A Christian Plants His Flag? I Sincerely Doubt It?

[POI]

Well, tell ya what, I'll level with you..

1) Prove to me that sentient life can come from non sentient life...2) and that design can come from disorder..3) and that infinity can be traversed.

If you can do either of these 3 things, I'll abandon my "indoctrinated" belief.

Cool?

4) Until then, I'll continue professing that Christ is Lord, and the way to eternal life is through him, and him alone.

For debate:

1) I think he is asking to 'prove' abiogenesis? Well, being this topic is not scientifically theoretical, I'm not sure anyone can really do this? Which I think will offer one of the last bastions of hope, or safe havens for the Christian to retreat to, when it comes to the ever-shrinking gaps --- as it relates to the "god of the gaps" argument.

2) How does a creationist first determine what is intelligently designed, verses not? I mean, was the 'universe' itself intelligently designed? If so, how does one prove it? Further, if humans were supposed to be one of God's highlights, then why make a "universe" uninhabitable to these humans without major synthetic intervention? Or even more, only create a singular planet, (like Earth), where humans are unable to inhabit a vast majority of it? Or, how about the human itself? How intelligently was the human "designed"?

3) Is it possible 'matter' or 'something', in some form or another, has always existed? If not, why not? Otherwise, the term 'creationism' becomes an absurd assertion. Instead, one can only logically argue for an intelligent 'change agency' alone. And I doubt the aforementioned Christian, in this case, can fly with this concept.

4) Out of all the religions presented in history, why THIS one? Wouldn't a person, who is after truth, at least explore them all? And what happens when/if more than one collection of claims jives with them? Can multiple claims, of conflicting asserted premises, be true simultaneously? If not, but more than one presents with the same amount of evidence, then does one just flip a coin, or other, to discard one of more of them?

[SiNcE_1985]

Then by definition, you must argue for the snowflake. But you know it is absurd to actually do so. It's special pleading at its finest, as I explained why.

Um, no.

Snowflakes don't have components of 1,2,3.

This is the umpteenth time I've said this...it takes more than just complexity for ID to be inferred.

That is why it's called irreducible complexity (or specified complexity), making it distinguishable from regular ole complexity.

It shouldn't be this hard for you to understand...and after this post, any more mention of snowflakes or weeds will be ignored.

The topic of ID is a dead issue, and yet, you are still a "Christian".

Oh, the irony.

I know, because the actual ID argument was already demolished. Which means you must pivot, via more special pleading and also demonstrate arguing for even smaller gaps in the 'god of the gaps' argument.

Sure, go with that.

Nope. Paintings and snowflakes are both unique and complex. Observed unique complexity is what ID argues for. The snowflake immediately exposes the absurdity in your rationale. Highly complex and unique things, (i.e.) snowflakes, apparently DON'T need a designer after all. Therefore, your prior statement is false, by your own admission.

Snowflakes don't have 1,2,3.

Ahh, yes...one last post before I won't be responding to this false equivalent nonsense.

You have to say this now, as your argument is toast. The 'creationist' must somehow reconcile why a god would initially create a human built for self-inflicting aspiration/death, infection/death, and organ failure? You see Venom, evolution instead has you covered. Humans did not start out that way.

You've been slowly but surely itching to discuss the subject of evolution, in the same way you did with the Dover trial lol.

Just say "I want to discuss evolution".

We've already been over this. If you want to go down this route again, then the earth was more finely tuned for weeds than for humans.

Weeds don't have 1,2,3.

1. So, when god initially made humans, (the airway did not initially share the exact same path as their foodway), and wasn't merely divided by the one flap we label the "epiglottis"?

2. So, when god initially made humans, we were not born with an appendix?

3. So, when women were first created, their urethra was not open and highly suspectable to bacteria?

If Adam did not sin, none of the stuff you're crying about now would be occurring.

The standard is very low Venom.

1. Create two distinct pathways to avoid countless aspiration
2. Don't be born with an appendix, as humans function just fine without it. This way, countless people won't die from sepsis
3. UTI's lead to death in many women, due to more poor design

Simple stuff. You see Venom, if you are going to judge what IS "designed" based upon common sense, then common sense would also tell you why the design sucks.

The fall of man.

There it is..... I was waiting for this apologetic. We are the way we are now because of 'sin'! Your conclusion is based solely upon initial indoctrination, mixed with credulity and bad apologetics. I guess initially, the epiglottis never failed, the appendix never ruptured, and bacteria never entered into a woman's urethra. Right?

The fall of man.

Again, the odds of any outcome is the same.

Well then, the multiverse shouldn't be used by naturalists to explain away those odds, if the odds of any outcome is the same.

More food for thought. Spoiler, Sean C. expresses, at the end of the 8-minute video, that theists do have an answer for all of it. This is because god concepts and life are not well-defined in reality.

I disagree with Carroll.

99.99999999% of the "universe" does not appear suitable for "life". What 'odds' are you referring to exactly? Like the weed, which is also an example of ''life' despite the odds, it still found a way anyways to flourish. According to you, humans flourished despite the odds. And yet, the weed flourishes even more. If the weed was able to talk, the weed could ask the exact SAME question, but it would be even more valid, as the weed flourishes even more, despite the "odds".

There is a 1 chance in 10'10^123 that this universe would have been permissible for life.

That is the odds I'm talking about.

I know, so some of you make up an invisible sky carcass for comfort.

Invisible? Christianity was founded upon Jesus being visible.

That's kinda the point.

Your literal view of Genesis, and beyond, forces you to become a theoretical science denier, at all intellectual costs. Many progressive Christians, like Catholics and the like, have 're-branded' their "faith" so they do not abandon Christianity. They just reside under a completely different flavor. They do so because when they study the findings in earnest, without being completely beholden to their indoctrinated bias, (like you), the evidence is overwhelming.

Genetic Fallacy all over again.

I can't do ALL the work for you Venom. Science is hard. I'm not a teacher.

Scientists ain't doing the work either.

Abiogenesis remains unproven, macroevolution remains unseen, multiverses remain speculative.

A lot of bio and cosmo babble. Not enough discovery and demonstration.

I already went out of my way to explain the important details of the Dover trial. And you demonstrated nothing but a mere handwaving anyways. Thus, there really is no point! I can lead the horse to water, but...

Just because they lost in court, doesn't have anything to do with my W's on here.

It's funny you do not adhere to your own standard. Let's try a very simple test for YOUR claimed god.

P1) God exists
P2) God wants a relationship with all
P3) God wants his creation to believe and worship him
P4) God answers prayer
P5) God will especially answer an earnest prayer request from one of his followers to achieve more belief and the worship of him

Q: Please pray for god to contact me in a way I cannot deny. I will then worship him. I'll await the excuses to come, as I've asked this of many for about a decade now.

The Bible says that you are without excuse for not believing. Rom 1:20.

Otherwise, see my response above, about how your indoctrinated beliefs leave you closeminded.

I said; prove life can come from nonlife and become conscious.

Then I'll convert to atheism.

Until then, In God I Trust.

We do not know for sure how intelligent life began? But, based upon what we DO know, the Genesis storyline does not jive with later discovery. This is, in part, why so many differing Christian viewpoints now have to exist, apart from a literal translation of Genesis. I know this is very uncomfortable for you. But it is true.

But one thing all Christians agree on..which is that God did it.

And thats what makes us all comfortable.

Oh, that's right, you also think the earth (and/or) humans (is/are) only a few thousand years old, don't you?

I'm open to the evidence.

Therefore, all species were "designed" in their current form?

The original prototype(s) for each animal was made in its current form.

No macro stuff.

I'm addressing topic #2. And topic #2 deals with 'design'. --- 'Irreducible complexity' and observed 'complexity' in the universe, which could NOT have apparently been manifested by way of natural causes ---

And yet, this has been thoroughly debunked. It's game over. This now requires an extreme apologetic shift from you. Hence, the 1,2,3 approach.

Irreducible complexity and intelligent design can be used interchangeably, ok?

Nope. You already agreed to the given definition of ID. You have completely abandoned your early talking points as well.

I've been saying ID and 1,2,3 since the first page of the thread and have been saying it repeatedly throughout our discourse.

According to ID, snowflakes have all the attributes needed to argue for a 'designer.' Which is why you are aborting hard.

No, snowflakes do not have 1,2,3...which is why no ID'er would ever claim that they are products of ID.

You are trying to force snowflakes upon us, which has become kinda weird...and creepy.

Common sense time... If we were to travel back in time and ask the author of Genesis what he meant, and you started to talk about how the "universe" really works, he would probably have you stoned for "blasphemy" and/or "sorcery".

He would probably say; I don't care how it works, I just know Yahweh created it..and that's all that matters.

[POI]

Um, no.

Um, yes! I know you don't like it, because it destroys topic #2 of the OP. Proponents of intelligent design (ID) argue that certain attributes of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than undirected natural processes like natural selection. The snowflake "defeats" the ID argument in that its a 1) complex, 2) ordered, and 3) unique structure that can be fully explained by natural, mindless processes of physics, and chemistry - (specifically, molecular geometry and thermodynamics) without needing to invoke an intelligent agent or designer.

Sorry buddy, but your goose has been royally cooked. In essence, my given title of this topic stands, as you apparently 'planted your flag'. But we both know that was not really the case after all.

If Adam did not sin, none of the stuff you're crying about now would be occurring.

It's funny how it took you so many posts to say what you should have just said many posts ago. Meaning, 'the fall'. Likely because it is quite embarrassing to say out loud, as an adult. But, when you're backed into a corner, I guess you finally had no choice. Humanity is forever punished for the sin of one fictitious dude and chick. Cool children's story, and quite "just" as well.

Well then, the multiverse shouldn't be used by naturalists to explain away those odds, if the odds of any outcome is the same.

It's funny how you want to mention some scientist's argument to refute the fine-tuning argument, even when I never mentioned it, but then when I mention THE meat-and-potatoes of the ID argument in which the creationists bring forth, including elements of the ID argument for which you brought up yourself in this exchange, you abort. Again, please pick a lane.

I disagree with Carroll.

More nothingburger...

There is a 1 chance in 10'10^123 that this universe would have been permissible for life. That is the odds I'm talking about.

This number is not the chance for our universe to be life-compatible. It was Penrose's estimate for the low entropy of the universe's initial conditions, not for the existence of life itself. Creationists often miscalculate the magnitude of the number, creating an even larger, more dramatic figure than what Penrose originally proposed. But hey, I wouldn't expect anything less, being creationists formulate all sorts of pseudoscience.

Invisible? Christianity was founded upon Jesus being visible. That's kinda the point.

Jesus is dead. Yes, theists manifested a magic invisible sky fairy to easily answer the otherwise unanswered complex questions in life.

Genetic Fallacy all over again.

Mis-label, all over again.

A lot of bio and cosmo babble. Not enough discovery and demonstration.

I already acknowledged that abiogenesis is not theoretical. It's funny how your standard is off the charts HIGH for some things, but really LOW for others. There exists enough theoretical science to at least force your hand in having to re-interpret Genesis to continue retaining this set of beliefs. But instead, you just flat out handwave or deny it to retain your literal indoctrinated view/translation of Genesis. You are the classic science denier.

Just because they lost in court, doesn't have anything to do with my W's on here.

Ignoring WHY they lost, which I explained, is yet another testament to your continued handwaving and denial.

The Bible says that you are without excuse for not believing. Rom 1:20.

Yup, excuses. It's funny how no one performs this simple task. You could have so easily converted me today.

I said; prove life can come from nonlife and become conscious. Then I'll convert to atheism. Until then, In God I Trust.

You also said: "Prove to me that design can come from disorder". I did that with the snowflake. And now you pivot. Hence, the title of this thread is demonstrated.

But one thing all Christians agree on..which is that God did it. And thats what makes us all comfortable.

Some retain Christianity, no matter what, and some fall away. I'm trying to figure out which one you are? If you were to find out Genesis did not happen, as literally told, would this even matter?

I'm open to the evidence.

No sir, you are not. This has been demonstrated time and time again.

The original prototype(s) for each animal was made in its current form. No macro stuff.

And your evidence for this is the claim itself, followed by pseudoscience. Again, your standard is really HI for some stuff, and really LOW for other stuff.

Irreducible complexity and intelligent design can be used interchangeably, ok?

IC is objectively debunked. ID is objectively debunked. It doesn't matter.

I've been saying ID and 1,2,3 since the first page of the thread and have been saying it repeatedly throughout our discourse.

snowflakes have the actual necessary 1,2,3 attributes required for the argument of ID, as I explained at the top, which means you have taken a hard 'L'. You've also said many things. This is all you have left. And it matters not. ID challenges the asserted "designer".

You are trying to force snowflakes upon us, which has become kinda weird...and creepy.

Nope. As explained on the top of this response/post, snowflakes fit the ID criteria perfectly. Which is why you keep trying to banish it. And now you are resorting to name-calling in an attempt to accomplish it.

He would probably say; I don't care how it works, I just know Yahweh created it..and that's all that matters.

Nah, he'd prolly say... What's a 'universe'?

[POI]

[Replying to SiNcE_1985 in post #31]

Venom, I can continue exposing your disingenuous claim in the OP, or, I can instead redirect you to where you would really like to go next; now that you understand you have been royally cooked in this exchange. Please go here if you have nothing further to add in this one: viewtopic.php?t=42729

Your move buddy.

[POI]

[Replying to SiNcE_1985 in post #2]

Venom's original statement:

1) Prove to me that sentient life can come from non sentient life...2) and that design can come from disorder..3) and that infinity can be traversed.

If you can do either of these 3 things, I'll abandon my "indoctrinated" belief.

**************************

Well, the exchange started off with addressing 2).

We now know Venom is disingenuous. If a cosmic designer exists, this designer would be responsible for 'designing' all sorts of things (living and non-living). The argument from "intelligent design" identifies (3) necessarily observed components or attributes: 1) complexity, 2) order, and 3) unique structure. Venom tried to argue for a designer with a 'Picasso' painting. Great, let's flesh this out even further. A Picasso painting has 1), 2), and 3). However, spilled paint may not. Well, since this was Venom's rubric for determining 'design', in that a 'designer' applies 1) complexity, 2) order, and a 3) unique structure to a non-living item, then I can certainly debunk this argument with ease.

Remember what Venom states on the top in red. Whether I mention crystal/mineral formation, snowflakes, or many others, these are prime examples of "design coming from disorder." Meaning, these apparent 'designs' can be fully explained by natural, mindless processes of physics, and chemistry - (specifically, molecular geometry and thermodynamics) without needing to invoke an intelligent agent or designer.

Topic #2 has been completely debunked, per Venom's own standard, and yet he will most certainly remain a Christian. As the title states --> "A Christian Plants His Flag? I Sincerely Doubt It?"

[SiNcE_1985]

It's funny how it took you so many posts to say what you should have just said many posts ago. Meaning, 'the fall'. Likely because it is quite embarrassing to say out loud, as an adult.

Yeah, I was trying to hold it in because it takes us too far deep into Christian theology, which is I'd like to avoid.

But, since you keep pushing the issue, it is what it is.

But, when you're backed into a corner, I guess you finally had no choice. Humanity is forever punished for the sin of one fictitious dude and chick. Cool children's story, and quite "just" as well.

If the dude and chick are fictitious, then humanity ain't punished..are we?

It's funny how you want to mention some scientist's argument to refute the fine-tuning argument, even when I never mentioned it, but then when I mention THE meat-and-potatoes of the ID argument in which the creationists bring forth, including elements of the ID argument for which you brought up yourself in this exchange, you abort. Again, please pick a lane.

What? The point is/was, if there is no fine tuning, then they wouldn't be trying to explain away fine tuning.

More nothingburger...

Well, you're the one who mentioned him.

This number is not the chance for our universe to be life-compatible.

It was Penrose's estimate for the low entropy of the universe's initial conditions, not for the existence of life itself.

Umm, excuse me, sir...but if those parameters for those initial conditions were not met, then life would not be possible.

And that's precisely the point; the initial conditions had to be low, which means the entire process began in an ordered state.

It didn't become ordered over time, the order (low entropy) was there from the very beginning.

That kind of order/precision only comes from minds.

Creationists often miscalculate the magnitude of the number, creating an even larger, more dramatic figure than what Penrose originally proposed. But hey, I wouldn't expect anything less, being creationists formulate all sorts of pseudoscience.

That's horsepucky.

Ain't nobody miscalculating the number.

I heard Penrose, from his own mouth use the number... plus, it is in his published work as well.

You're just trying to downplay both the number, and thesignficance of the number.

But 10^10^123 ain't going nowhere.

Jesus is dead.

Yes, theists manifested a magic invisible sky fairy to easily answer the otherwise unanswered complex questions in life.

Opinions.

I already acknowledged that abiogenesis is not theoretical.

You ain't acknowledging it loud enough.

It's funny how your standard is off the charts HIGH for some things, but really LOW for others. There exists enough theoretical science to at least force your hand in having to re-interpret Genesis to continue retaining this set of beliefs. But instead, you just flat out handwave or deny it to retain your literal indoctrinated view/translation of Genesis. You are the classic science denier.

Just like how everyone who claims to be Christian, ain't Christian.

In the same way, everything that science claims, ain't really science.

Ignoring WHY they lost, which I explained, is yet another testament to your continued handwaving and denial.

If ID had won and naturalists scientists were forced to teach ID in the classroom, the school system would be in an uproar. Teachers would go on strike... protesting and demonstrating.

No need for all that.

You guys can win that battle.

You can have it.

Yup, excuses. It's funny how no one performs this simple task. You could have so easily converted me today.

If you wanted it bad enough, you'll have it.

Some retain Christianity, no matter what, and some fall away. I'm trying to figure out which one you are? If you were to find out Genesis did not happen, as literally told, would this even matter?

If you can prove it wrong, I'll abandon the belief.

[POI]

If you can prove it wrong, I'll abandon the belief.

I already did. You are disingenuous. I explained in post 34.

Fact. Gen. 1 states God "designed' both living and non-living things. What distinguishes "designed" things from not? Well, this was covered - > According to ID, its observed: 1) complexity, 2) order, and 3) unique structure. You then mentioned how we know if an inanimate object was 'designed', via a painting. This means you too acknowledge the "designer" can 'design' inanimate objects. Well, I know you are going to see red if I were to mention the "S" word again, so I'll just-as-well instead identify another easy example, which are mineral crystals. Mineral crystals also possess the observed characteristics of 1, 2, 3. And yet, mineral crystals too are products of a) nature, b) mindless processes of physics, and c) chemistry alone - without needing to invoke an intelligent agent or designer.

I also explained why IC was obliterated, which is WHAT the IDers mainly argue for... And yet, another handwave. The topic of ID is a debunked topic. And it's really beating a dead horse, and even going backwards to much address further at this point. Frankly, I'm surprised you are still on this bandwagon as one of your three 'planted flags'? This tells me you are likely not really serious. Or, you are nowhere near as well-versed as you might have thought in your apologetics.

This means "design" can come from disorder/nature. This means topic 2) is finoto. This means you should denounce your faith. But you are still here professing the same position. Which means you are not earnest in your replies.

Yeah, I was trying to hold it in because it takes us too far deep into Christian theology, which is I'd like to avoid. But, since you keep pushing the issue, it is what it is.

You were immersed into Christian theology the second you engaged the thread. Focus up.

My position: Blind cumulative processes are why human structure is exposed to aspiration/death, infection/death, and organ failure.
Your position: An assertion from an ancient book, for which you were indoctrinated within, is why 'sin' is instead responsible aspiration, infection, and organ failure.

Before "the fall", apparently just a few thousand years ago, the epiglottis was not 'designed' to be the only mechanism to prevent aspiration/death?

Before "the fall", apparently just a few thousand years ago, maybe the appendix had a purpose or was nonexistent, and did not or could not cause infection/death?

Before "the fall", apparently just a few thousand years ago, maybe the prostate did not run right directly through the urethra, which when enlarges, can cause organ failure?

Who knows?

What? The point is/was, if there is no fine tuning, then they wouldn't be trying to explain away fine tuning.

Again, an asserted universe "designer" designs both living and non-living things. Most of the "universe" is non-living.

Umm, excuse me, sir...but if those parameters for those initial conditions were not met, then life would not be possible.

It's irrelevant regardless to even discuss. Your ID argument does not involve the 'design' of 'living things' alone. A matter of fact, most of these "designed" things would instead be non-living things. And you completely crashed out when I mentioned one of them. And this is after you used it as one of your early 'design' arguments, via the painting.

And that's precisely the point; the initial conditions had to be low, which means the entire process began in an ordered state.

Thank you for reconfirming one of the attributes listed at the top of my response.

It didn't become ordered over time, the order (low entropy) was there from the very beginning.

Well then Venom, please do not see red here, but I have to mention it to debunk your statement again....

So do items you identified as not being "designed", like the (snowflake). Snowflakes demonstrate order at their very beginning, during the nucleation phase, when water molecules first arrange themselves into a crystalline structure around a tiny particle. This particular argument is indistinguishable in deciphering whether or not something is designed.

That's horsepucky. Ain't nobody miscalculating the number. I heard Penrose, from his own mouth use the number... plus, it is in his published work as well. You're just trying to downplay both the number, and thesignficance of the number. But 10^10^123 ain't going nowhere.

I think I hit a nerve. Evidence of another crash out is in play here... And as I stated above, the "designer" designs all sorts of stuff, not just the "living". Hence, it's irrelevant anyways.

If ID had won and naturalists scientists were forced to teach ID in the classroom, the school system would be in an uproar. Teachers would go on strike... protesting and demonstrating. No need for all that. You guys can win that battle. You can have it.

That's not at all why I brought up this argument Venom. I brought up this case because the best and brightest for ID were brought forth to prop up ID. And they failed. They failed because they attempted to argue for IC. ID was thoroughly debunked. Further, they were caught lying. This is what you HAVE to do in order to remain on this side of the isle. Which is lie. I already explained WHY they lost.

If you wanted it bad enough, you'll have it.

It's funny, because you would like nothing more than to convert me. I gave you a very simple task. And instead of just saying you'll do it, you don't. Likely because you know, deep down, your indoctrinated religion is false. You want to know what would convert me today? Easy. I provided your precise roadmap. But you will NOT do it, because you know it cannot and will not happen. Hence, the excuses, just like all the others. You are really not much different than psychics, mediums, healing pastors, etc, which claim they have some connection to the 'other side' to perform X. But when it's time for the rubber to really meet the road, you guys instead all offer excuses and/or deflect. Please pray for god to contact me in a way for which I cannot deny him. You stated he wants a relationship with everyone. All I'm asking for is demonstration of his mere existence. It would be SOOO easy for you. But it's okay... I already know you can't and/or won't.

Some retain Christianity, no matter what, and some fall away. I'm trying to figure out which one you are? If you were to find out Genesis did not happen, as literally told, would this even matter?

No. I'm asking you... If you were to find out that one of your perceived literal translations of Genesis did not actually happen, would you merely pivot (or) denounce? Just curious? I know you have too many 'safeguards' in place to disallow a differing interpretation, but I'm just curious anyways?

[SiNcE_1985]

I already did. You are disingenuous. I explained in post 34.

Fact. Gen. 1 states God "designed' both living and non-living things. What distinguishes "designed" things from not? Well, this was covered - > According to ID, its observed: 1) complexity, 2) order, and 3) unique structure. You then mentioned how we know if an inanimate object was 'designed', via a painting. This means you too acknowledge the "designer" can 'design' inanimate objects. Well, I know you are going to see red if I were to mention the "S" word again, so I'll just-as-well instead identify another easy example, which are mineral crystals. Mineral crystals also possess the observed characteristics of 1, 2, 3. And yet, mineral crystals too are products of a) nature, b) mindless processes of physics, and c) chemistry alone - without needing to invoke an intelligent agent or designer.

I read this^ at least 3 times, in an effort to extract something useful from it.

You said a lot, without saying anything.

Nothing useful, nothing new...nothing that I haven't already smashed.

No offense, but moving along.

I also explained why IC was obliterated, which is WHAT the IDers mainly argue for... And yet, another handwave. The topic of ID is a debunked topic. And it's really beating a dead horse, and even going backwards to much address further at this point. Frankly, I'm surprised you are still on this bandwagon as one of your three 'planted flags'? This tells me you are likely not really serious. Or, you are nowhere near as well-versed as you might have thought in your apologetics.

This means "design" can come from disorder/nature.

I already addressed this by distinguishing random, coincidental patterns in nature...from specified, purposeful patterns in nature that we recognize as products of intelligence.

If you can't see or understand, or will continue to flat out disingenuously reject these clear and obvious distinctions, all because you want to maintain a godless naturalistic worldview instead of recognizing the presence of a Creator, then I can't help you.

All I know is; I've done my part.

This means topic 2) is finoto. This means you should denounce your faith. But you are still here professing the same position. Which means you are not earnest in your replies.

Denounce my faith? It is conversations like this as to why my faith becomes even stronger.

You were immersed into Christian theology the second you engaged the thread. Focus up.

Um, no. The Teleological Argument is not a Christian argument..it is a blanket theistic argument.

If I was a Muslim, I could be giving you the same argument without changing one word in my approach.

But, when you start talking about the fall, that is specific to Christianity theology.

My position: Blind cumulative processes are why human structure is exposed to aspiration/death, infection/death, and organ failure.
Your position: An assertion from an ancient book, for which you were indoctrinated within, is why 'sin' is instead responsible aspiration, infection, and organ failure.

Before "the fall", apparently just a few thousand years ago, the epiglottis was not 'designed' to be the only mechanism to prevent aspiration/death?

Before "the fall", apparently just a few thousand years ago, maybe the appendix had a purpose or was nonexistent, and did not or could not cause infection/death?

First of all, I haven't even looked into what you've been saying in this regard (nor do I care to). All I know is, any defects in nature, PERIOD is a result of the second law, which came into effect after the fall of man, as a punishment from God.

This, is all according to Christianity, which you reject so I expect it to be gibberish to you.

Again, an asserted universe "designer" designs both living and non-living things. Most of the "universe" is non-living.

And?

It's irrelevant regardless to even discuss.

It is relevant, because you said that the Penrose equation has nothing to do with life compatibility...and you were simply WRONG, as I demonstrated.

Oh, I get it; when you think you're right, it is relevant.

But once you're proven WRONG, then "oh, it's not relevant anyway".

Is that how we're moving?

Your ID argument does not involve the 'design' of 'living things' alone. A matter of fact, most of these "designed" things would instead be non-living things. And you completely crashed out when I mentioned one of them. And this is after you used it as one of your early 'design' arguments, via the painting.

This is a red herring.

We need to explain how those 1 / 10^10^123 odds were met.

Care to do so?

Thank you for reconfirming one of the attributes listed at the top of my response.

?

I think I hit a nerve. Evidence of another crash out is in play here... And as I stated above, the "designer" designs all sorts of stuff, not just the "living". Hence, it's irrelevant anyways.

So, if paint was spilled on 12 canvases inside of a painter's shop (non intelligence), that negates the fact that the one painting, let's say "Freedom from Want" Norman Rockwell), was intelligently designed?

No, it doesn't.

So, if your reasoning doesn't work here, with my painting example, it won't work in general.

Not only won't it work, but it is about as clear of a non sequitur that I think Ive ever seen on here (and that's saying a lot).

That's not at all why I brought up this argument Venom. I brought up this case because the best and brightest for ID were brought forth to prop up ID. And they failed. They failed because they attempted to argue for IC. ID was thoroughly debunked. Further, they were caught lying. This is what you HAVE to do in order to remain on this side of the isle. Which is lie. I already explained WHY they lost.

I shared with you my theory as to why ID lost, as you did on the flip side with why your side won.

I don't care, either way.

It's funny, because you would like nothing more than to convert me.

That's about the realest thing you've ever said, as it pertains to me.

I gave you a very simple task. And instead of just saying you'll do it, you don't. Likely because you know, deep down, your indoctrinated religion is false. You want to know what would convert me today? Easy. I provided your precise roadmap. But you will NOT do it, because you know it cannot and will not happen.

I have no clue what you're talking about, Hector.

Hence, the excuses, just like all the others. You are really not much different than psychics, mediums, healing pastors, etc, which claim they have some connection to the 'other side' to perform X.

Excuses?

But when it's time for the rubber to really meet the road, you guys instead all offer excuses and/or deflect. Please pray for god to contact me in a way for which I cannot deny him. You stated he wants a relationship with everyone. All I'm asking for is demonstration of his mere existence. It would be SOOO easy for you. But it's okay... I already know you can't and/or won't.

PM me.

No. I'm asking you... If you were to find out that one of your perceived literal translations of Genesis did not actually happen, would you merely pivot (or) denounce? Just curious? I know you have too many 'safeguards' in place to disallow a differing interpretation, but I'm just curious anyways?

Great question.

I'll tell you this; on at least one or two occasions since I've been a member of this forum, I've referred you guys to the debate between Kent Hovind and Hugh Ross (on the John Ankerberg Show, YouTube it).

Kent represented the literal, young earth Creationist side...while Hugh represented the figurative, old earth side.

The debate itself was very fiery and engaging, and at the end of the day, I'm not sure where I stand on it.

I consider both men to be Christian, men of God..with a fundamental disagreement on how long it took God to carry out his creation.

I invite you to watch the debate.

I said all that to say this and to answer your question; as it stands, I don't have an opinion on whether to take Genesis (creation account) literal or figuratively.

But, Hugh Ross still makes a compelling case for old earth creation..so even if the literal interpretation of Genesis is "proven wrong", there's still old earth creation.

I just don't know, though...and that's something I can safely admit because it doesn't affect the Gospel one bit, regardless of where you stand on the subject.

[SiNcE_1985]

[Replying to POI in post #34]

Look at that.

I must have stuck nerve

[POI]

I read this^ at least 3 times, in an effort to extract something useful from it. You said a lot, without saying anything. Nothing useful, nothing new...

This is a shining example of either a reading comprehension issue, or just another handwave. I gave another example of 'design' issued by disorder/nature. You took a hard 'L' here.

nothing that I haven't already smashed.

The completely misplaced confidence continues to be quite astounding.

No offense, but moving along.

Yet another example of a handwave.

I already addressed this by distinguishing random, coincidental patterns in nature...from specified, purposeful patterns in nature that we recognize as products of intelligence.

And I continued to explain this in post 34 and the last one for which you ignored/handwaved.

If you can't see or understand, or will continue to flat out disingenuously reject these clear and obvious distinctions, all because you want to maintain a godless naturalistic worldview instead of recognizing the presence of a Creator, then I can't help you.

I've given the 'distinction(s)' in the above examples (i.e.) - 1), 2) and 3). Heck, you even agreed. Snowflakes, crystals, gemstones, etc.... More to follow...

All I know is; I've done my part.

If by 'done your part', you mean handwaving, then yes.

Denounce my faith? It is conversations like this as to why my faith becomes even stronger.

Yes, when believers are pressed/stressed/challenged, it usually just makes then bigger believers. It's a part of the belief preservation process at work.

Um, no. The Teleological Argument is not a Christian argument..it is a blanket theistic argument. If I was a Muslim, I could be giving you the same argument without changing one word in my approach. But, when you start talking about the fall, that is specific to Christianity theology.

I didn't mentioned "the fall". You did, after I had to keep asking you why the design is so objectively poor, and counterintuitive to 'well being'?

And?

My position is evidence-based, while addressing and/or referencing the theoretical science(s). Yours in not evidence-based, but instead 'faith' based.

It is relevant, because you said that the Penrose equation has nothing to do with life compatibility...and you were simply WRONG, as I demonstrated.

I was not wrong. But even if I was, it's still irrelevant, and I explained why.

Oh, I get it; when you think you're right, it is relevant. But once you're proven WRONG, then "oh, it's not relevant anyway". Is that how we're moving?

Not even close. See above.

This is a red herring. We need to explain how those 1 / 10^10^123 odds were met. Care to do so?

It's not a red herring at all. You do understand such a 'designer' designs non-living things too, right? We have lab created gemstones and lab created crystals, which all have 1), 2), 3), along with purpose, etc.... They are confirmed to be 'designed'. And yet, we also have natural gemstones and crystals. Both the 'designed' stones, as well as the natural stones, possess the same properties. A matter of fact, it's really hard to tell the difference. These are just a couple of more examples of 'design coming from nature/disorder.'

**************************

I'll address the rest when I get more free time. Gotta jet for a bit............

[POI]

?

You just appealed to the exact same attribute(s) I used for "design", while somehow rejecting my example(s). Weeee!

So, if paint was spilled on 12 canvases inside of a painter's shop (non intelligence), that negates the fact that the one painting, let's say "Freedom from Want" Norman Rockwell), was intelligently designed?

If anyone were to ever claim a painting were ever not done by a human, or maybe 'Coco the monkey', or some other 'primate', we would have to assess accordingly. Yes. I addressed this from the jump, paintings are done by humans. However, there exist many things in nature which possess 1), 2), 3) and purpose, while still not requiring a "designer" at all. Hence, topic #2 is debunked.

I shared with you my theory as to why ID lost, as you did on the flip side with why your side won. I don't care, either way.

This is clearly just another complete handwave. The theists lost, not due to politics. They lost because IC was thoroughly debunked.

I have no clue what you're talking about, Hector.

You offered a prior excuse, and now just another handwave.

Excuses?

Yes.

PM me.

No thanks. Let's instead keep all your handwaving public.

Great question.

I'll tell you this; on at least one or two occasions since I've been a member of this forum, I've referred you guys to the debate between Kent Hovind and Hugh Ross (on the John Ankerberg Show, YouTube it).

Kent represented the literal, young earth Creationist side...while Hugh represented the figurative, old earth side.

The debate itself was very fiery and engaging, and at the end of the day, I'm not sure where I stand on it.

I consider both men to be Christian, men of God..with a fundamental disagreement on how long it took God to carry out his creation.

I invite you to watch the debate.

I said all that to say this and to answer your question; as it stands, I don't have an opinion on whether to take Genesis (creation account) literal or figuratively.

But, Hugh Ross still makes a compelling case for old earth creation..so even if the literal interpretation of Genesis is "proven wrong", there's still old earth creation.

I just don't know, though...and that's something I can safely admit because it doesn't affect the Gospel one bit, regardless of where you stand on the subject.

Thanks. I got my answer. You would pivot.