God's Fingerprint On Creation Found!

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by nenothtu
Fair enough. Your inability to supply this 'simple' request, or even offer the proper response, tells me all I need to know concerning the limits of your knowledge in the matter. Since I have the benefit of an education in physics and astronomy, the weakness in that non-response is glaringly clear. Here's a hint - wikipedia doesn't have the answer either.

Because of that response, my response to your query is likewise 'how about no,' I will not explain elementary logic to you. Find it in wikipedia.

I rest my case.

You made no case. You've provided no evidence.

Oh, but I did! Not my problem if you choose to sidestep it out of an inability to argue against it.

You made a flawed argument that the solar system should theoretically "fly apart" due to entropy, and that this indicates that the solar system was designed.

Incorrect. That was my response to your initial claim that gravity is the only factor in the solar system's continued existence. Again, not my problem if you make that claim, yet fail to understand what gravity actually IS.

I'm sorry but I doubt the value of whatever education you claim you received in physics or astronomy.

I'm sure you do. Means a lot to me, coming from one who has yet to demonstrate any sort of understanding of either physics OR astronomy.

We can play this game some more if you wish.

I don't. Not enough exercise in just chasing you around in circles.

I'll ask for the evidence to support your claim,

Judging by your performance so far, you wouldn't understand it if I provided it. But no matter, you've already established that we don't need to provide evidence in support of counter-claims. After all, you haven't, and have insisted you have no need to. I claim the same immunity.

you can counter it by trying to ask questions about something unrelated.

My questions about gravity are unrelated to your initial assertions about gravity? What a novel concept!

It'd be much better if you just finally provided the indisputable evidence that complex, organized systems always implied intelligence and/or design.

To paraphrase something I read somewhere, a long time ago, "since you have failed to answer my questions, neither will I tell you what evidence already presented has told you."

In other words, even if I laid it right out for you, your preconceived notions and inherent resistance to logic would cause you to deny it without consideration.

I have to play the devil's advocate (no pun intended) to a degree in this instance.

That Fibonacci sequences occur at times in nature, and also occur as an acknowledged mathematical pattern in human mathematics, could simply suggest that we - including how we perceive our world, how we reason, how we invented mathematics as a numerical language in the first place, and why our mathematics exist as they do and not in some other form - are as much a product of the natural universe as the pine cones, flowers, and other examples given in the video.

That is to say, since Fibonacci sequences occur in nature, it does not surprise me or constitute proof of an intelligent creator by my standards, that we should find the same patterns in the mathematics of a species which is a product of that nature.

So I cannot view this as proof of an intelligent creator. I have no qualms about considering it as potential evidence of one, however, and am certainly open to the possibility by all means.

[edit on 5/16/2010 by AceWombat04]

Originally posted by novastrike81

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by novastrike81
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

To say that complex organisms live without a designer is your belief and opinion. How do such things get so complex on their own; just randomly by chance?

Is the law of physics your god?

Actually, it is a fact, not my opinion, that complex organized systems exist without designers. They achieve this by obeying the laws of physics, not by randomness or chance.

Examples? Where do they come from if not be design?

I have already provided the example of the solar system being a complex, organized system that was not designed. Its complex system is due to adherence to the laws of physics, not because something designed it.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


That quote is provided in the link that appears at the top as it refers to the post I am answering.

That is the problem is it not? Not matter what the argument there is a loophole that exists that if one seeks it they can discount it. Here is a thread with someone pointing out what they believe to be "evidence" and here you are saying simply that it isn't, sight unseen on the actual argument I would wager.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by novastrike81
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

So if it appears to be designed wouldn't logic say that is IS designed? "Every design has a designer", so if it appears to be designed then it must have a designer. This form of statement doesn't require any proof; it's just logic.

No. As it's been pointed out in this thread, complex and organized systems exist without any designer. This is due to the laws of physics, not designers. There's your logic.

Who wrote the laws of physics? Is that just another of those 'it is because it is' things you just take on faith?

Originally posted by nenothtu

It'd be much better if you just finally provided the indisputable evidence that complex, organized systems always implied intelligence and/or design.

To paraphrase something I read somewhere, a long time ago, "since you have failed to answer my questions, neither will I tell you what evidence already presented has told you."

In other words, even if I laid it right out for you, your preconceived notions and inherent resistance to logic would cause you to deny it without consideration.

Just as I suspected. There is no evidence to support your claim that the solar system was somehow designed and not, in fact, the result of natural laws of physics. Don't worry, I won't ask you anymore.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


Sorry if I missed any answers you gave to the question I'm about to ask but:
who/what supplied the laws that govern the universe? Namely, the laws of physics in this case. I assume the answer is it just naturally did so itself through entropy?

EDIT: of course someone asks my question after I post it. You can disregard mine and answer the other posters.

[edit on 16-5-2010 by novastrike81]

And those evoking "logic " in an attempt to back their arguments you do realise that it's a fallacy to make an assumption EITHER way in the absence of proof. All optimism and skepticism aside. Either argument pro or con is a logically fallacious argument.

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

That is the problem is it not? Not matter what the argument there is a loophole that exists that if one seeks it they can discount it. Here is a thread with someone pointing out what they believe to be "evidence" and here you are saying simply that it isn't, sight unseen on the actual argument I would wager.

Indisputable evidence offers no loopholes.

If I missed some, please provide it.

Oh great ANOTHER thread where the dellusional religious fanatics post praise for pseudo scientific links someone found on the internet. Despite the fact that numbers WERE created by man and obviously did evolve otherwise cavemen would be doing algebra and lucasian mathmatics a feat which is utterly hilarious to think about but still near impossible. If you fundies and religious types are going to "prove god exists" it isn't going to be on the internet where anything can be faked and rebuttal is just around the corner.

Signed

Rational (atheist) user

inb4 going to hell

Originally posted by nenothtu

Who wrote the laws of physics? Is that just another of those 'it is because it is' things you just take on faith?

Nobody "wrote the laws of physics".

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


Name one argument that is indisputable if someone was so inclined to do so. Even the assumption that we and this universe truly even exist at all is a logically fallacious argument thusly not indisputable.
Indisputable is also a subjective term.

[edit on 16-5-2010 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

reply to post by reeferman

"NEWS FLASH : MAN WROTE THE BIBLE!! "


NEWS FLASH : MAN WROTE EVERYTHING YOU BELIEVE!!

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

Name one argument that is indisputable if someone was so inclined to do so. Even the assumption that we and this universe truly even exist at all is a logically fallacious argument thusly not indisputable.
Indisputable is also a subjective term.

[edit on 16-5-2010 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

Sorry, but requiring evidence to back an unsupported claim is not some kind of trick. It's a valid and necessary request. Most of the tricks have come from those trying to duck the question...

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


Contradictory much?

I'm not claiming there is no "prime mover".

post by traditionaldrummer

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


In your subjective opinion.

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

Contradictory much?

I'm not claiming there is no "prime mover".

post by traditionaldrummer

You linked me to the wrong post apparently.

try again

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
Everybody should watch this video.

Math does not evolve, it was/is created.

Think about it.


Math Formula Identifies Creator!

I would think that after watching this it's hard to be a pure atheist that denies a higher intelligence didn't have anything to do with the creation of both this planet and the universe itself.

it would take a true believer in something that has as much evidence as bigfoot to believe this is gods work. the only thing it proves is that math is right therefore aliens must exist and so do parellel universes since you believe math is the language of god and math also tell us these possibilities are highly likely.

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

In your subjective opinion.

Cool. Thanks for playing. I'll continue asking those with unsupported claims for evidence. You can burn bandwidth with nonsense.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

Contradictory much?

I'm not claiming there is no "prime mover".

post by traditionaldrummer

You linked me to the wrong post apparently.

try again

Click the top link in his post not the bottom one.

Try again.