SG-1 Season 8, Anubus tries the same stunt but failed!!!
Too complex to be intelligently designed?
- Thread starter Gondolin
- Start date
I believe that is more than possible.
E=MC<2>
Reliable testimony from the bible tells us God is "abundant in dynamic energy." Silencing atheistic hecklers that God's power is magic. It's a common assertion from individuals that don't know or care that the bible has denouced the use of "magic" in anyform.
More acutely the dual nature of matter vs energy and the conversion of each into another. Like evolution we can only go so far to prove such a theory but we do know matter can be controled on the subatomic level and the bonds with the atom can be split to create a great energy...but we also know that energy condenses to particle matter. Paricle construction of "life" was recently established in an article this week showing how nano computers could be be through molecular placement. They ironic describe it as more art than science. However it shows that with the right tools both matter an engery can be manipulate finely on a very small level with enough knowledge.
Last edited:
nature is not dumb because consciousness controls it. when the omnipresent mind created those butterflies, it was a little afraid to come to this world as a little butterfly, so it imagined that it was like a big owl that would always see anyone who tried harm it. then it wasn't afraid anymore, and when it came to this world its imagination had created those owl eyes.
But nature, as some of the dogmatists round here would like us to believe, is not conscious. In fact, they would like us to think that humans are somehow seperate of the universe... I don't agree... and neither do you i feel.
But using the butterflys wing again as an analogy, we can see that there is a design... so... let us suppose...
1. The universe is intelligent, and it chose those particular patterns.
If so, the can we stipulate:
2. That if we extrapolate right back to the very first chronon, the very beginning of the universe, it must have been intelligent then...
Right? If so, then the final postulate can be assumed:
3. Then the universe intelligently chose these dimensions and these conditions so that we could exist.
Then God is nature herself.
But using the butterflys wing again as an analogy, we can see that there is a design... so... let us suppose...
1. The universe is intelligent, and it chose those particular patterns.
If so, the can we stipulate:
2. That if we extrapolate right back to the very first chronon, the very beginning of the universe, it must have been intelligent then...
Right? If so, then the final postulate can be assumed:
3. Then the universe intelligently chose these dimensions and these conditions so that we could exist.
Then God is nature herself.
isnt that Budhist belief?
anyway why call it God if its Nature? :shrug:
or are you gonna very shortly pull Jebus=God outta this equation?
snake river rufus
Registered Senior Member
Reliable?
From kj (not american standard rev
)1 kings 7-23
"and he made a molten sea,ten cubits from one brim to the other; and it was round and his height was 5 cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about"
Please tell us what the biblical value of 'Pi' might.
I'll be back in a week or so to see
snake river rufus
Registered Senior Member
For anyone else that would like to use the bible as evidence. beware much like yorrick "I know it well"
(well paraphrased a bit)
much like yorrick "I know it well" (well paraphrased a bit
)*Heckle*
Reliable testimony you say? Are there any other independent studies showing this claim? Are there any non-religious books supporting the assertion? Was there any expert dissertation on this? Did humanity of the era even understand the concept of energy as it is now explained in the realm of physics?
The phrase "reliable testimony from the bible" is the best example of an oxymoron I have come across in my life.
Let me delve into this argument, just for conversation's sake...from all appearances, "magic" has the end result of affecting matter in some way. Since "magic" has no physical appearance, it must then be energy. How is stating that god is "abundant in dynamic energy" disprove that such a being is magical in nature?
This entire paragraph proves nothing further than "subatomic manipulation is plausible with the right knowledge and tools". It doesn't prove any deity existed to wield any such prowess.
For anyone else that would like to use the bible as evidence. beware
(well paraphrased a bit
I know it pretty well too. However I don't understand your request above. I'll look up the scripture and post what I know about it.
Despite popular or atheistic beliefs the Bible has it' supporters in secular and religious sources from encyclopedia's to dictionaries to archeologist using the book to verifiy dates and occurences. It is no secret that the bible does disagree with other text in some areas...one is Nebudchadnezer and whether he was king of Babylon at the time. Recently that has been cleared enough to understand by the unearthing of certain cuniform tablets which bear the name of this King...(I beleive the explanation was that he was either a vassal king or son under the king perhaps even third from the thrown and dealth with under matters.) If I can find it for you I'll plug the info in on the thread.
One surprise of mine was that Webster and Merriam dictionary states simple when one looks up the name Jehovah it merely states: God.
I'm sure you've found that true to some degree. We all have a different set of refrences from which to work from. It's no doubt that I favor the bible but my perspective was built by a wealth of bible knowledge and confronting what is seen as contradictions.
Those contradictions do exist but only as part of society so steeped in tradition and orthodoxy that the testimony becomes more mystery than truth. Rather than follow the pattern in the bible they abid by a tradition that has an ambigous and foreign origin. So it's no surprise to hear such a statement.
any art that invokes supernatural powers
magic trick: an illusory feat; considered magical by naive observers
charming: possessing or using or characteristic of or appropriate to supernatural powers; "charming incantations"; "magic signs that protect against adverse influence"; "a magical spell"; "'tis now the very witching time of night"- Shakespeare; "wizard wands"; "wizardly powers"
God's power is not an art form but it can be describe as supernatural but that isn't the only definition it must meet for anything can appear...magical if the ability itself is sufficiently above the perceiving intellect. Magic is illusionary, incantations, spells, wizards. The Bible has a formidable stance on such acts in that they are acts calling on the influence of wicked spirirts and that christians are not to involve themselves in astrology or magic.
Fortunatly that was not my point. Q asked "if a plane is manufactured how can we look at life to be equal and conclude it was manufactured as well?"
Life itself proves their is a creator that cares about us. The complexity of that life proves that more than random forces were invovled in it's manufacturing. How was it manufactured? The Bible tells us that Adam and Eve were created from material from the Earth. It was rearrange with life sustaining results.
Perhaps you concluded that this was proof of God because it is the next most logical conclussion. But my statement was addressing the subject of "manufacturing" and it's relation to creation. In fact the way cells and life forms reproduce is the most advanced application of manufactoring and information replication that exist on the earth. Thus manufacturing really is an apt description.
That's false.saquist said:
Any irrational fraction would eliminate the row problem, and there is no such thing as an "ideally compact" arrangement of growths. The 137.5 angle is an automatic physical consequence of a simple decision criterion for instigating new growth, something that a plant can use without complex feedback mechanisms or other sensory apparatus - it's a bottom-up selected solution to a problem, rather than a top-down imposed one. It's the sort of thing you get from evolution rather than design.
And many plants don't bother - they just grow the rows.
btw: Haven't you figured out what's wrong with Behe's arguments yet ? It's been months - - -
Eyespots and such like come in many, many forms on all kinds of animals. They are among the easiest features to explain by Darwinian evolution, and among the easist features to acquire in such a manner - very simple modifications of universally present mechanisms will do.reiku said:
I totally disagree with that assumption. You say it is the easiest of Darwinian concepts to explain.
Let me tell you how it is only possible, and that is through Genetics. Theoretically, 4 billion years ago, photosynthesizing Eukaryotes, proceeding after the few thousand odd years of Prokaryotes, where one of the oldest links to all creatures. Reptiles became independant of the sea, birds, fish, dinosaurs where all componants that went through 5 devistating extinctions.
Then men came onto the scene only 100,000 years ago. But all genetics are bound by states of memory, as theory goes. But let us consider the Darwinian fantasy. It would claim that the genetics of a Butterfly has ''memory'' suggesting its composition to compilate those particular designs.
An epistemological arguement always arises from such concepts, but i'm not bothered by these. To me, right now, they mean nothing. Basically because i am ready to use science about any philosophical debate.
Scientifically, ne would have to presume that this particular arrangement needs to be more than merely genetics. If anything, the author of this threads comment about things being ''too complex'' is a lame arguement against anthropic suggestions coupled with a divinity... the reason why should be evident...
You cannot have something that is too complex, especially when considering a God who is supposidly beyond human comprehension, therefore, how can nature, His/Her design be too complicated?
Instead, we might consider Biofields, or the preferred term, Morphic Fields. In this theory, life, that is ''living mobile matter'' have for themselves a field that guides them. Whilst many leading scientists today will refute such a claim, i think it's one of the biggest gaps we have missed.
It's a logical arguement. If electric, magnetic, gravitational, weak and strong influences (and even a metal field as BillyT cleverly suggested), then why not one for life, especially for biomatter? If there is one, then the butterfly's wings design was already chosen for it since big bang... then there does arise a particular order, and it goes right in the face of Darwinism.
Let me tell you how it is only possible, and that is through Genetics. Theoretically, 4 billion years ago, photosynthesizing Eukaryotes, proceeding after the few thousand odd years of Prokaryotes, where one of the oldest links to all creatures. Reptiles became independant of the sea, birds, fish, dinosaurs where all componants that went through 5 devistating extinctions.
Then men came onto the scene only 100,000 years ago. But all genetics are bound by states of memory, as theory goes. But let us consider the Darwinian fantasy. It would claim that the genetics of a Butterfly has ''memory'' suggesting its composition to compilate those particular designs.
An epistemological arguement always arises from such concepts, but i'm not bothered by these. To me, right now, they mean nothing. Basically because i am ready to use science about any philosophical debate.
Scientifically, ne would have to presume that this particular arrangement needs to be more than merely genetics. If anything, the author of this threads comment about things being ''too complex'' is a lame arguement against anthropic suggestions coupled with a divinity... the reason why should be evident...
You cannot have something that is too complex, especially when considering a God who is supposidly beyond human comprehension, therefore, how can nature, His/Her design be too complicated?
Instead, we might consider Biofields, or the preferred term, Morphic Fields. In this theory, life, that is ''living mobile matter'' have for themselves a field that guides them. Whilst many leading scientists today will refute such a claim, i think it's one of the biggest gaps we have missed.
It's a logical arguement. If electric, magnetic, gravitational, weak and strong influences (and even a metal field as BillyT cleverly suggested), then why not one for life, especially for biomatter? If there is one, then the butterfly's wings design was already chosen for it since big bang... then there does arise a particular order, and it goes right in the face of Darwinism.
snake river rufus
Registered Senior Member
The point that I was
attempting to make is simply that the biblical value of Pi is exactly 3, not 3.14
ad infinitum. Your bible of full of many contradictions that theists always have an excuse for to justify their belief. But this one is math, can't fudge that.
snake river rufus
Registered Senior Member
A better question would be 'Why is one for biomatter needed?'
And that 2nd "if" is a pretty big one.
One of these days someone is going to have to define the term "Darwinism" to me. I often hear creationists use it but it just doesn't make any sense to me. How about "Einsteinism" or "Pastuerism"?
I know this might come as a shock to you, but god is probably smarter than you.
Baron Max
well if he designed rabbits i beg to differ
everyone in this thread, appart from superluminal and maybe a couple other posters, need to read up on natural selection
if the problem is that things are too complex to have been created on its own, how is atributing the merit to a designer a solution? who designed the designer? where did such a complex entity capable of calculating ever single variation in order to create the universe as it is it come from?
you're really just giving a name to your incognit
Evolution by natural selection is so far the best explanation for the problem of complexity, because it allows for complexity to arise a little bit at a time, from very simple structures, gradually until the most complex structures.
if the problem is that things are too complex to have been created on its own, how is atributing the merit to a designer a solution? who designed the designer? where did such a complex entity capable of calculating ever single variation in order to create the universe as it is it come from?
you're really just giving a name to your incognit
Evolution by natural selection is so far the best explanation for the problem of complexity, because it allows for complexity to arise a little bit at a time, from very simple structures, gradually until the most complex structures.
spinoza?
so you basically summon god for every single gap you find in human knowledge?
that makes sense :bugeye:
shouldn't you then be preaching against scientific research? i mean, eventually, there will be so little left to your god...