The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

J C

ColmDawson wrote: »

It reminded you that you think posting lame cartoons somehow gives you the upper hand in a debate?

It reminded me that posting devastating rebuttals without any substantive response from the Evolutionists gives me the upper hand in this debate.:):D

J C

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

The same way you start every aspect of your life with the assumption that your God does exist.

Except if there were proof to the contrary then they would change their mind, unlike you.

I know that God exists ... and I have repeatably observable (i.e. scientific) prooof that He does ... and His Word in the Bible confirms that anybody can know that He exists from examining His Creation:-

Ro 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
19 ¶ because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,
21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,
23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man--and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

.

Morbert

J C wrote: »

... and I have told you (repeatedly) that the non-spontaneous element (Natural Selection) is dependent on the spontaneous element (Mutation) ... and this makes the whole Darwinian Evolution process spontaneous ...

This makes no sense. If there is an essential component to the process that is non-random then how can the whole process be random?

... please do discuss this critical issue and stop stalling and hiding behind whether I describe Evolution as spontaneous or not!!!
... spontaneous Mutation is incapable of producing functional biochemical sequences with any degree of practical availability due to the almost infinite ratio between the number of non-functional biochemical permutations and the very limited number of functional ones!!!
... the only possible source of the vast quantities of Complex Specified Information observed in living organisms ... is an Intelligent CREATOR

Again, you are attempting to change the subject. I cannot explain to you how a non-random process can account for the complexity and development of life if you do not understand why the process is non-random.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

It appears the article is available only by subscription.

That is odd, it worked fine for me before.

Anyway, it is linked to all over the place, you shouldn't have much trouble finding it. If you do let me know and I will try and help find a copy.

wolfsbane wrote: »

But my investigations have led to this creationist article that I think is relevant:
Mediated Design
by Todd Charles Wood, Ph.D.
http://www.icr.org/article/mediated-design/

The principle appears the same: complex traits arise from original design capability in the organism. The organism remains the same basic organism.

"original design capability" of the organism in Creationist sense is basically any organism with DNA that can rearrange that DNA and produce functionality that was according to the Creationist "already present" since it is just the rearrangement of already present DNA. God knew they would need to do this and thus gave them that ability.

At least that is the argument this guy is putting forward.

It is like arguing there are no new books or works of literature because what appear to be new books are simply re-arrangements of the 26 letters in the English alphabet.

All books already exists in other books, "new" books are simply re-arrangements of old books.

It is hard to argue with such a theory because there is so much unverifiable assumption.

The author assumes the existence of kinds, he assumes that God has given theses creatures all the DNA they need, he assumes that when evolution happens (mutation, adaption, selection) it is actually just what God knew and decided would happen.

Needless to say none of this is science. It is unverifiable.

When a mutation occurs in these unicell organisms which causes the cells to join together to form cell walls I can't show that wasn't what God planned all along. How would I?

I can show it was a mutation, I can show the mutation lead to new phenotypes, I can show these new phenotypes gave advantage and that this advantage lead to the selection of these mutations. But I can't show this wasn't what God intended all along. I can't show that only this mutation could have happened at that exact moment (I can't rewind time), nor can I show that a mutation has crossed the kind barrier because no one can define that for me.

So any example I present to you can be countered with "God meant that to happen" and there isn't a single thing I can say to show otherwise.

But equally it is utter guess work on the part of the person making the claim, proposing that what appears to be Darwinian evolution (mutation, adaption, selection) is actually what God planned all along.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm out of my depth in discussing the colonisation issue, but are you saying this colonisation in not the same as bacterial colonisation?

Yes. A bacterial colony is simply a clump of bacteria.

These cells share a wall with each other. They are colony because they have not yet evolved to lose the ability to fend for themselves if separated (ie not yet co-dependent).

Genghiz Cohen

J C wrote: »

I know that God exists ... and I have repeatably observable (i.e. scientific) prooof that He does ... and His Word in the Bible confirms that anybody can know that He exists from examining His Creation:-

Let's see it then.

J C

Morbert wrote: »

This makes no sense. If there is an essential component to the process that is non-random then how can the whole process be random?

... it all comes down to the ratio of non-functional to functional sequences upon which NS works.
If, for example, something like 1 in 4 biomolecular permutations were functional then the non-random component (NS) could be expected to 'direct' the random mutation process.
However, due to the effectively infinite ratio between the number of non-functional biochemical permutations and the very limited number of specific functional ones ... spontaneous Mutation is incapable of producing functional biochemical sequences with any degree of practical availability and therefore NS would be 'swamped' by the vast numbers of non-functional permutations thrown up by Spontaneous Mutation long before it ever produced any worthwhile levels of functional CSI!!!

NS works reasonably well in helping to maintain existing (Intelligently Designed) functional CSI by eliminating/reducing deleterious mutations from the population ... but it is incapable of producing the vast levels of functional CSI found in living organisms, in the first place!!!

Evolution and NS are capable of explaining the survival of the fittest ... but they are a completely inadequate explanation for the arrival of the fittest!!!

... and the only plausible source of the vast quantities of Complex Specified Functional Information observed in living organisms ... is an Intelligent CREATOR

Morbert wrote: »

Again, you are attempting to change the subject. I cannot explain to you how a non-random process can account for the complexity and development of life if you do not understand why the process is non-random.

... the process is effectively random due to the random nature of spontaneous mutagenesis ... and the effective infinite ratio between the number of non-functional biochemical permutations and the very limited number of functional ones!!!

J C

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Let's see it then.

... just look at yourself in the mirror ... or look at the Human Genome Project ... where supercomputers were required to decipher the Genetic Information ... such is the vast scale its Complex Specificity!!!:)

... but of course there is none so blind as he who will not see ... even when the evidence for Creation is staring him in the face!!!!

.

Genghiz Cohen

J C wrote: »

... just look at yourself in the mirror ... or look at the Human Genome Project ... where supercomputers were required to decipher the Genetic Information ... such was the vast scale its Complex Specificity!!!:)

That's a no then?

Soul Winner

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

That's a no then?

What would you accept as a yes?

Genghiz Cohen

Soul Winner wrote: »

What would you accept as a yes?

Don't know because I haven't seen it yet.

Maybe a world that is fair. That would be nice.

Morbert

J C wrote: »

... it all comes down to the ratio of non-functional to functional sequences upon which NS works.
If, for example, something like 1 in 4 biomolecular permutations were functional then the non-random component (NS) could be expected to 'direct' the random mutation process.
However, due to the effectively infinite ratio between the number of non-functional biochemical permutations and the very limited number of specific functional ones ... spontaneous Mutation is incapable of producing functional biochemical sequences with any degree of practical availability and therefore NS would be 'swamped' by the vast numbers of non-functional permutations thrown up by Spontaneous Mutation long before it ever produced any worthwhile levels of functional CSI!!!

NS works reasonably well in helping to maintain existing (Intelligently Designed) functional CSI by eliminating/reducing deleterious mutations from the population ... but it is incapable of producing the vast levels of functional CSI found in living organisms, in the first place!!!

Evolution and NS are capable of explaining the survival of the fittest ... but they are a completely inadequate explanation for the arrival of the fittest!!!

... and the only plausible source of the vast quantities of Complex Specified Functional Information observed in living organisms ... is an Intelligent CREATOR

Again, you are trying to change the subject. We are not yet discussing whether the non-random selection of random mutations can account for life, but rather whether the process is random or not.

... the process is effectively random due to the random nature of spontaneous mutagenesis ... and the effective infinite ratio between the number of non-functional biochemical permutations and the very limited number of functional ones!!!

We are at least making progress. "Effectively random" is better than "The whole system is random" but you are still incorrect. It is precisely because NS is non-random that evolution can work.

Soul Winner

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Don't know because I haven't seen it yet.

Maybe a world that is fair. That would be nice.

So if a new computer operating system came on the market tomorrow but nobody knew who its proprietor was because the label on the disk did not specify it, would that stop you from inferring that it was in fact an operating system and that somebody had compiled it? Bill Gates said that the information sequencing in the DNA molecule was more advanced than any software program ever compiled by many order of magnitude. If that will not convince you that there must be a mind of supernatural -supernatural because in order for it to create and control nature it must lie outside nature - power and intelligence behind life then I don't think anything ever will.

Life not being fair is not proof that God does not exist. That is just proof that three are evil forces in the world and mankind is basically selfish and is without God through his own fault and is in need of deliverance from that condition, a condition that God has been in the business of delivering him from since he first fell.

Genghiz Cohen

Soul Winner wrote: »

So if a new computer operating system came on the market tomorrow but nobody knew who its proprietor was because the label on the disk did not specify it, would that stop you from inferring that it was in fact an operating system and that somebody had compiled it? Bill Gates said that the information sequencing in the DNA molecule was more advanced than any software program ever compiled by many order of magnitude. If that will not convince you that there must be a mind of supernatural -supernatural because in order for it to create and control nature it must lie outside nature - power and intelligence behind life then I don't think anything ever will.

I can honestly say I don't know.
EDIT: How could we conclude that it wasn't the product of an extra terrestrial intelligence?
EDIT2: Time travel is also supposedly possible. Also inter-dimensional travel (A stretch) and all forms of intelligence in those dimensions.
But let's imagine that it did.

Why would I go from Vague Supernatural Entity to Yahweh?

Soul Winner wrote: »

Life not being fair is not proof that God does not exist. That is just proof that three are evil forces in the world and mankind is basically selfish and is without God through his own fault and is in need of deliverance from that condition, a condition that God has been in the business of delivering him from since he first fell.

Why should I suffer because some tit was fooled by a talking snake?

J C

Morbert wrote: »

Again, you are trying to change the subject. We are not yet discussing whether the non-random selection of random mutations can account for life, but rather whether the process is random or not.


We are at least making progress. "Effectively random" is better than "The whole system is random" but you are still incorrect. It is precisely because NS is non-random that evolution can work.

It is precisely because of the infinite ratio of non-functional permutations to functional ones ... that the random component (Spontaneous Mutation of biochemical sequences) will overwhelm the non-random (Natural Selection) component of Evolution ... and therefore evolution from Pondkind to Mankind cannot work!!!!:)

Genghiz Cohen

J C wrote: »

It is precisely because of the infinite ratio of non-functional permutations to functional ones ... that the random component (Spontaneous Mutation of biochemical sequences) will overwhelm the non-random (Natural Selection) component of Evolution ... and therefore evolution from Pondkind to Mankind cannot work!!!!:)

And you jump from Evilution cannot work to CSI is real?

J C

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

And you jump from Evilution cannot work to CSI is real?

... stop avoiding and evading the issue!!!!

... and please tell us what stops the almost infinite ratio of non-functional biochemical permutations to functional ones from overwhelming the NS component of Evolution ???

Genghiz Cohen

J C wrote: »

... stop avoiding and evading the issue!!!!

... and please tell us what stops the almost infinite ratio of non-functional biochemical permutations to functional ones from overwhelming the NS component of Evolution ???

Because the non functional one don't do anything?

monosharp

Soul Winner wrote: »

So if a new computer operating system came on the market tomorrow but nobody knew who its proprietor was because the label on the disk did not specify it, would that stop you from inferring that it was in fact an operating system and that somebody had compiled it?

Operating Systems are software, we designed how to write software, we know the origin of software. Software is man-made, it is not natural.

Bill Gates said that the information sequencing in the DNA molecule was more advanced than any software program ever compiled by many order of magnitude.

Bill says a lot of things. But hes right here, so what ?

If that will not convince you that there must be a mind of supernatural -supernatural because in order for it to create and control nature it must lie outside nature - power and intelligence behind life then I don't think anything ever will.

Why would that convince us/me that there must be a supernatural mind behind nature ? Even without the theory of Evolution it wouldn't convince me.

Whatever logic your using to go from 'Nature is complex' to 'Something supernatural did it' is not reasonable to me.

That is just proof that three are evil forces in the world and mankind is basically selfish and is without God through his own fault and is in need of deliverance from that condition, a condition that God has been in the business of delivering him from since he first fell.

(If) god created us and (if) gods omnipotent and (if) god is omniscient then he failed badly in designing us/the world.

J C

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Because the non functional one don't do anything?

... a non-functional component within a critical cascade will kill or seriously impair the organism.

... and even where the non-functional component has no effect, the useless combinatorial space is so vast, that the probability of NS ever being able to 'navigate' the combinatorial space to select functional biomolecules is effectively zero ... and the production of practically nothing but non-functional permutations will overwhelm any selection process for functional biomolecules.
... and because functional biomolecules are found within living organisms something else must therefore be responsible for their original production and selection ...

This is where the appliance of intelligence come in ... intelligence can deliberately design and produce specific functional biomolecules and place them within specific functional cascades withing specific functional cells within specific functional organs within specific functional organisms ... and non-intelligently directed processes simply don't possess the ability to do so!!!:)

J C

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

That's a no then?

... only if you are totally in denial of reality!!!:)

Morbert

J C wrote: »

It is precisely because of the infinite ratio of non-functional permutations to functional ones ... that the random component (Spontaneous Mutation of biochemical sequences) will overwhelm the non-random (Natural Selection) component of Evolution ... and therefore evolution from Pondkind to Mankind cannot work!!!!:)

Think about what you're saying for a moment. You are saying that, if the evolutionary process is predominantly random (i.e. if N.S. is less significant) then you will not get the complexity of life we see around us. I agree. However, evolutionary biologists have proposed Darwinian evolution to describe that very complexity, which means the model they're proposing is not predominantly random. Even a "spontaneous" mutation is still highly constrained by its original copy.

I don't see why you are unwilling to simply admit that Darwinian evolution is not spontaneous. I would have thought it would have been in your interest to argue that Darwinian evolution, while non-random, is still unable to account for the complexity of life.

Zombrex

Morbert wrote: »

Think about what you're saying for a moment.

Where have you been for the last 6 years?

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

... a non-functional component within a critical cascade will kill or seriously impair the organism.

... and even where the non-functional component has no effect, the useless combinatorial space is so vast, that the probability of NS ever being able to 'navigate' the combinatorial space to select functional biomolecules is effectively zero ... and the production of practically nothing but non-functional permutations will overwhelm any selection process for functional biomolecules.
... and because functional biomolecules are found within living organisms something else must therefore be responsible for their original production and selection ...

Wow, there isn't a single part of that which is actually describing Darwinian evolution.

navigate the combinatorial space? What are you talking about? Natural selection selects phenotypes that adapt the organism. It doesn't select those that don't. Pretty simply yet you manage once again to misrepresent evolution. What do you fear from evolution JC? Do not fear the truth, the truth will set you free

Morbert

Soul Winner wrote: »

So if a new computer operating system came on the market tomorrow but nobody knew who its proprietor was because the label on the disk did not specify it, would that stop you from inferring that it was in fact an operating system and that somebody had compiled it? Bill Gates said that the information sequencing in the DNA molecule was more advanced than any software program ever compiled by many order of magnitude. If that will not convince you that there must be a mind of supernatural -supernatural because in order for it to create and control nature it must lie outside nature - power and intelligence behind life then I don't think anything ever will.

What about evolutionary biology, the field which involves the rigorous and exact study of natural history? They have found evidence which demonstrates that an unintelligent process like Darwinian evolution can give rise to the complexity of life.

It seems people often get hung up on facetious arguments like "Well life looks designed, kind of like the way my computer looks designed." and are therefore unaware of the wonderful evidence we have for natural processes like evolutionary biology.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

So if a new computer operating system came on the market tomorrow but nobody knew who its proprietor was because the label on the disk did not specify it, would that stop you from inferring that it was in fact an operating system and that somebody had compiled it?

I've seen computer code that no one wrote, it was produced as part of what is known as genetic algorithms, basically code "writing" code based on a system of replication and feedback. The initial code is checked to see if it works and if it doesn't it randomly changes and checked again. Changes that improve the fitness of the code to perform its duty are kept, those that don't are disregarded. As a programmer and an "evolutionist" (as JC would call me) this is fascinating.

So if I found a computer program that looked like it has been produced through this process I would not assume someone compiled it.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Bill Gates said that the information sequencing in the DNA molecule was more advanced than any software program ever compiled by many order of magnitude. If that will not convince you that there must be a mind of supernatural -supernatural because in order for it to create and control nature it must lie outside nature - power and intelligence behind life then I don't think anything ever will.

It didn't convince Bill Gates, why would it convince the rest of us? Gates when he made that comment was discussing getting more school children interested in biology by showing them it isn't "boring", that it was actually a complex and interesting subject.

It wasn't making any sort of proclamation on intelligent design or design in the DNA.

http://dododreams.blogspot.com/2006/03/bill-gates-quote-mined.html

Soul Winner wrote: »

Life not being fair is not proof that God does not exist.

No, but it requires that religious people create an even more complicated explanation, such as the Fall, to explain this.

So you start with the idea that the world looks like God made it, then when it is pointed out it actually doesn't you introduce the idea that the Fall made bits look like that.

So basically you end up back at square one, a world that doesn't look like God made it. So why bother with the extra explanations? Is the simplest explanation not simply that God didn't make it. That explains everything and doesn't require unverifiable concepts like the Fall to be introduced to explain why the world doesn't look like it was made by a benevolent God.

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

I've seen computer code that no one wrote, it was produced as part of what is known as genetic algorithms, basically code "writing" code based on a system of replication and feedback. The initial code is checked to see if it works and if it doesn't it randomly changes and checked again. Changes that improve the fitness of the code to perform its duty are kept, those that don't are disregarded. As a programmer and an "evolutionist" (as JC would call me) this is fascinating.

What was the purpose of the code though? You said that it had a duty to perform. How does it know what types of changes to keep and what ones to disregard? Did it self build its own criteria of duties and teach itself what changes to accept and what ones to reject in order to perform these duties? Would like to know more about this code.

Wicknight wrote: »

So if I found a computer program that looked like it has been produced through this process I would not assume someone compiled it.

Do you think Bill Gates has anything to worry about though? Do you envisage a time when Operating Systems software will someday self compile and self error check and self market themselves and so on and be compatible to run independently self compiling applications? Because even if all that was possible it is still cannot hold a candle to the complexity of how a simple cell works.

Wicknight wrote: »

No, but it requires that religious people create an even more complicated explanation, such as the Fall, to explain this.

Postualting a fall type event to explain certain aspects of life is just like postualting any other theory, and even if that idea could be debunked that would still do nothing to support the unguided natural process theory.

Wicknight wrote: »

So you start with the idea that the world looks like God made it, then when it is pointed out it actually doesn't you introduce the idea that the Fall made bits look like that.

So basically you end up back at square one, a world that doesn't look like God made it. So why bother with the extra explanations? Is the simplest explanation not simply that God didn't make it. That explains everything and doesn't require unverifiable concepts like the Fall to be introduced to explain why the world doesn't look like it was made by a benevolent God.

You don't believe a supernatural source had anything to do with it so you need a theory that can explain it to you in a way that does not invoke a supernatural explanation and any thing that you cannot explain using this new theory gets consigned to the "cannot be explained" department of your mind and you are incapable of postulating a supernatural cause or explanation because you have disqualified that explanation going out the gate. Science is supposed to keep all options open until it is justified in closing them using the scientific method, not the method which is based on a irreligious or anti-theism world view. That is what some of us religious people are against, we are not against science per se.

monosharp

Soul Winner wrote: »

Do you think Bill Gates has anything to worry about though? Do you envisage a time when Operating Systems software will someday self compile and self error check and self market themselves and so on and be compatible to run independently self compiling applications? Because even if all that was possible it is still cannot hold a candle to the complexity of how a simple cell works.

Why would you think that ? Its very likely that it will be more complex then that in a relatively* short time.

http://www.transhumanist.com/volume1/moravec.htm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article833106.ece
http://www.frc.ri.cmu.edu/~hpm/

I study AI (artificial intelligence) and while right now software is not a match against the human brain its only a matter of time. A large amount of AI actually works by modelling the human brain (to an extent). Please see Neural networks especially in relation to unsupervised learning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_neural_network

Postualting a fall type event to explain certain aspects of life is just like postualting any other theory, and even if that idea could be debunked that would still do nothing to support the unguided natural process theory.

No its not. The 'fall' is entirely faith based.

atmo

I have been away for a few weeks and apologise for taking up the thread after some passage of time, so here goes -

Soul Winner wrote: »

Christianity's core foundational faith basis is the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. Has that been proven not to have happened? If not then we are still OK to believe in that at least, aren't we?

Quote your sources please and cite them properly, this will lend some credence and support to your arguments.

So you want us to side with your view of the world in order to have peace with you? Reminds me of the ultimatums that were visited upon some of the early Christians. What they had to do in order to stay in good with the Roman Empire, i.e. renounce Christ and bow to Caesar or burn. Well that Empire is long since crumbled and decayed and Christianity is still alive and thriving all over the world, so thanks but no thanks.

In answer to the above two quotes
(which refer to mine: "How can you possibly believe any of that fairy story stuff? Please read some of the top biblical scholars and you will realise that 99% of them don't think it has anything to do with an actual 'supernatural' author but has been shown to be the work of many many scribes over many centuries"), I offer the following:
Please listen to this programme from BBC Religious services (Radio 4) presented by Roger Bolton. This is a programme which goes out every Sunday morning at 07.10 and seems to be well made and thoroughly researched. This particular program is about the Codex Sinaticus which is the oldest extant copy of the Bible know to scholars worldwide. I warn you that your faith may be shaken by this (those interviewed are priests and biblical scholars - not atheists)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RPe5UxNnaU&feature=related


I want to have peace with religious people and would not attack them in any physical way as I respect them as fully human equal beings - I am not superior to any other human being. However, I do see religious people attacking others all around the world every day in pursuit of their particular beliefs. I am not a pacifist, however, and if religious people tried to impose their beliefs on me I would have to fight in defence of my human rights. Why is it that religious people in every county are struggling against the spreading tide of human rights improvements worldwide - womans' rights, childrens' rights, gay rights, atheists' rights etc... At one time Christians universally supported monarchy and abhorred republicanism and democracy, tortured and murdered non-believers of all kinds and supported pogroms against Jews and other heretics. I'm sure you all know the history and it doesn't need to be repeated here - or do you not believe the historians either?

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

What was the purpose of the code though? You said that it had a duty to perform. How does it know what types of changes to keep and what ones to disregard?

You need a feedback system to let it know. How this works depends on the program you are writing and what it is trying to do.

In biological evolution the feedback system is the environment itself. Those with phenotype changes that do not adapt to the environment are more likely to be killed by said environment before they can reproduce again.

So with biology the feedback system is already in place. If you are modeling evolution for some purpose you need to create your own feedback system.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Would like to know more about this code.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_algorithm

Soul Winner wrote: »

Do you think Bill Gates has anything to worry about though?

I think Bill Gates was worrying about education levels in America. Not sure promoting Creationism is what he had in mind :pac:

Soul Winner wrote: »

Do you envisage a time when Operating Systems software will someday self compile and self error check and self market themselves and so on and be compatible to run independently self compiling applications?

Yes, in about 50 years I would say. At the moment the effort to create using evolutionary algorithms such a system would far out way the saving of labour to simply write it.

But as computers continue to get more powerful and software gets more complex and we develop better ways for computers to write computer languages I can see a lot more of this.

You still of course have to tell the program what you want it to do, but I can easily envision you telling the computer what you want the program to do in an abstract sense and the computer going off and writing the program for you.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Because even if all that was possible it is still cannot hold a candle to the complexity of how a simple cell works.

True but a simple cell was evolving for a billion years. Come back to me in a billion years and ask me what self writing computer programs have produced.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Postualting a fall type event to explain certain aspects of life is just like postualting any other theory, and even if that idea could be debunked that would still do nothing to support the unguided natural process theory.

True, it just makes the idea that the world looks designed supporting the existence of God some what illogical though.

The world looks designed so God exists, except for the bits that don't looked design which are explained by God existing plus the Fall happening.

The second presumption invalidates the first, which in turn invalidates the second.

Soul Winner wrote: »

You don't believe a supernatural source had anything to do with it so you need a theory that can explain it to you in a way that does not invoke a supernatural explanation and any thing that you cannot explain using this new theory gets consigned to the "cannot be explained" department of your mind and you are incapable of postulating a supernatural cause or explanation because you have disqualified that explanation going out the gate.

As has already been explained to you many times it is nothing to do with not believing a supernatural source did anything. I've no idea if a supernatural source did anything.

It is to do with me being unable to know if he did so such propositions are pointless. A supernatural source doing something that we cannot identify as a supernatural source and no supernatural source look the same.

It is illogical then to insert a supernatural source that we have no way of verifying.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Science is supposed to keep all options open until it is justified in closing them using the scientific method

Science never opens or closes anything. It works with how the world appears to be based on testing theories.

If the world isn't as it appears to be (ie a supernatural force is messing with us) then science is none the wiser and as such neither are we.

If God exists but made the world look like he doesn't exist then all we can go on is how the world looks. We have no ability to test beyond how the world appears to be to us

Saying the world appears to be X but the Bible says it is Y is pointless, since we can only go on how the world appears to be (X), we have no way of testing if Y is actually true or not.

Soul Winner

monosharp wrote: »

Why would you think that ? Its very likely that it will be more complex then that in a relatively* short time.

http://www.transhumanist.com/volume1/moravec.htm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article833106.ece
http://www.frc.ri.cmu.edu/~hpm/

I study AI (artificial intelligence) and while right now software is not a match against the human brain its only a matter of time. A large amount of AI actually works by modelling the human brain (to an extent). Please see Neural networks especially in relation to unsupervised learning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_neural_network

That's all great and all but human beings are programing, designing and creating AI. It did not create itself. Even if AI does surpass human intelligence it can never claim that it started out as a natural process unguided by another intelligence.