Remember when "atheist" had a negative connotation?

Jeff Wigand wrote:

thejeff wrote:

That is an incredible design, isn't it?

What design?

The design of how the nebula condenses to form a galaxy that you described.

thejeff wrote:

Jeff Wigand wrote:

What design?

The design of how the nebula condenses to form a galaxy that you described.

It is obvious what you are getting at thejeff, but your "grasping at straws" posts have conclusively shown that the biblical myth of creation disproves the particular designer you believe in.

thejeff wrote:

Jeff Wigand wrote:

What design?

The design of how the nebula condenses to form a galaxy that you described.

There is no design. No one designed nebulae just like no one designed Onchocerca volvulus, a nematode which can only survive by infecting humans and result in causing blindness in its hosts, who usually tend to be children.

thejeff wrote:

Jeff on a Starship wrote:

So?

So what? It is just amazing how it all works like that. It is almost like it was planned.

Almost? Is your faith getting shaky? If it was planned it would have been mentioned as a work in progress not done after 7 days.

Richard Dawkins from the documentary "Expelled":

"Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer."

Sounds like intelligent design by an alien.

When .many humans see patterns or order arising in nature, they are convinces of a Designer. But consider that many complex patterns can arise from very simple rules. This can be illustrated in The Game of Life by Tim Conway.

The Rules

For a space that is 'populated':

Each cell with one or no neighbors dies, as if by solitude.

Each cell with four or more neighbors dies, as if by overpopulation.

Each cell with two or three neighbors survives.

For a space that is 'empty' or 'unpopulated'

Each cell with three neighbors becomes populated.

This is not proof that the world was not designed, but rather shows that highly complex phenomena can arise only from very simple rules, meaning that the existance of complexity alone is not sufficient to demand a "designer".

A simple simulator, you can try your own patterns here:

http://www.bitstorm.org/gameoflife/

A Java simulator:

http://pmav.eu/stuff/javascript-game-of-life-v3.1.1/

For math geeks:

http://www.conwaylife.com/

..

Bible and slavery wrote:

Richard Dawkins from the documentary "Expelled":

"Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer."

Sounds like intelligent design by an alien.

This was one of the most reprehensible editing deceits, in a movie that was filled with them. Dawkins had been *asked* how life on Earth could have been started by aliens and, even though he does not hold that view, he did his best to come up with a plausible scenario. He was trying to be (to quote someone on this thread) kind to his interlocutor.

And he ripped for it.

Jeff on a Starship wrote:

thejeff wrote:

So what? It is just amazing how it all works like that. It is almost like it was planned.

Almost? Is your faith getting shaky? If it was planned it would have been mentioned as a work in progress not done after 7 days.

Why do you think that is how it was planned?

design this wrote:

thejeff wrote:

The design of how the nebula condenses to form a galaxy that you described.

It is obvious what you are getting at thejeff, but your "grasping at straws" posts have conclusively shown that the biblical myth of creation disproves the particular designer you believe in.

Grasping at straws?

Doesn't ring a bell.

I am not sure I understand what you meant by the part I italicized... can you rephrase that?

thejeff wrote:

Jeff on a Starship wrote:

Almost? Is your faith getting shaky? If it was planned it would have been mentioned as a work in progress not done after 7 days.

Why do you think that is how it was planned?

If does not imply I think it was.

Jeff on a Starship wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Why do you think that is how it was planned?

If does not imply I think it was.

You say creation should be mentioned as a work in progress; however, we can observe that the universe seems to presently operate under somewhat predictable natural laws. Isn't the idea that everything having to do with the creation of the universe is complete more consistent with what scientists presently believe than if Genesis taught that creation was still a work in progress, with supernatural events regularly occurring?

thejeff wrote:

Jeff on a Starship wrote:

If does not imply I think it was.

You say creation should be mentioned as a work in progress; however, we can observe that the universe seems to presently operate under somewhat predictable natural laws. Isn't the idea that everything having to do with the creation of the universe is complete more consistent with what scientists presently believe than if Genesis taught that creation was still a work in progress, with supernatural events regularly occurring?

There you go re-writing the books to fit your hypothesis.

Explain?

Genesis teaches that the creation process is complete. What book did I re-write?

thejeff,

We recognize design by comparing it to other things we know are designed. For example, we know that a car is designed because we can compare it to other cars: in other words, we can compare it to like things that we know were created.

How would we do know this with the universe? Do we have another universe to compare it to? Can we look at it that identical universe and say that there was a creator for it, and He designed it, just as he designed this one? There is a difference between order and design; order is not an indicator of design.

Take the Fibonacci sequence, for example. Even though we know that this is a reliable pattern that can be found in nature does not mean that it came about by a creator. Could it be that in nature things behave according to predictable patterns and laws? This removes the need for there to be a creator.

thejeff wrote:

Explain?

Genesis teaches that the creation process is complete. What book did I re-write?

Things in the universe wouldn't still be forming if it was complete. Do you think the universe is all done and static?

We "designed" fire, electricity, the wheel, velcro, and the bullet train by imitating things we found in nature. If I read your post correctly, then, nature was designed?

Jeff on a Starship wrote:

[quote]thejeff wrote:

Explain?

Genesis teaches that the creation process is complete. What book did I re-write?

Things in the universe wouldn't still be forming if it was complete. Do you think the universe is all done and static?[/quote

Not sure whether he knows or not. If he doesn't, that would explain his statement that, "Genesis teaches that the creation process is complete."

But if he does know, that would also mean he knows that Genesis is out and out wrong.

Now, let's sit back and watch him twist his words and ours to unsuccessfully attempt to defend his position.

Extraordinary Claims wrote:

Jeff on a Starship wrote:

[quote]thejeff wrote:

Explain?

Genesis teaches that the creation process is complete. What book did I re-write?

Things in the universe wouldn't still be forming if it was complete. Do you think the universe is all done and static?[/quote

Not sure whether he knows or not. If he doesn't, that would explain his statement that, "Genesis teaches that the creation process is complete."

But if he does know, that would also mean he knows that Genesis is out and out wrong.

Now, let's sit back and watch him twist his words and ours to unsuccessfully attempt to defend his position.

I am not sure that I am following your logic here. Things move about, interact in various ways, etc. Are you saying that this somehow contradicts the notion of a creation?

Seriously, I guess I am just not sure of what you are trying to say.

I am not following your reasoning here. Could you explain just a bit more?

The fact that things were designed by humans by imitating nature would not seem to say anything at all about how "nature" came about. Seriously, I guess I am just not getting your point here.