Religion/Spirituality The Intelligent Design/God/Theism Thread

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

My God man, there is no way you are even a college graduate, let alone a biologist:

1) Analogy: a comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification.

2) Randomness can't produce a functional string with 1MB of data, what does that mean? That means it would take the entire existence of the universe for random walk to produce 1 functional string out of just 1MB of data. In layman's terms (I'm starting to think I'm being too scientific here) assuming the 1MB of data was a bunch of random letters, it would take the entire existence of the universe for random walk to produce one coherent sentence, let alone a paragraph

3) So the analogy is that while randomness can't make sense out of 1MB of data, you are proposing it can create a universe and everything that exists within it

This is a non-sensical statement.

Its like saying windows can't produce ice cream

Data is NOT the universe. Its a mechanism used to represent other things. It itself doesn't exist.

and 1 MB is such a usless statistic.

Even further, even if 1 MB was your standard, it doesn't matter. If you take a biochem class you'd be sitting there thinking DNA couldn't be created because its so "random" but that doesnt change that it IS what it IS.

You're applying your standard for whats "random" based on what you observe...which is flawed because the idea of "randomness" doesn't exist.

 

[blackzeus]

This is a non-sensical statement.

Its like saying windows can't produce ice cream

Data is NOT the universe. Its a mechanism used to represent other things. It itself doesn't exist.

and 1 MB is such a usless statistic.

Even further, even if 1 MB was your standard, it doesn't matter. If you take a biochem class you'd be sitting there thinking DNA couldn't be created because its so "random" but that doesnt change that it IS what it IS.

You're applying your standard for whats "random" based on what you observe...which is flawed because the idea of "randomness" doesn't exist.

And I'm the one making nonsensical statements? You don't realize the folly of saying the universe was created by chance if chance can't make sense out of 1000 bytes of data? The idea of randomness doesn't exist? And since we're talking about DNA why don't you go ahead and explain to us the "randomness" in functional proteins breh

 

[blackzeus]

This is a non-sensical statement.

Its like saying windows can't produce ice cream

Data is NOT the universe. Its a mechanism used to represent other things. It itself doesn't exist.

I just wanted to requote this for emphasis, the nikka said data doesn't exist and comparing the ability of chance to produce a functional string of data to chance creating the universe is analogous to saying windows can't produce ice cream

No breh, that would be like expecting a 3 week old baby to provide a dissertation in Chinese when he can't even speak yet

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

C'mon breh, appreciate the input, but please either read the thread for a primer or at least have some background in ID before you post something contrary Again, ID /= Christianity, it only states that the world as we know it is not a matter of chance, but intelligent design, nothing more, nothing less. ID doesn't state who the designer is, or WHY he designed it, or WHO designed the Designer, it states and only states that the world as we know it was created by intelligent design, not chance.

Exactly what I was trying to say before, but I was "dancing". ID clearly just gets discredited because there are automatically assumptions made that specific theologies and faith in a religion must follow..but it is not the case. Believers in ID alone basically say..yeah i think there is an intelligent design to the universe but the stories and man made scriptures/rules are exaggerations of some historical truth, purely metaphors to fit human society or just outright . Or they simply dont believe in them enough to claim to be a follower of said religion for whatever reason (even if they think a good portion of scripture is truthful or at least has moral wisdom/significance).

 

[blackzeus]

This is a non-sensical statement.

Its like saying windows can't produce ice cream

Data is NOT the universe. Its a mechanism used to represent other things. It itself doesn't exist.

and 1 MB is such a usless statistic.

Even further, even if 1 MB was your standard, it doesn't matter. If you take a biochem class you'd be sitting there thinking DNA couldn't be created because its so "random" but that doesnt change that it IS what it IS.

You're applying your standard for whats "random" based on what you observe...which is flawed because the idea of "randomness" doesn't exist.

#dualities Post without realizing you're sh*tting on your own argument brehs

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

And I'm the one making nonsensical statements? You don't realize the folly of saying the universe was created by chance if chance can't make sense out of 1000 bytes of data? The idea of randomness doesn't exist? And since we're talking about DNA why don't you go ahead and explain to us the "randomness" in functional proteins breh

This is the dumb shyt i'm talking about.

The "randomness" of proteins is such a stupid argument. There are preferred versions...because those versions work.

If mutated proteins happened to do the same job or one that wasn't detrimental to the host, then it wouldn't matter.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

I just wanted to requote this for emphasis, the nikka said data doesn't exist and comparing the ability of chance to produce a functional string of data to chance creating the universe is analogous to saying windows can't produce ice cream

No breh, that would be like expecting a 3 week old baby to provide a dissertation in Chinese when he can't even speak yet

you don't get to determine what is or is not capable based on the notion that you can't believe it happened.

 

[blackzeus]

This is the dumb shyt i'm talking about.

The "randomness" of proteins is such a stupid argument. There are preferred versions...because those versions work.

If mutated proteins happened to do the same job or one that wasn't detrimental to the host, then it wouldn't matter.

Now we're getting somewhere , so please explain (the fairly obvious) irony between functional proteins and evolutionary theory breh

 

[blackzeus]

you don't get to determine what is or is not capable based on the notion that you can't believe it happened.

Golly me, yet you make fun of Christians? So essentially you have no problem believing a baby who can't pronounce a word could do a dissertation in Chinese on quantum physics? At this point you're trolling breh, real talk

 

[blackzeus]

you don't get to determine what is or is not capable based on the notion that you can't believe it happened.

And nikkaz got heated when it was said that atheism is a religion What's good for the goose is good for the gander breh, if you have the right to determine that the creation theory is not true because you can't believe it happened, the I at a minimum have the right to determine that the earth existing by chance is not true BECAUSE IT IS STATISTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. Please turn your atheist card in breh

 

[OG_StankBrefs]

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Golly me, yet you make fun of Christians? So essentially you have no problem believing a baby who can't pronounce a word could do a dissertation in Chinese on quantum physics? At this point you're trolling breh, real talk

This makes it sound like you think life shouldn't exist...except that it does, yet the only thing your argument rests on is that you can't believe it.

So then you assert someone did it

Which is a bullshyt idea.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

And nikkaz got heated when it was said that atheism is a religion What's good for the goose is good for the gander breh, if you have the right to determine that the creation theory is not true because you can't believe it happened, the I at a minimum have the right to determine that the earth existing by chance is not true BECAUSE IT IS STATISTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. Please turn your atheist card in breh

statistics have nothing to do with whats observed.

You keep perverting bayesian statistics and thats not how its supposed to be used.

You keep wanting to define the denominator of this fraction when its not functionally possible to do so.

 

[blackzeus]

This makes it sound like you think life shouldn't exist...except that it does, yet the only thing your argument rests on is that you can't believe it.

So then you assert someone did it

Which is a bullshyt idea.

Why are you twisting my argument? Who said anything about life, we're talking about the existence of life by mere chance vs intelligent design. My argument doesn't rest on the fact that I can't believe life exists, my argument rests on the fact it is statistically impossible that life as we know it is the happenstance of mere chance. I assert someone did it because it is infinitely more possible that someone did it than that it happened by chance.

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]