Lobstrosity

So I assume you would also take the stance that stars have a "purpose," since clearly they only serve a limited number of "functions." You would claim that they are specifically designed to produce energy by fusing hydrogen into helium for a limited time after which they are designed to explode, producing all of the heavier elements that comprise your body right now? Obviously, there is no physics involved. Stars could never have naturally formed, right? God must have made each and every one specifically using God-magic. Also, lighting storms must be designed to send bolts of electricity to earth to dispense God's wrath upon evil golfers. Volcanos must be specifically designed to allow magma from below the earth's crust to reach the surface such that God's perfect but mysterious plan may be carried to fruition. Clearly nothing in this world "functions" on its own because science doesn't allow for anything complicated to exist. It must have all been designed exactly as we see it now.

Great logic, there, Keith.

Also, just one tiny flaw in your logic: deep-water fish, moles, and creatures that live in caves all have eyes that serve no function at all. I think maybe you are forced here to believe that these could have arisen naturally since they don't satisfy your functional argument.

Oh, and one final question: what do you mean specifically when you say that God is "perfect." Perfect when compared to what? Please, describe perfection to me.

Lobstrosity

I know this goes off on somewhat of a tangent, but I think it's fairly interesting and helps illuminate how truly complex the natural world can be (hence it should surprise no one that complex "designs" can emerge from the natural laws of physics):

This would actually be going too far. What quantum mechanics tells us is that at the most fundamental level the universe is nothing but "random" in the true sense of the word. Physics here is governed by probability distributions. You seem to imply that quanta appear random because we lack the technology to measure them accurately, but this is not correct. You can never, for example, simultaneously know both a particle's exact position and exact momentum (i.e. velocity). These two observables don't commute and as such it is fair to actually say that no particle ever simultaneously has an exact position and an exact momentum. Once again, this is not a technological failing on our part, it's a physical reality for the particle. Unless quantum physics is shown to be incorrect (something not very likely given its level of experimental corroboration), no one anywhere at any time will ever be able to make the matrix you describe. As such, we can never extrapolate what future events will occur with perfect accuracy because we can never know the all of initial conditions for the differential equations with perfect accuracy.

Einstein believed quantum physics was incorrect in this regard. He proclaimed that God did not play dice with the universe. His view was known as local realism (or the locality principle), in which he maintained that all of the information about a particle was contained within that particle. It would be possible to obtain this information using the proper technology, he thought. For example, he believed that there were actually little "clocks" in radioactive isotopes that were counting down the time until decay. Quantum mechanics views this as a truly random process (no information can be known about precisely when a given decay will occur). "Until 1964 it was believed that one could always construct a hidden-variable theory that would give all the same results as quantum mechanics. In that year, however, John S. Bell pointed out that alternative theories based on Einstein's locality principle actually yield a testable inequality that differs from the predictions of quantum mechanics" (Townsend, A Modern Approach to Quantum Mechanics). Subsequent experiments based on the Bell Inequalities revealed that local realism is faulty and that the quantum-mechanical picture was the true way to view the universe.

MrSparkle

I just happened by these forums yesterday, and what a place...

Anyway, I'd like to point out that the mutation that allowed mice to fly probably wasn't a "macro-mutation" cause by radiation. THis process probably was closer to a vermin kind of like today's mouse, that slowly evolved a little flap of skin under each arm, making it kind of like a flying squirel. Each time this mouse got bigger, it was able to jump a little farther than the other mice, and thus it was able to get away from preditors just a little better, so it had more offspring, which made this trait dominant in the population. Eventually after hundreds if not thousands of generations the mouse's flat became more like a wing, and it's back feet became smaller and smaller to reduce drag.

Special note: The mouse didn't have a purpose, nor did nature, when it began to evolve a flap of skin, it was a random mutation that let that mouse and it's offspring survive better than the other mice.

Godless Dave

We've been trying to explain that since page 1, but Keith ain't buying it. I gave up after he challenged me to prove that the process of evaporation and precipitation didn't have a purpose.

Lobstrosity

I don't think Keith even knows what he's arguing about anymore.

Dr Rick

The fact that Keith doesn't know how something came about in a certain way is not proof that it was intelligently designed. None of his claims about nature demonstrating "purpose" are supported in a logical or evidentiary way. In fact, Keith employs two incompatible standards in through-out his posts:

Keith is skeptical of claims by other mystics, but he suspends his skepticism and asks us to do the same when it comes to the Christian faith.

Rick

Monkeybot

Wow, I can't believe y'all have stuck with this so far -- I think I gave up on page 7. Good work!

Salmon of Doubt

Bah, I've given up on this too. Everyone who is arguing coherently has already said everything I would have said, and Keith doesn't seem to be taking any of it in.

I would just add that bats did NOT evolve directly from mice, they are actually more closely related to primates

Keith

My OP asked, does nature have a purpose? I've shown that the answer is YES. The intelligent design of living things shows obvious planning and purpose which makes it impossible to even discuss theories of evolution and speak meaningfully about the function of cells or body parts without reference to purpose. God has created the universe in such a way that no sensible person can deny that God exists. Every fact of nature directly or indirectly points to God.

When I asked for proof that "nature" can design and build complex things like bat ears without any involvement by an intelligent being, I received angry responses and insults...and a few people actually did try to provide the proof by way of TOE.

I was told that TOE is NOT random--only the mutations are. Natural selection is not a random process, therefore, the combined processes of random mutations coupled with NS can spontaneously generate ever increasing complexity. But is this true? NO!

Natural selection is nothing more than a definitional tautology. For example, natural selection states that the fittest individuals in a population (defined as those leaving the most offspring) will leave the most offspring. Well, Duh!!!!

According to Karl Popper, any situation where species exist is compatible with the Darwinian explanation, because if those species were not adapted, they would not exist. That is, Popper says, we define adaptation as that which is sufficient for existence in a given environment. Therefore, since nothing is ruled out, the theory has no explanatory power, for everything is ruled in.

So, NS doesn't explain anything. The TOE is just random mutations and differing levels of reproduction within the species. This is why my monkey typing illustration is accurate. The miracle of evolution is that by random forces alone, order, complexity, and function just spontaneously arise. No where do we see this kind of thing happening in nature. We see the opposite. We observe decreasing order and decreasing complexity. The evolutionary arrow is pointing in the wrong direction.

Another serious problem for TOE is that at present, very few, if any, naturally occuring mutations have occured that could be considered beneficial in any way. Yet by blind faith, this is just accepted anyway. Miracles can happen!

If the earth is hundreds of millions of years old or older, there should be an abundant supply of fossil evidence in support of TOE. It should come as no surprise that today's faithful believers in TOE don't like to talk about the fossil record very much. I wonder why?

One person said that crystals demonstrate design and complexity "but they are not the product of intelligence." This is yet another unsupported opinion that we're supposed to accept by faith.

C.S. Lewis said, "If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning."

Let my explain this further. Either we live in a meaningless universe (in which nature 'just exists' and has no purpose at all), or we live in a universe that is filled with purpose and meaning.

Now, if it is all meaningless, how can we know it is? Can we understand the concept of meaning (or the lack of it) if meaning doesn't exist? How is that possible?

It turns out that TOE is just a house of cards. I've ripped the stuffing out of a psuedo-scientific theory. It's been a blast! I hope that some of you will see the futility of atheism. Only God gives meaning and purpose to everything. The evidence pointing to God is everywhere. You can't avoid it even if you try.

God bless all of you,

Keith

Alix Nenuphar

Ummm. So this was all an exercise in mental masturbation in which the collective members* of II figured as your centerfold?

That's rather flattering in a way... a sick way, but a way, nonetheless.

Well, if that sort of thing amuses you, congratulations.

Would you like a tea-towel now?

Next time I suggest a live girl, assuming you're old enough.


* double entendres are clear evidence of intelligent design.


Tell me, are all the 'ID' posters in II this dull?