religion

[leewong]

Originally Posted by RobotElvis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

...

"I personally feel this way. If design is apparent in every molecule in the universe, then by necessity there has to be an intelligence behind it."

If design were apparent then we wouldnt be having this conversation. "I personally feel" I am quoting these words to stress why your chain of thought is flawed.

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by leewong [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

"I personally feel this way. If design is apparent in every molecule in the universe, then by necessity there has to be an intelligence behind it."

If design were apparent then we wouldnt be having this conversation. "I personally feel" I am quoting these words to stress why your chain of thought is flawed.

Where is design not apparent?

[leewong]

Originally Posted by RobotElvis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Ok I got a good question for you Leewong.

Light is the "fastest" thing in the known universe right?

But if the sun went supernova the light would take eight minutes to reach us on earth before we knew that it had went supernova.

But gravity would cease immediately.

So is gravity being a force, faster than light?

Sorry these are the things that I think of when I'm two glasses in to a bottle of Maker's

The gravitational wave would propagate at the same speed as light would. The affects of both would be observed simultaneously. Gravity would not shut off before the lights went out.

"The speed of gravitational waves in the general theory of relativity is equal to the speed of light in vacuum, c.[1] Within the theory of special relativity, the constant c is not exclusively about light; instead it is the highest possible speed for any interaction in nature." -wikipedia

[iruinedyourday]

NO GOD WOULD DESIGN YOU IDIOTS

[radditsu]

Ok I have not had a physics class in well over a decade amd the science channel is all about that kaku cocksucker talking over planets smashing together as if to say "look at this cool shit guys. We can cgi some planets blowing up!" And then they cum all over their own chests.


Science tv is the worst yall.

[Tenlaar]

Originally Posted by RobotElvis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

▪ A number of secular writers who lived close to the time of Jesus made specific mention of him. Among them was Cornelius Tacitus, who recorded the history of Rome under the emperors. Regarding a fire that devastated Rome in 64 C.E., Tacitus relates that it was rumored that Emperor Nero was responsible for the disaster. Nero, says Tacitus, tried to place the blame on a group whom the populace called Christians. Tacitus writes: “Christus, from whom their name is derived, was executed at the hands of the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius.”—Annals, XV, 44.
The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus also mentions Jesus. In discussing events that took place between the death of Festus, the Roman governor of Judea about 62 C.E., and the arrival of his successor, Albinus, Josephus says that High Priest Ananus (Annas) “convened the judges of the Sanhedrin and brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ, and certain others.”—Jewish Antiquities, XX, 200 (ix, 1).

So your proof is from Josephus and Tacitus, both of whom weren't even born yet when Jesus was supposedly killed and both of whom wrote their mentions of him after the gospels had already been written and Christianity was already a forming religion? That's some airtight shit right there.

[leewong]

Originally Posted by Glenzig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Where is design not apparent?

The claim lacks any substance. It is nothing more than a subjective assertion. There are good reasons why people should see design that is not there:

1. Humans anthropomorphize. We tend to attribute our humanlike qualities to all sorts of things. Since design is what humans do, we attribute it far and wide.

2. Evolution has much in common with a design process. It generates trial-and-error modifications of existing forms and discards the inferior versions. So naturally, order will arise from this process alone.

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by leewong [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The claim lacks any substance. It is nothing more than a subjective assertion. There are good reasons why people should see design that is not there:

1. Humans anthropomorphize. We tend to attribute our humanlike qualities to all sorts of things. Since design is what humans do, we attribute it far and wide.

2. Evolution has much in common with a design process. It generates trial-and-error modifications of existing forms and discards the inferior versions. So naturally, order will arise from this process alone.

Well you definitely anthropomorphize evolution every time you talk about it.

[Glenzig]

“Even if we have a reliable criterion for detecting design, and even if that criterion tells us that biological systems are designed, it seems that determining a biological system to be designed is akin to shrugging our shoulders and saying God did it. The fear is that admitting design as an explanation will stifle scientific inquiry, that scientists will stop investigating difficult problems because they have a sufficient explanation already.

But design is not a science stopper. Indeed, design can foster inquiry where traditional evolutionary approaches obstruct it. Consider the term "junk DNA." Implicit in this term is the view that because the genome of an organism has been cobbled together through a long, undirected evolutionary process, the genome is a patchwork of which only limited portions are essential to the organism. Thus on an evolutionary view we expect a lot of useless DNA. If, on the other hand, organisms are designed, we expect DNA, as much as possible, to exhibit function. And indeed, the most recent findings suggest that designating DNA as "junk" merely cloaks our current lack of knowledge about function. For instance, in a recent issue of the Journal of Theoretical Biology, John Bodnar describes how "non-coding DNA in eukaryotic genomes encodes a language which programs organismal growth and development." Design encourages scientists to look for function where evolution discourages it.

Or consider vestigial organs that later are found to have a function after all. Evolutionary biology texts often cite the human coccyx as a "vestigial structure" that hearkens back to vertebrate ancestors with tails. Yet if one looks at a recent edition of Gray’s Anatomy, one finds that the coccyx is a crucial point of contact with muscles that attach to the pelvic floor. The phrase "vestigial structure" often merely cloaks our current lack of knowledge about function. The human appendix, formerly thought to be vestigial, is now known to be a functioning component of the immune system.


William A. Dembski

[leewong]

Originally Posted by Glenzig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Well you definitely anthropomorphize evolution every time you talk about it.

Sure I do.

/eyeroll