Stephen T-B

This question is addressed to Vanderzyden:
Would you please explain to us the deductive process which leads you to the conclusion that we live in a “designed” universe?
Thank you

Oolon Colluphid

Seconded. Enquiring minds want to know.

And I'm still waiting for a response to the 'Hey Oolon' thread.

(Actually, I think Brave Sir Vander's buggered off.

<singing> When evidence reared its ugly head / He bravely turned his tail and fled... </singing>

Oolon

Jonesy

In light of your comment, have a read at this and then THINK about it. What we perceive as random is likely to actually be sophisticated design that is so advanced that it 'appears random' to humans on Earth at this stage - we cannot accurately predict/observe the processes with enough accuracy due to out currently insufficiently developed technology.

<a href="http://NUjournal.net/choice.html" target="_blank">http://NUjournal.net/choice.html</a>

Even though it makes much more sense to say that the universe was designed, evolutionists will continue to cling to the 'fact' that 'everything natural is random' - until it is proven, given sufficient technological development on Earth, that everything, even atoms and 'apparently random mutations' in nature are actually designed. Specified complexity exists and evolutionists should not neglect it - because it clearly proves that even living things are 'designed'. It's the prionciple of 'a system' - if you remove a part from 'system 1' and it still functions, it's not the same 'system 1' anymore - it's another 'system 2', that just 'happens' to continue to function in a similar way. And, as shown many times, such systems soon cease to function, as its new 'system 2 form' causes it to be insufficiently composed to perform 'a certain' function that it could only perform during being 'system 1'.

And Oolon, I challenge you to avoid mentioning 'funny t-shirts' ( challenge anyone else as well)

Just so everyone is clear: I will continue to post to this website, and my 'chief topic' will always be trying to persuade people that the universe was designed. By what or whom - no idea, but, most importantly, not knowing an aspect of something (eg. who created the universe) is not an automatic excuse to reject the fact that it still may have been designed.

And the reason why I will keep posting to these website, is that many 'pure evolutionists and pure creationists' read this stuff. And as such, these are the people who need to be debated on the issue. Evolutionists for the obvious reasons (they have to admit design in nature) and creationists for the reason that they have to admit &gt;10 billion years have passed since Big Bang.

Mageth

evolutionists will continue to cling to the 'fact' that 'everything natural is random'

Funny, I've never heard an "evolutionist" claim this as a fact...

RufusAtticus

creationists et kin will still cling to the 'fact' that evolutionist cling to the 'fact' that everything in the universe is random.