the universe is designed

[karadan]

*nerdgasm*

 

[harriet_tubman]

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

no, we have no evidence of certain random forces every designing anything.  natural selection is a separate debate.  why believe in something for which there is no evidence?  why believe that blind forces can design when we've never seen this happen in other blind forces such as wind, rain, erosion or earthquakes.

[harriet_tubman]

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.

quite the contrary.  unfortunately it is very difficult for human beings to understand all the steps required to form a star.  neither of us are super scientists so we are incapable of truly appreciating the awesome complexity and the immense design required to make a functioning star.  of course the atheists are desperate to believe that it is a simple process.  i am asking you this is there any point at which you will change your mind?  if you were to learn of how delicate the sun's balance is would you change your mind?  is there any point at which facts will persuade your otherwise?  what facts implying design do you have to see before you admit you're wrong?  

i do have some facts that can illustrate how remarkably delicate the earth's atmosphere is.  right now we have 300 carbon parts per million in our atmosphere and scientists tell us that if that number should rise maybe even as low as 450 but let's just say that it is as high as 600 then the earth's atmosphere changes remarkably setting off a huge mass extinction.  that would be like a house that is 10km long by 10km high by 10km wide and inside it is a 3m cube representing carbon.  if that 3m cube should double then the whole house becomes unlivable.  that's how delicate our earth is.  now you want me to believe that blind forces shaped that delicate balance?

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

scientists know how to create fusion.  they don't know how the sun does it naturally.  moreover it is an immensely complex process that took scientists years to learn.  and you think it's just an accident that the sun can do this amazingly complex process?

[harriet_tubman]

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.

what i meant by my analogy was that you implied that since the universe is so amazingly barren and since life occupies such a tiny fraction of it, that therefore the universe is not created for life.  what i illustrated by my analogy was that it doesn't matter how much barrenness surrounds a design, that design is still designed.

You are making the false assumption that there is some indubitable parallel between a living organism and a house.

they are remarkably similar.  both require fine-tuning in order to function.

I assume that your analogy is rooted in the equally fallacious sentiment that "complexity cannot arise from simplicity."  Nature continually disproves this statement.

prove it

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.

first the fact that life can exist under certain other finely-tuned parameters can not be proven but let's give atheists the benefit of the doubt and say that life can.  just because life can exist under other narrow ranges, or fine-tuned parameters does not mean that blind forces can fine-tune parameters.

say we saw a house.  i would say it's designed, you would say the wind did it and here's my proof look at those 100 houses over there.  those other 100 houses do not prove that wind or blind forces made them.

[Tank]

scientists know how to create fusion.  they don't know how the sun does it naturally.  

What unmitigated bullshit!

CLASS 7 Thermonuclear fusion in stars.

Thermonuclear fusion in stars is activated by gravitational contraction. Because the fusion of
nuclei is strongly hindered by Coulomb repulsion, the first nuclear fuel to ignite is composed of
light nuclei with low charge. The energy released by this fuel brings a temporary halt to the
contraction of the star. But contraction resumes when this particular fuel is exhausted. The
internal temperature then rises until the next available fuel, consisting of heavier nuclei, is
ignited. In this way a star can proceed through a sequence of nuclear burning stages which
interrupt and delay gravitational contraction. These thermonuclear hang-ups not only prolong the
life of a star, they also play a constructive role in the synthesis of heavier atomic nuclei.
(Continued via the link below)

From http://www.exp-astro.phys.ethz.ch/Astro ... class7.pdf

harriet_tubman you are a clueless uneducated ignorant person. You really have no idea what you are talking about do you? What level of education have you achieved and in what subjects? Nothing relevant to any thing you are pontificating about here that's for sure. From the very first line of your second post "if you believe the universe is an accident, then one accident is just as good as any other accident.", when you demonstrated your complete lack of understanding of probability theory you have vomited nothing but unmitigated twaddle that I would not expect from a half decent 14 year old physics student in the UK.  

Go and get an education, because you seriously need one!

[philosoraptor]

Tank, I'd like you to be my new BFF please.

[Tanker]

I think HT might be under the mistaken inpression that since he/she desn't know an answer or understand that no one does. It's ok to be ignorant we are all ignorant of many things but it's the hight of arrogance to think that because you don't that know no one else does either.

[Tank]

Tank, I'd like you to be my new BFF please.

Why thank you I would be honoured  

[Tank]

I think HT might be under the mistaken inpression that since he/she desn't know an answer or understand that no one does. It's ok to be ignorant we are all ignorant of many things but it's the hight of arrogance to think that because you don't that know no one else does either.

I am ignorant of far more than I know, I'd go as far as to say that nowadays we all are simply because the body of knowledge is now too great for any one mind to hold and assimilate. I think HT is worse than ignorant (that can be cured with education) he/she is 'wilfully ignorant' in that there is nothing else to know that is worth knowing he/she knows it all already.

[Davin]

I seriously can't tell anymore if harriet_tubman is for real or not. I'm under the impression that because these ideas are so ridiculous and easy to look up that the person is either a troll, a joke or really a closed minded person that refuses to learn about how thins work.

All the arguments are old arguments that have been refuted and are easily refuted. The logic is clearly fallacious while the person holds stance of confidence. So if the person is a troll trying to get a response of anger and/or frustration, I say don't give it to them. If the person is a joke, just keep laughing at it. However if the person is honestly this confident while using clear and easily recognized fallacies, there likely is no hope to reach them through a rational discussion.

My conclusion, unless your having fun or need the practice to develop your fallacy detection and identification skills, I say /ignore. I probably won't ignore because I usually have fun.

[Tank]

I seriously can't tell anymore if harriet_tubman is for real or not. I'm under the impression that because these ideas are so ridiculous and easy to look up that the person is either a troll, a joke or really a closed minded person that refuses to learn about how thins work.

All the arguments are old arguments that have been refuted and are easily refuted. The logic is clearly fallacious while the person holds stance of confidence. So if the person is a troll trying to get a response of anger and/or frustration, I say don't give it to them. If the person is a joke, just keep laughing at it. However if the person is honestly this confident while using clear and easily recognized fallacies, there likely is no hope to reach them through a rational discussion.

My conclusion, unless your having fun or need the practice to develop your fallacy detection and identification skills, I say /ignore. I probably won't ignore because I usually have fun.

As you say, for whatever reason, attempting to engage with HT is an exercise in futility, but if you're having fun then WTF! I tend to just show up her/his ignorance so anybody reading the posts does not get sucked in by the drivel HT is producing.

[KDbeads]

I'm having a blast remembering all my fallacies through these 'arguments'.  Learning how to debate better too, never was good at it.......

[Tank]

I'm having a blast remembering all my fallacies through these 'arguments'.  Learning how to debate better too, never was good at it.......

Debating is like riding a bike, all the instructions in the world don't match an hours practice! You can be told how to debate but practice makes perfect!

[McQ]

Harriet answer one question first, then read on. Are you serious about your assertions or just pulling our collective legs? Really, please answer honestly, because it's difficult for those of us with science backgrounds and education to take anything you assert seriously.

Now, if you are serious, then you have to acknowledge something. That is the obvious fact that you have zero training in any science. Is that correct?

Moving on, if that is true...then you can only make your assertions based on what someone in a christian church has told you to say, or based on what you've read in christian-based literature. Correct?

Answer these for me please, because it is absolutely useless to try and have any type of discussion until your background, motives, and education are sorted out.

[harriet_tubman]

All the arguments are old arguments that have been refuted and are easily refuted.

prove it