Information supports Intelligent Design

a reply to: cooperton
Wow this is literally an argument from personal incredulity. You an compare proteins to robots because we have robots. What would you call these proteins if we didn't have robots? How would you compare a black hole to a computer if there weren't computers? If everything has to have a designer who made god?

I just want evidence. Any evidence. And if an ambassador did come down I'd believe but still wouldn't follow. The God in the Bible isn't a good character and preaches more hate than love. There's little to no evidence of Jesus existing and there's no evidence for his divinity.

Also your iPhone analogy is dumb. We don't just wait for the iPhone to work, we make it work. Let me know how quickly you invent a phone with prayer

originally posted by: Satanwasframed
a reply to: cooperton
Wow this is literally an argument from personal incredulity. You an compare proteins to robots because we have robots.

Ahh if only it were just me, you might have a point. But it is biological language to call proteins and other components of the cell, "cellular machinery". And yes, they are microscopic, so that's why I call them microbots.

So now that you realize that your white-coat lords agree that it is machinery, are you now permitted to change your mind and admit that it is called machinery because it is indeed micromolecular machinery?

There's little to no evidence of Jesus existing and there's no evidence for his divinity.

It's 2023 AD because that is the count of years since Jesus's coming. Doesn't really get more historical than that.

Also your iPhone analogy is dumb. We don't just wait for the iPhone to work, we make it work.

Exactly, because it would be absurd to think that an iphone could even fix itself after it has been shattered, intelligent beings have to fix it. So now how absurd would it be for any computer to be made from scratch without any intelligent intervention?

???

originally posted by: Satanwasframed
a reply to: cooperton

Calling them machinery is an analogy.

No, they are literally micromolecular machines. Human's made machines long after these machines in our body were created. It would be a disservice to say humans made it first.

originally posted by: neoholographic
Thank You God for our Lord Jesus Christ. In the beginning was the Word(information that shaped the universe).

The name (or, perhaps, title) “the Word” (Joh 1:1) apparently identifies the function that God’s firstborn Son performed after other intelligent creatures were formed. A similar expression is found at Exodus 4:16, where Jehovah says to Moses concerning his brother Aaron: “And he must speak for you to the people; and it must occur that he will serve as a mouth to you, and you will serve as God to him.” As spokesman for God’s chief representative on earth, Aaron served as “a mouth” for Moses. Likewise with the Word, or Logos, who became Jesus Christ. Jehovah evidently used his Son to convey information and instructions to others of his family of spirit sons, even as he used that Son to deliver his message to humans on earth. Showing that he was God’s Word, or Spokesman, Jesus said to his Jewish listeners: “What I teach is not mine, but belongs to him that sent me. If anyone desires to do His will, he will know concerning the teaching whether it is from God or I speak of my own originality.”​—Joh 7:16, 17; compare Joh 12:50; 18:37.

The Apologists—Christian Defenders or Would-Be Philosophers?

...

“Christianity” Becomes a Philosophy

The philosopher Celsus mockingly described Christians as “labourers, shoemakers, farmers, the most uninformed and clownish of men.” This mockery was too much for the apologists to bear. They determined to win over public opinion by resorting to a new tactic. Once rejected, worldly wisdom was now used in the service of the “Christian” cause. Clement of Alexandria, for example, saw philosophy as “true theology.” Justin, though claiming to reject pagan philosophy, was the first to use philosophical language and concepts to express “Christian” ideas, considering this type of philosophy “to be safe and profitable.”

From this point on, the strategy was, not to oppose philosophy, but to make supposed Christian thought a philosophy higher than that of the pagans. “On some points we teach the same things as the poets and philosophers whom you honour, and on other points are fuller and more divine in our teaching,” wrote Justin. ...

Christianity Distorted

This new strategy led to a mixture of Christianity and pagan philosophy. ...

Certain teachings were greatly modified. For example, in the Bible, Jesus is called “the Logos,” meaning God’s “Word,” or Spokesman. (John 1:1-3, 14-18; Revelation 19:11-13) Very early on, this teaching was distorted by Justin, who like a philosopher played on the two possible meanings of the Greek word logos: “word” and “reason.” Christians, he said, received the word in the person of Christ himself. However, logos in the sense of reason is found in every man, including pagans. Thus, he concluded, those who live in harmony with reason are Christians, even those who claimed or were thought to be atheists, like Socrates and others.

Moreover, by forcing the tie between Jesus and the logos of Greek philosophy, which was closely linked with the person of God, the apologists, including Tertullian, embarked on a course that eventually led Christianity to the Trinity dogma.

...

The point I'm making is that logos ("the Word") as used by John at John 1:1 (and other places where it is applied to Jesus), is referring to Jesus being God's Spokesman, not referring to the "information that shaped the universe", nor reason, mind or thought for that matter (I believe John Lennox likes to use the word "mind" when talking about "the Word" and how things came into existence as described at Genesis). In case that is how you meant the sentence I quoted from you at the start of this comment.

Those who interpret the logos of Scripture with that kind of relation to how things are described in Genesis 1, emphasizing the parts where it says something about God saying something, connecting that to the concept of 'speaking things into existence' as John Lennox does for example, are going “beyond the things that are written.” (1 Corinthians 4:6) As is the case if you interpret "the Word" as some type of reference to the information that shaped the universe. Besides, God shaped the universe as explained in Genesis 1:1 which uses the verb "created".

originally posted by: whereislogic

Those who interpret the logos of Scripture with that kind of relation to how things are described in Genesis 1, emphasizing the parts where it says something about God saying something, connecting that to the concept of 'speaking things into existence' as John Lennox does for example, are going “beyond the things that are written.” (1 Corinthians 4:6) As is the case if you interpret "the Word" as some type of reference to the information that shaped the universe. Besides, God shaped the universe as explained in Genesis 1:1 which uses the verb "created".

But the verb "said" is used multiple times throughout the Genesis story in regard to how He created them: link. God's utterance accompanies the creation of it. It is His Word, and it is certainly logical as well. It was by His word that He created things.

originally posted by: surfer_soul
a reply to: Hecate666

... So why should it be different with nature which created us, and creates things far better than we can?

Dictionary.com uses the following definition for "create": "to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes."

That definition would imply that the verb "create" is inapplicable to something caused by "nature", or natural forces ("ordinary processes"), i.e. things that are attributed to 'nature did it' by the believers* as is the case with the belief that nature created us human beings or caused our existence if you want to rephrase it like that after sharing this definition (*: including Mother Nature worshippers in the closet who have yet to realize that they are attributing godlike attributes and abilities to natural forces and by extension nature itself, in essence treating nature as a God, as if it can do all the same things, and for some, as if it has a will of its own, one of the requirements for the act of creation when the word is properly applied in this context*; hence my expression "Mother Nature worshippers in the closet").

*: allowing for a distinction to be made between something that is actually the product (effect) of creation (the cause) and something that is the product of natural forces (nature, natural causation or processes). And not conflating the 2 concepts or causes as if it's just more of the same. These 2 proposed causes, concepts or viewpoints are diametrically opposed to one another. To avoid confusion it would be better not to use the concept of creation, i.e. the verb "create", when actually talking about or referring to the opposing viewpoint and cause. That is what I mean with "the act of creation when the word is properly applied in this context". "Properly", in my opinion, based on the explanation above and the actual main debate over this subject as waged by those proposing either viewpoint or cause ("this context"). Or to put it in the simplest of terms, using the definition for "create" as defined on Dictionary.com:

'Nature doesn't create.'

Or, alternatively:

'Nature cannot create.' (by definition; with the caveat that I'm using a specific definition here that is applicable to the main debate I spoke of earlier. I'm saying this to head off any attempts to argue that nature can create, and then using a different more general inclusive definition* in support of that argument. Which is not applicable in the main debate I spoke of, the debate the proponents of ID are engaged in, so it's not applicable in this context)

*: the more inclusive definition being "causing the existence of, someone or something." Which I do acknowledge as a valid definition as well, but is confusing to use as such in this discussion, on this subforum or in this thread, as alluded to before when I talked about how to avoid such confusion.

edit or P.S.: you can also see how Charles Darwin contrasts the cause he describes with the term "created", to his proposed cause, in the video I shared on the previous page in the quotation at 3:30 (I used a link before, so I'll embed it now, but I'm not sure if it works, cause it doesn't in my browser, I have to click, "watch on youtube" cause the video won't load, so any confirmation that it's working for any of you would be appreciated):

a reply to: cooperton

A disservice to who? They're organic and not machinery. Good grief

originally posted by: Satanwasframed
a reply to: cooperton

A disservice to who? They're organic and not machinery. Good grief

It is cellular machinery, if that upsets you so much bring it up with the researchers and the textbook writers. There is no better word to describe its behavior. Try to appeal to researchers and get them to change the name from "cellular machinery" to "unintelligent nonsense"... see how stupid that sounds?

You're arguing for stupidity's sake, begging for unintelligence to be the case

a reply to: cooperton

Lol they would change the name if more of them knew about mentally challenged people, like yourself, using it to try and prove creation. In their defense I didn't think they thought people would be this stupid. All your doing is talking about a ribosome. It has nothing to do with a creator.

Round and round we go

a reply to: Klassified

Metaphorically, evolutionists invoke the Trinity of Mother Nature, "the god of Good Luck" & "the god of Destiny" (Isa 65:11; often metaphorically invoked in one breath with the popular expression "chance and necessity"*, so counting this as 1 god in this metaphor), and Father Time, as their Triune God of the Gaps. And they do this when they treat these concepts as if together they can do or accomplish anything a master architect, creator or engineer can do, something that has never been observed. Not on their own and not together. Talk about blind faith.

*: “We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity; 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.”

Franklin M. Harold, 2001. The way of the cell: molecules, organisms and the order of life, Oxford University Press, New York, p. 205.

originally posted by: Satanwasframed
a reply to: cooperton
Christianity is responsible for more evil than most other religions.

Two atheists alone have killed more people than all of Christianity throughout all of history. Stalin and Mao are the two biggest killers in history and they would agree with everything you've said so far.

a reply to: cooperton

No I believe in human rights unlike the Bible. Stalin and Mao aren't anything compared to the millenia of Christian violence. Not only that they didn't do it in the name of some made up god. All of these arguments have been had over decades. Your religion doesn't hold up and is a literal doctrine of hatred and supremacy. Feel free to be a slave to a book forever though. I choose freedom

a reply to: whereislogic

Ok, but what does that have to do with what I said?

Even if we were to concede intelligent design, how does that automatically make the giant leap to the OP's god, or any other singular god worshiped on earth?