Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Evidence Supporting Creationism-design vs non-design
7 views
Skip to first unread message
R. Dean
Mar 23, 2013, 6:38:30 PM3/23/13
to
On 3/19/2013 2:38 PM, jillery wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 01:28:24 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>>>>> I've examined the evidence as presented, for evolution as well as for
>>>>>> design. As an engineer, I see design, purpose and planning in nature.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So you keep saying, but you never go beyond that point and specify
>>>>> *how* you see design or *what* you look for to distinguish design from
>>>>> non-design.
>>>>>
>>>> As I've pointed out already, unguided nature can create complexity only
>>>> on a single level, such as snowflakes, tornadoes, quartz crystals,
>>>
>>>
>>> And as I pointed out already, your assertion is obviously false, as my
>>> example of the Universe itself demonstrates. Offering non sequiturs
>>> about the anthropic principle, while ignoring the multi-level, layered
>>> complexity of the Universe, hurts your credibility.
>>>
>> By pointing out the fine tuned nature of universe, which I already have,
>> is hardly ignoring the multi-level complexity of the universe.
>>>
>>> And identifying what you think is not designed does not specify what
>>> you think is designed. This shouldn't have to be told to a real
>>> engineer.
>>>
>> I've also pointed out that I believe DNA has a function or purpose
>> I pointed out homobox genes. The fine tuned nature of the universe
>> all of this I see as designed for specific purposes.
>
>
> Ok, so have now finally identified a set of items that you think are
> not designed for a purpose (snowflakes, tornadoes, quartz crystals),
> and a set of items that you think are designed for a purpose (DNA,
> homobox [sic] genes). Now please compare and contrast the features of
> these items, for the purpose of describing how the latter are designed
> for a purpose and the former are not. Please compare and contrast for
> the same purpose both of these sets against the Universe as described
> in my cite, repeated here for your convenience:
>
> <http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/02/01/from-nothing-to-you-in-10-sentences/>
>
>
> That is something you have not done. And the fact that you have not
> suggests that you can not.
>
There is nothing to compare, your site gives only a limited history of
the universe. There is reason to believe that the universe is designed
for life. Jill, have you ever heard of the "Goldilocks universe"?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/blog/author/aanthaswamy/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe
>
> [...]
>
> On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 01:28:24 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>>>>> I've examined the evidence as presented, for evolution as well as for
>>>>>> design. As an engineer, I see design, purpose and planning in nature.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So you keep saying, but you never go beyond that point and specify
>>>>> *how* you see design or *what* you look for to distinguish design from
>>>>> non-design.
>>>>>
>>>> As I've pointed out already, unguided nature can create complexity only
>>>> on a single level, such as snowflakes, tornadoes, quartz crystals,
>>>
>>>
>>> And as I pointed out already, your assertion is obviously false, as my
>>> example of the Universe itself demonstrates. Offering non sequiturs
>>> about the anthropic principle, while ignoring the multi-level, layered
>>> complexity of the Universe, hurts your credibility.
>>>
>> By pointing out the fine tuned nature of universe, which I already have,
>> is hardly ignoring the multi-level complexity of the universe.
>>>
>>> And identifying what you think is not designed does not specify what
>>> you think is designed. This shouldn't have to be told to a real
>>> engineer.
>>>
>> I've also pointed out that I believe DNA has a function or purpose
>> I pointed out homobox genes. The fine tuned nature of the universe
>> all of this I see as designed for specific purposes.
>
>
> Ok, so have now finally identified a set of items that you think are
> not designed for a purpose (snowflakes, tornadoes, quartz crystals),
> and a set of items that you think are designed for a purpose (DNA,
> homobox [sic] genes). Now please compare and contrast the features of
> these items, for the purpose of describing how the latter are designed
> for a purpose and the former are not. Please compare and contrast for
> the same purpose both of these sets against the Universe as described
> in my cite, repeated here for your convenience:
>
> <http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/02/01/from-nothing-to-you-in-10-sentences/>
>
>
> That is something you have not done. And the fact that you have not
> suggests that you can not.
>
There is nothing to compare, your site gives only a limited history of
the universe. There is reason to believe that the universe is designed
for life. Jill, have you ever heard of the "Goldilocks universe"?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/blog/author/aanthaswamy/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe
>
> [...]
>
R. Dean
Mar 23, 2013, 6:40:36 PM3/23/13
to
nectane...@gmail.com
Mar 23, 2013, 10:36:38 PM3/23/13
to
On Saturday, March 23, 2013 6:38:30 PM UTC-4, R. Dean wrote:
> On 3/19/2013 2:38 PM, jillery wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 01:28:24 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>
>
> > wrote:
>
> >
>
> > [...]
>
> >Some want to prove creationism. Religion is not a philosophy that can be proved. You can no more prove astrology nor can you prove that tithing works. You can't apply logic to religion. Logical problem solving with premises cannot prove creationism. Give it up. Religion has to do with belief. If you don't see any miracles, believe God is "sitting it out" for awhile but still believe in the power of visualization we may consider ourselves a Deist. If you believe creationism you are a probably a Christian. Christians are under the assumption that they can find converts in this group.
> On 3/19/2013 2:38 PM, jillery wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 01:28:24 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>
>
> > wrote:
>
> >
>
> > [...]
>
Nectanebus at
newagesecrets.blogspot.com
0 new messages