a real memory and what is made up because in your brain they're basically the same thing. Just as we can make up non sense, this also allows us to make up brilliant ideas too.

They're memories. This is peoples problem and solution. Memory is basically the most advanced thing in this solar system, what lays within its mechanisms is the future, is what "ai" is actually leading to finding out, finding out how absolutely unbelievably advanced our brain is.

Our brain is the most advanced technology that exists. Thats why everything we make attempts to mimmick it. Within your brain right now or peoples brains 10'000 years ago is the ability, far in advance thought wise of this "current" time. The people of 10'000 years ago had the same capabilities mentally as you or i, except they didnt have all the experiences which form memories to draw from. However some people did, some people are very advanced, far ahead of their time. Most of them can't even display it either since its in memory and to be able to "see" what they "see", you need those memories too.

It can't just be inserted either.

We are dropping our brains down to the level of words which are extremely undetailed incomparison to your internal thoughts. When you think, you dont think 1 word at a time, your brain thinks thousands, millions, billions of events at once THEN you try to put that into a string of words 1 at a time and very, very, very slow. Our brain can already exceed all that, RIGHT NOW, TODAY its just that we're in the beginnings of developing language, we made it all up. There are better ways to express, if we could express what we think more closely to how we internally think, we'd seem so much smarter in no time, with very little change to the brain overall.

If you imagine a room or just look around your room or where ever you are. Look at everything you can notice, a door, the walls, your desk, a seat, the colours, the shapes, the sizes, all these details attatch little labels onto the objects with the word written on. Eventually the entire room will be covered in these labels and look nothing like the actual thing.....thats what words are like to our brain. It is like a way of brain navigation for attatching memories together. I could go on......

Energy is the culprit of all things as you put it. It is the form everything must take. It is the ONLY thing.

originally posted by: thethinkingman
Our brain is the most advanced technology that exists.

So what do you think invented it?

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: thethinkingman
Our brain is the most advanced technology that exists.

So what do you think invented it?

i mean technology is the highest possible sense, computers are just certain types of atoms clumpted together and organised...the human brain is about 1893029891803891038038019038013809380193810389038138x more complex and advanced. Thats all i meant.

Have you watched a child be born??? What "invented" its brain???

Have you seen how when you drink water...which comes down from clouds, the water becomes part of your body? And can also turn into water again or many other things????

Its almost like you think the earth was just here and there was no time before that and brains were just all here, done, complete. That makes no sense to me, things happen in sequences. You cant have a brain before atoms exist.

So whatever happens, atoms, energy has to do stuff before any of this could happen. As things are made of pieces of stuff.....that stuff has to combine together ..... there are many ways in which this happens.

again, watch a spider give birth and wonder how the inside of a spider is turning atoms into a spider. Then wonder how did the atoms form? Its totally amazing but its happening, its the energy doing it, you can literally see it, touch it, hear it, smell it, taste it if you want.

Then you will eventually realise, there is only energy. If you "invented" something your self, you'd be more accustomed to what invention actually is and how it happens and that you have to put things together and most of the time, you have no idea what you're doing.

I can't speak to the way your logic works, you think there is some kind of inventor thats outside of energy but also able to manipulate energy at the same time...... thats fine but i dont think that way. If you can't grasp what im saying then just dont say anything until you've thought about it alot more. Or just simply dont engage, think your own thoughts and be happy with them.

The thing i find truely remarkable and im sure you all probably do too, is we're made of atoms except.....we think and feel like this and its very unusual compared to when we look at everything else.

It always and forever will mystify me as to how and why atoms organised in a certain way are able to manifest "life" and talk and walk around ontop of other atoms. Its amazing that atoms do this, that this ability happens...this is what people get the notions of god from because it just seems so crazy. You are literally feeling what energy at a high level of complexity feels like, thats what you are. This is only the beginning too. i think people all feel this for the most part, they have different ways of expressing the same thing. The majesty of this reality and experience.

But this is whats happening. We literally could be the most advanced thing in this universe currently. Something has to be, there has to be a first thing that does it. Even if we're not the most advanced thing, we're up there, we're so rare, 99.999999999999% of all things have no idea of anything.

For example pizza only exists on earth in the ENTIRE UNIVERSE and it only existed in very recent times, for another place to have tomatos, cows, grass, something that can notice all this and make cheese and bread and ovens is just so unlikely, for 99.9% of the time earth existed, most of that stuff didnt. Humans have not existed for very long on the earth and pizza has only existed for less than 1% of our species existence.

And even if humans "survive" we wont survive because we will change. We will become another species. The first aliens we will meet will be human, it will be the first baby we have in space, thats technically an alien. If they stay out in space and survive, the conditions will alter them, they will eventually look very alien. Thats the most logical and probable way we will encounter aliens considering the nearest solar system to us is 24 trillion miles away.

originally posted by: thethinkingman


Have you watched a child be born??? What "invented" its brain???

Think how absurd it would be for random chance to create the mechanisms necessary for organisms to mate with the opposite sex and create within the female a newly developing human that can grow into maturity and continue the cycle. I'm not sure how an extra-dimensional Super-Being would pull such a thing off, but I know random chance definitely could not have done such a marvel of marvels

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: thethinkingman


Have you watched a child be born??? What "invented" its brain???

Think how absurd it would be for random chance to create the mechanisms necessary for organisms to mate with the opposite sex and create within the female a newly developing human that can grow into maturity and continue the cycle. I'm not sure how an extra-dimensional Super-Being would pull such a thing off, but I know random chance definitely could not have done such a marvel of marvels

You're going to have to realise ....my memory isnt like other peoples, so please dont judge me like "im the science guy" and "you're the religious guy" kinda thing, none of that please otherwise you're just judging my thoughts based off other peoples thoughts. i have billions of thoughts and so do you.

thing is "random chance" which its not really random cause there is a laws of physics, im not talking about how much we've noticed, i mean there is laws governing energy whether we know it or not but "random chance" is more easy to point out and obviously far more probable than "an extra dimensional super being" which doesnt exist cause ...theres only 3 dimensions of physical energy..FOREVER ....because energy already radiates into every possible direction, energy is everything, it fills all places that exist, there is no place that has zero energy in it or it wouldnt exist.

But if you're just gonna keep saying the same thing like, omg i cant believe energy does this, there must be some creator, you've made your point but it doesnt actually really state anything.

its absurd to look at things as however many years old you are and go WELL I DONT SEE IT!???? disregarding BILLIONS of years of activities then say oh well it musnt be so, its a creator but i can't describe it or anything. Thats also very absurd.

Its just easier for your memory to believe...so you do but i dont, so please stop saying it to me, ive heard it a million times. Im past that.

Whatever you think this "creator" is, its infact ALL energy acting as one thing called the universe...thats everything. Thats my interpretation. The laws of physics controls everything, is everything and "knows" everything, it is "god" and it is what our ancestors were trying to talk about.

god controls everything, made everything and "knows" everything....its the same concept as the laws of physics....

Our ancestors are us, they see things and think things and have certain ways of trying to say it. Except things are alot weirder than some people can realise, like reality is NEVER ENDING. EVER.EVER.EVER. which is quite hard for people to comprehend.

To make people understand you in the past when they could barely talk cause ...they hadnt even invented words to say any of the stuff they think......they had to humanise the ideas so they're relatable otherwise nobody would have the faintest idea what the hell someone is making noises about.

its not to say there isnt a god, its to say your interpretation of what god is, isnt. But thats MY opinion. So we'll leave it there. thanks.

It would be very nice if people could actually realise that if they dont get something its cause they dont have the memories, they're gonna have to make them somehow and no matter much someone tries to explain...until they create memories in their brain...they will not be able to understand.......it takes ALOT of effort.

originally posted by: thethinkingman
a reply to: whereislogic

Id prefer to hear your personal take on it otherwise it's like im talking to someone elses points through a person who never made them, so i can't really think to much of it.

Since I agree with what is being explained in that article, and I like the way they explain it in simple terms, you can consider it my "personal take on it".* Also note that I often add remarks inside the article indicated by "[whereislogic: ...]". Just as I did this time.

*: I don't want to change the wording in that article but I want to bring up the same points, cause those reflect my view on the matter, my "personal take on it" as you put it. Besides, repeatedly making comments about the same issues with the naturalistic storylines that are never solved or properly answered, gets tiresome if you have to type it all out again. Also, the points being made are often supported by quotations, which you have to copy-paste anyway.

originally posted by: thethinkingman
Our brain is the most advanced technology that exists.

originally posted by: cooperton
So what do you think invented it?

originally posted by: thethinkingman
i mean technology is the highest possible sense, computers are just certain types of atoms clumpted together and organised...the human brain is about 1893029891803891038038019038013809380193810389038138x more complex and advanced. Thats all i meant.

Indeed, even the most advanced supercomputer looks positively primitive next to the human brain. When studying the design and organization of the human brain, more evidence for "precision engineering" (quoting Nick Lane as mentioned before) comes to light, for example:

Is it reasonable to attribute such perfection of design and organization to blind chance?

Consider: The brain enables us to breathe, laugh, cry, solve puzzles, build computers, ride a bicycle, write poetry, and look up at the night sky with a sense of reverential awe. Is it reasonable​—indeed, consistent—​to attribute these abilities and capacities to blind evolutionary forces? I.e. chance and mindless processes?

a reply to: whereislogic

Being flabbergasted by something isnt really sound logic as to why something must be another way considering you probably dont understand alot of stuff about atoms or dna. Its obviously far easier to explain that your memory does not contain the information to make sense of all the stuff going on...because your brain is substantially less energy than....ALL ENERGY. Surely you cannot disagree with the fact...you dont know things so thats why it doesnt make sense.

Of course its amazing. However, people who seem to have this point of view, dare not touch why it is that someone is born handicapped? Where is their perfectly designed brain? Or all the other diseases. Explain why diseases are happening. Explain why they're not perfect from the material and energetic point of view. Explain why if a brick lands on your head and smashes it, you're brain dead?

You dont seem to want to touch, watching how dna will make a life form atom by atom. You can go watch things give birth and develop, you can see it happen. Would you like to explain how thats happening infront of your eyes without any designer involved? You can see people give birth just like apes do, just like many creatures do.....why's it all the same? Why do they all use dna? The exact same thing basically?

You can even infact look at how water is completely unaware yet your body is about 70% water, you can also see how oxygen has no idea anything is happening, yet you're about 65% oxygen atoms by weight. You can see all of these things happen yet you're not querying them.

The debate is over if your points generally orbit around your unawareness or inability to understand things. You can't just keep going but it doesnt make sense???? thats YOUR brain.

Most of these processes can be explained simply by thinking about how atoms join together and thinking about where atoms must have came from and how they're produced. For instance would you like to describe why hydrogen is the most abundant element?

its much easier to explain away your arguments by simply pointing at the imagination and how you're using it in a lazy way, it takes no effort to say well basically like a super version of us did it but its magical and err invisible and errr etc etc etc. Sure its much harder to understand how it ACTUALLY happens....since we've only just started to even grasp this.

But if you think you do understand, please explain atoms and dna in your own way, in as much detail as you can. Or if you dont think its atoms describe what things are made of and how they're forming without talking about atoms or dna. Then perhaps i will take note. Perhaps also try to answer the most difficult questions i have posed to you rather than the ones you think you can get away with.

Theres a far easier way to make it simple.

How come all the stuff thats happening does all this stuff with energy? The atoms CAN do all these things without a "designer".

So if you took the designer element away, you'd still have EVERYTHING that does stuff but if you took all the energy away and just had a designer.....what would they be doing? how do they even exist...when there is not any energy to do anything with? Magic???? Even magic doesnt make that make sense.

The atoms have properties that make them watery or solid or repel or attract .....this happens everywhere.

You go to mars....rocks are still rocky. Stars .....output light.....why? because electrons produce light infact ANYTHING with electrons can produce light INCLUDING YOU, which you can observe by setting yourself on fire, the atoms of your body WILL produce light. You will also be atomised into small particles just like if you set a tree on fire where the only visible part of giant 100 foot tree is a small pile of ashes...because both things and all things, are made of tiny pieces.

a reply to: cooperton

people's actions that warrant either benefit or detriment. With order comes law, and with law comes justice.

Who said anything about people? The entire living world is a hell of pain, violence, disease and misery.

There was no evolution
There was no big bang
There is no gravity

All these are un proven theories..

originally posted by: Bella1
There was no evolution
There was no big bang
There is no gravity

All these are un proven theories..

Whats proven then? How about mention whats proven instead of what isnt.

Like for example say YOU PERSONALLY had to prove what something is made of, how would you do that? How would to label every piece and examine every piece to make sure it works that way???? Or do you just guess? Have you ever tried to make an idea ever????