the universe is designed

[pinkocommie]

Hahaha.  Wind never made a house, therefore the universe was designed and by proxy, god exists.

Wowza!  

[Tank]

If this wasn't so sad it would be laughable.

[Whitney]

Wind never made a house

I'm sure numerous critters that like to live in wind damaged trees, buildings etc would beg to differ.

[pinkocommie]

Wind never made a house

I'm sure numerous critters that like to live in wind damaged trees, buildings etc would beg to differ.

You're right!     I wonder how tubman's crazy logic is going to explain THAT away?  I'm sure somehow that doesn't count, probably because (insert yet another analogy here which proves nothing and only serves to move the goal posts yet again).  Obviously.

[karadan]

Pick up 100 trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion rocks and throw them with no aim. Eventually the rocks will form piles. Those piles will eventually join up with other piles until they coalesce to form enormous balls floating in space with their own gravity due to mass. They might be rotating slightly with other piles of rocks orbiting them. Some balls of rock might get so massive that something amazing happens

this is the if you roll a trillion sided dice a trillion times you will hit a number fallacy.  think about the last time you built something.  it required about 50 steps or so.  each step required you to hit an exact number out of innumerable possibilities.  there has to be a point at which atheists say, yes, that's impossible.  imagine if I poured ink on a paper and it formed a paragraph.  you can't say that it was just an accident.  

just the sun which makes helium out of hydrogen, scientists cannot understand that.  think about how many steps it took just to do that.

You were trying to demonstrate that a random action (throwing 100 rocks) does not equate to a design. I pointed out that you had over-simplified the point because the universe isn't only made out of 100 rocks. Instead of evaluating my point (which is correct) you diverted the subject to some strange 'fact' about a trillion-sided dice - analogous to nothing. What you have displayed is a closed mind. You are completely shut off to new ideas and have utterly no intention of listening to anything we say. You curiously seem to be rather self-satisfied, which leads me to believe you are a creationist fundie dressed in moderate clothing.

Again you have over-simplified everything. Your ink-on-paper analogy is hugely flawed. This is because the universe has taken 13 billion years to form. You spilling ink on paper is an instant process which leads me (again) to believe that you are a creationist. You seem to be imprinting a creationist attitude upon reality, which is understandably, a very dubious thing to do in this forum. The only way I can see the ink analogy has any relevance is if the ink represents matter and the paper represents a universe-sized piece of empty space. Throw in the laws which govern the universe (gravity, etc) and after 13 billion years you will have planets, stars and galaxies which are entirely representative of your ink. So, if you did spill ink on paper and it formed a coherent paragraph, I'd say, wow! Another beautiful example of a natural process!

Scientists do know how hydrogen turns into helium. It is called fusion. It is a natural process caused by gravitational pressure inside stars.

[Tank]

Pick up 100 trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion rocks and throw them with no aim. Eventually the rocks will form piles. Those piles will eventually join up with other piles until they coalesce to form enormous balls floating in space with their own gravity due to mass. They might be rotating slightly with other piles of rocks orbiting them. Some balls of rock might get so massive that something amazing happens

this is the if you roll a trillion sided dice a trillion times you will hit a number fallacy.  think about the last time you built something.  it required about 50 steps or so.  each step required you to hit an exact number out of innumerable possibilities.  there has to be a point at which atheists say, yes, that's impossible.  imagine if I poured ink on a paper and it formed a paragraph.  you can't say that it was just an accident.  

just the sun which makes helium out of hydrogen, scientists cannot understand that.  think about how many steps it took just to do that.

You were trying to demonstrate that a random action (throwing 100 rocks) does not equate to a design. I pointed out that you had over-simplified the point because the universe isn't only made out of 100 rocks. Instead of evaluating my point (which is correct) you diverted the subject to some strange 'fact' about a trillion-sided dice - analogous to nothing. What you have displayed is a closed mind. You are completely shut off to new ideas and have utterly no intention of listening to anything we say. You curiously seem to be rather self-satisfied, which leads me to believe you are a creationist fundie dressed in moderate clothing.

Again you have over-simplified everything. Your ink-on-paper analogy is hugely flawed. This is because the universe has taken 13 billion years to form. You spilling ink on paper is an instant process which leads me (again) to believe that you are a creationist. You seem to be imprinting a creationist attitude upon reality, which is understandably, a very dubious thing to do in this forum. The only way I can see the ink analogy has any relevance is if the ink represents matter and the paper represents a universe-sized piece of empty space. Throw in the laws which govern the universe (gravity, etc) and after 13 billion years you will have planets, stars and galaxies which are entirely representative of your ink. So, if you did spill ink on paper and it formed a coherent paragraph, I'd say, wow! Another beautiful example of a natural process!

Scientists do know how hydrogen turns into helium. It is called fusion. It is a natural process caused by gravitational pressure inside stars.

Quite right, you saved me a lot of typing there!

[Tanker]

Pick up 100 trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion rocks and throw them with no aim. Eventually the rocks will form piles. Those piles will eventually join up with other piles until they coalesce to form enormous balls floating in space with their own gravity due to mass. They might be rotating slightly with other piles of rocks orbiting them. Some balls of rock might get so massive that something amazing happens

this is the if you roll a trillion sided dice a trillion times you will hit a number fallacy.  think about the last time you built something.  it required about 50 steps or so.  each step required you to hit an exact number out of innumerable possibilities.  there has to be a point at which atheists say, yes, that's impossible.  imagine if I poured ink on a paper and it formed a paragraph.  you can't say that it was just an accident.  

just the sun which makes helium out of hydrogen, scientists cannot understand that.  think about how many steps it took just to do that.

You were trying to demonstrate that a random action (throwing 100 rocks) does not equate to a design. I pointed out that you had over-simplified the point because the universe isn't only made out of 100 rocks. Instead of evaluating my point (which is correct) you diverted the subject to some strange 'fact' about a trillion-sided dice - analogous to nothing. What you have displayed is a closed mind. You are completely shut off to new ideas and have utterly no intention of listening to anything we say. You curiously seem to be rather self-satisfied, which leads me to believe you are a creationist fundie dressed in moderate clothing.

Again you have over-simplified everything. Your ink-on-paper analogy is hugely flawed. This is because the universe has taken 13 billion years to form. You spilling ink on paper is an instant process which leads me (again) to believe that you are a creationist. You seem to be imprinting a creationist attitude upon reality, which is understandably, a very dubious thing to do in this forum. The only way I can see the ink analogy has any relevance is if the ink represents matter and the paper represents a universe-sized piece of empty space. Throw in the laws which govern the universe (gravity, etc) and after 13 billion years you will have planets, stars and galaxies which are entirely representative of your ink. So, if you did spill ink on paper and it formed a coherent paragraph, I'd say, wow! Another beautiful example of a natural process!

Scientists do know how hydrogen turns into helium. It is called fusion. It is a natural process caused by gravitational pressure inside stars.

I ditto Tank's ditto.

HT you are becoming more and more transparent. Not only do you seem to be a creationist but you also seem to be reading from the figurative apologist play book. I find your choice of name ironic considering the chains you obviously still wear.

[pinkocommie]

Scientists do know how hydrogen turns into helium. It is called fusion. It is a natural process caused by gravitational pressure inside stars.

[youtube:21fr2zxu]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JdWlSF195Y[/youtube:21fr2zxu]

Weeee!  

[karadan]

That was awesome Pinko  :hail:

[Dretlin]

That was awesome Pinko  :hail:

Oh aye. That did the trick.  

[Shine]

If the universe is finely-tuned for life, why is such an infinitesimally minute portion of it actually inhabited by living beings?  If indeed this universe is an example of design, then I hardly think it could be called finely-tuned for life given the overwhelming bulk of inhospitable area.  We have yet to find any other lifeforms in the universe beyond this exceedingly thin band of atmosphere, liquid water, and topsoil which circles our little rocky planet.  How could you possibly sum up the entire universe as designed specifically for the existence of life?

say you found a house in antartica.  you would still conclude it was designed in spite of the barrenness around it.

Uh, you just switched your entire argument.  Before you were saying that the universe (in your Antarctic analogy, the "barrenness") is the thing that is finely-tuned for the existence of life (analogized as a house).  But now you are saying that it is not the universe itself nor its specific set of physical properties, but instead that it is some intrinsic quality of life itself which necessitates that there be a designer.  You just shifted the "evidence" of design from the universe to life itself.

Also, analogies comparing man-made structures are a common--and terribly fallacious--tool amongst creationists and ID-proponents.  You are making the false assumption that there is some indubitable parallel between a living organism and a house.  I assume that your analogy is rooted in the equally fallacious sentiment that "complexity cannot arise from simplicity."  Nature continually disproves this statement.

Plus--and this could be due to my lack of science education--I have never understood this conclusion that life can only exist within the specific physical properties of the universe.  As we have never experienced another universe with different physical properties, how could we ever possibly say that these specific properties are the only ones which could give rise to life?  How could anyone possibly infer that these properties alone make life possible?

say, you saw a 100 homes.  each home represents a universe with different constants.  outside of the homes is nothing.  that represents the void.  we would still conclude that the homes were all designed even though they have different constants.

You have directly contradicted your initial premise that this specific universe with its specific physical properties has been specifically designed so as to allow for the existence of life within specific parameters.  Now you are trying to say the existence of other universes with other physical properties would be evidence of design as well?  This makes no sense; initially, you were arguing for the unique, singular nature of this universe as "proof" of design.  You cannot then simultaneously offer up multiple universes as simultaneous "proof" of design as well.

[Tank]

That's just about at Harriets level of understanding. Good post!

[joeactor]

... are you guys still talking about this?

After skimming this thread, and the where do right and wrong come from? one, I can tell you one thing.

I may not know where "right" comes from... but there's a whole lotta "wrong" in this thread!

(don't get me started)

((Interesting Game - The Only Way To Win Is Not To Play))

[elliebean]

Slight revision to Pinko's post:
[youtube:6ms2ad80]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLkGSV9WDMA[/youtube:6ms2ad80]

Sorry...  

[pinkocommie]

I love their album 'Here Comes Science'.  I grew up singing TMBG and now my son is singing them too, only the music my son is enjoying is more scientifically accurate!  *nerdgasm*