CrowCross
Well-known member
So what? So can I.I can (in principle) make a machine that is more powerful than I am.
So what? So can I.I can (in principle) make a machine that is more powerful than I am.
They can actually come watch me make it, though.And others will come along and say the machine made itself because they do not believe in you
So if I can make something more powerful than I, why can't a god make something more powerful than it?So what? So can I.
It would not make a difference. Going by your example they would not believe their own eyes.They can actually come watch me make it, though.
Mutations provide variations which can be selected. Fact.Mutations are not a requirement for selection. Fact. When you can grasp that, get back to me.
Because there is nothing more powerful than God....you on the other hand have many things more powerful that you.So if I can make something more powerful than I, why can't a god make something more powerful than it?
Not on the scale of great complexity that we see in an assembly line of organelle.Mutations provide variations which can be selected. Fact.
Who exactly is "they" (originally mentioned by you as "others")?It would not make a difference. Going by your example they would not believe their own eyes.
I will grant that if you define your god to be more powerful than anything, then it can't make something more powerful.Because there is nothing more powerful than God....you on the other hand have many things more powerful that you.
The problem is whether we are taking about an unidentified designer, or are we talking about some specific god? AFAIK, ID makes a point to not specify who or what the designer is, only that it is an intelligent being. So if we (and Caroljeen) are merely talking about an unidentified designer, we don't know that that designer is all-powerful.The designer could not design another designer greater than himself.
Does not need to happen to falsify nonintelligence/natural as causative. How hard can this be? They do rule out murder as cause of death because they do not know identity. What murder does rule out/falsify is natural causation. They have methodologies to determine intelligent causation in science.So let's specify whether we're talking about Yahweh or an unidentified designer.
I would imagine she was talking about the God of the Bible.The problem is whether we are taking about an unidentified designer, or are we talking about some specific god?
Detectives investigating murders that they do not witness sometimes rightly conclude that the murder was done by a person and sometimes they conclude that the cause of death was natural causes. So what is your point?Does not need to happen to falsify nonintelligence/natural as causative. How hard can this be? They do rule out murder as cause of death because they do not know identity. What murder does rule out/falsify is natural causation.
When I originally read what she wrote,I would imagine she was talking about the God of the Bible.
You should get to know Him.
I did not take the designer to be Yahweh, because the conversation before that point did not specify the god of the Bible as the designer, but I see now that it's probable that that is what she meant.The designer could not design another designer greater than himself.
The point is obvious to most with a reasonable amount of intelligence so you keep coming back with questions to avoid the obvious. Like i wrote they have ways to determine intelligent causation in science. What atheists do is corrupt science in the same mannor as the bishops who refused to look thru the telescope of Galileo. It can be human intelligence, it can be alien (ET) intelligence but it cannot be supernatural intelligence because of Theistic implications, not because it best explains the evidence, but because of philosophical prejudices. Supernatural causation is no problem for a supernaturalist, it is a huge problem for naturalists who prefer delusion to reality.Detectives investigating murders that they do not witness sometimes rightly conclude that the murder was done by a person and sometimes they conclude that the cause of death was natural causes. So what is your point?
What are some of the ways that science determines intelligent causation?The point is obvious to most with a reasonable amount of intelligence so you keep coming back with questions to avoid the obvious. Like i wrote they have ways to determine intelligent causation in science.
And your evidence is...? Unless you provide evidence you are not going to get very far in a scientific argument.Not on the scale of great complexity that we see in an assembly line of organelle.
Pretty much common sense....but, when you realize a DNA code is responsible for building the organelle.....which you say was derived from mutations and some form of selection...then this organelle is used as part of a process to produce another organelle....which is in line to make yet another....and so on...you realize evolutionism just doesn't work.And your evidence is...? Unless you provide evidence you are not going to get very far in a scientific argument.
Prove itMutations provide variations which can be selected. Fact.
Common sense tells us that the earth is static and the sun moves round it. You need something better.Pretty much common sense...
It is called "Evolution".Where is your scientific method that tells how an assembly line of organelle could evolve?
yes, it is the only designer of the universe that I would affirm.When I originally read what she wrote,
I did not take the designer to be Yahweh, because the conversation before that point did not specify the god of the Bible as the designer, but I see now that it's probable that that is what she meant.