The Language of God

uscitizen said:
Happenstance is not an explanation for something as complex and beautiful as life. It defies any logic we have ever known, to assume all of this is the mere result of chance and randomness. Also, to draw such a conclusion, is contradictory to science itself, as science is supposed to seek answers, not make conclusions.
//

Yes it does defy current logic. But then so did Bacteria and viri causing diseases.
The world being round was not logical. It was logical at the time for the earth to be the center of the universe.

Dixie you seem to think this is all we will ever know? This has been a conservative trait since before recorded time of man.

I am just glad we no longer burn insightful people at the stake and put them thru the inquisition.
Click to expand...

Actually, the entire foundational basis for my argument rests on the fact that mankind doesn't fully know or understand everything. Therefore, conclusions about our origin are made without regard for what we may not yet know. How can you say there is no Intelligent Designer, if you don't know? How can you claim all life evolved from a single organism, if you don't know? It's fine to "think" this or that may have occurred, but when you cross the line of theory into fact, you can't logically support it. The same could be said for those who thought it was a fact the Earth was flat, it was a conclusion, and it turned out to be false.

The 'logical' likelihood that universal elements just happened to come to rest on Earth and the Earth just happened to be completely conducive to these elements emerging into the profoundly complex and intricate system we call life, is the equivalent to believing you could randomly throw a bunch of oil paints at a canvas, and produce a Rembrandt. It just defies reason and logic. There are so many crucial factors and variables which had to occur in precise order and harmony, just to make life possible, then there is the complexity and diversity of life itself. Nothing about it infers random chance or happenstance, it all indicates an intelligent design and plan. I don't claim to know what the source is, I don't draw conclusions on the existence of a God, or human-conceived deities, but I do maintain that we simply don't know and shouldn't draw conclusions at this point. Certainly, there is something to be said for human spirituality, it has obviously co-existed with and accompanied human achievement. To dismiss it as superstition or myth, is beyond ignorant.
 
Dixie said:
Actually, the entire foundational basis for my argument rests on the fact that mankind doesn't fully know or understand everything. Therefore, conclusions about our origin are made without regard for what we may not yet know. How can you say there is no Intelligent Designer, if you don't know? How can you claim all life evolved from a single organism, if you don't know? It's fine to "think" this or that may have occurred, but when you cross the line of theory into fact, you can't logically support it. The same could be said for those who thought it was a fact the Earth was flat, it was a conclusion, and it turned out to be false.

The 'logical' likelihood that universal elements just happened to come to rest on Earth and the Earth just happened to be completely conducive to these elements emerging into the profoundly complex and intricate system we call life, is the equivalent to believing you could randomly throw a bunch of oil paints at a canvas, and produce a Rembrandt. It just defies reason and logic. There are so many crucial factors and variables which had to occur in precise order and harmony, just to make life possible, then there is the complexity and diversity of life itself. Nothing about it infers random chance or happenstance, it all indicates an intelligent design and plan. I don't claim to know what the source is, I don't draw conclusions on the existence of a God, or human-conceived deities, but I do maintain that we simply don't know and shouldn't draw conclusions at this point. Certainly, there is something to be said for human spirituality, it has obviously co-existed with and accompanied human achievement. To dismiss it as superstition or myth, is beyond ignorant.
Click to expand...

No. It indicates the weeding out of less effective designs over time.

I dismiss you as superstitious and ignorant.
 
AssHatZombie said:
It makes sense that traits of all kinds come from genes, and that these traits are inherited through the gene, making offspring more or less successful, depending upon the pressures at play in the environment. that makes a lot of sense.

It makes more sense than "god wanted a man, and so it was".
Click to expand...

But think about what you just said! All of these inheritance traits of genes, natural selection, the process of evolution itself.... it's just happenstance and random? And it all depends and relies on random pressures at play in the environment? Seems pretty fucking illogical to me! It seems a lot more likely that something engineered it to all work that way. I've not made the claim that "god wanted man, and so it was" those are your words, and I agree, many people simply believe that is the case, I don't claim to know for certain. I just know that it makes no sense, logically or otherwise, that what we know as life, exists because of nothing more than random chance. There logically has to be more of an explanation for origin.
 
AssHatZombie said:
No. It indicates the weeding out of less effective designs over time.

I dismiss you as superstitious and ignorant.
Click to expand...

Again, it would seem highly illogical to conclude randomness is responsible, because if it were, less effective designs would sometimes be weeded out, and sometimes they wouldn't. RANDOM... ya know? The whole idea of evolutionary process, defies random chance. It is indeed an organized and designed system of process, or every indication suggests this is the case. Nothing concludes it is random in any way.

You can dismiss me all you like, what I am saying does make sense when you think about it. The problem is, you've stopped thinking about it because you've drawn a conclusion, you believe you know the answer, but no one knows the answer.
 
Dixie said:
Then, by logic, it can't be anything other than organized and designed! Retard!
Click to expand...

yJAo7.jpg


Natural selection is not random, and it's not designed.
 
ib1yysguy said:
yJAo7.jpg


Natural selection is not random, and it's not designed.
Click to expand...

ran⋅dom
  /ˈrændəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ran-duhm] Show IPA
–adjective
1. proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern:

It is either random (without definite aim, reason, or pattern) or it is not. It can't be both, it can't be neither. THAT defies logical reasoning completely.
 
Dixie said:
ran⋅dom
  /ˈrændəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ran-duhm] Show IPA
–adjective
1. proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern:

It is either random (without definite aim, reason, or pattern) or it is not. It can't be both, it can't be neither. THAT defies logical reasoning completely.
Click to expand...

It is not random, retard.
 
ib1yysguy said:
Not random ≠ designed.
Click to expand...

The opposite of random is indeed "planned" or "designed." If it's not random, it must have definite aim, reason, or pattern. Read the definition! Aim, reason, and pattern, denote intelligent input, organization, and design, as these things do not randomly occur. Again, read the definition!

It is my logical conclusion that life did not (and could not) randomly happen without any aim, reason, or pattern. Even the Darwinian theories of evolution down to the idiotic concept that we all 'evolved' from a single living organism, denote aim, reason and pattern. So, I agree with you, it isn't random at all.
 
Patterns do not exist only from design.

Seriously, this is the best you can do? Play with a dictionary definition and try to twist it to make it so natural selection has to be designed? You're not even trying.

Natural selection is clearly not random, and there's no need for it to have been designed.
 
ib1yysguy said:
Patterns do not exist only from design.

Seriously, this is the best you can do? Play with a dictionary definition and try to twist it to make it so natural selection has to be designed? You're not even trying.

Natural selection is clearly not random, and there's no need for it to have been designed.
Click to expand...

Aim and reason certainly DO exist only from design. Give me any example of anything that has reason and aim, that isn't intelligently designed to have reason and aim?

I didn't 'twist' anything, I posted the dictionary definition for your benefit. Natural selection is not random, therefore, it has to have aim, reason, and pattern of design. If so, it also would require some intelligent force to make it that way. If it were left up to randomness, it wouldn't work the way it is theorized.
 
Dixie said:
Aim and reason certainly DO exist only from design. Give me any example of anything that has reason and aim, that isn't intelligently designed to have reason and aim?

I didn't 'twist' anything, I posted the dictionary definition for your benefit. Natural selection is not random, therefore, it has to have aim, reason, and pattern of design. If so, it also would require some intelligent force to make it that way. If it were left up to randomness, it wouldn't work the way it is theorized.
Click to expand...

Seriously, you didn't twist anything? The definition says "or" not AND patterns. You are intentionally trying to misrepresent the definition, hoping I wont notice you changed the word around. Seriously, you don't even live in the same universe as the rest of us.

Natural selection is competition between living organisms for scarce resources. Even if you want to assume all living things were put on this earth in their present form, there is no reason that natural selection needs to be guided or "designed" at all. Less fit organisms don't reproduce as frequently as more successful ones. That's all there is to it. It's not random, because it's guided by a process (read: pattern) called natural selection.
 
ib1yysguy said:
Seriously, you didn't twist anything? The definition says "or" not AND patterns. You are intentionally trying to misrepresent the definition, hoping I wont notice you changed the word around. Seriously, you don't even live in the same universe as the rest of us.

Natural selection is competition between living organisms for scarce resources. Even if you want to assume all living things were put on this earth in their present form, there is no reason that natural selection needs to be guided or "designed" at all. Less fit organisms don't reproduce as frequently as more successful ones. That's all there is to it. It's not random, because it's guided by a process (read: pattern) called natural selection.
Click to expand...

The definition does indeed say "OR" and not "AND" which is why I am right and you are wrong. You attempted to connect "random" to "patterns" and disregard "aim" and "reason" as if the definition said "AND" and not "OR." When dealing with pattern, the word has a slightly different context and understanding. You are not familiar with "context" so you don't comprehend this.

Congratulations, you just illustrated how Natural selection is not random, it is therefore, with aim, reason, and pattern, and denotes some source of intelligent input to make it have aim, reason, and pattern. You can't have it both ways, it is either RANDOM or it's WITH REASON AND AIM! If it's with REASON AND AIM... WHY??? Now... either you can explain why or you can't. I admit, I don't know why, I never claimed I did, you are the one who is drawing conclusions, not me!
 
Dixie said:
ran⋅dom
  /ˈrændəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ran-duhm] Show IPA
–adjective
1. proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern:

It is either random (without definite aim, reason, or pattern) or it is not. It can't be both, it can't be neither. THAT defies logical reasoning completely.
Click to expand...

It says or. That means it can have aim, it can have reason, or it can have pattern. It doesn't have to have aim, reason, AND pattern. It can have one, and in this case it has pattern.

This is precisely why you fail the logic test. You can't read a definition without skewing it in your head to say the exact opposite of what it says. It says OR, which makes you 100 percent wrong.

Not to mention, it's totally douchy to pull up dictionary definitions then try to manipulate them to mean something they don't.

You even go on to continue to misrepeat the definition.

Dixie said:
Natural selection is not random, it is therefore, with aim, reason, and pattern
Click to expand...

You are the most dishonest person I've ever encountered. You're not even ashamed to do it. It's incredible.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top