Ignorant Creationists vs. Knowledgeable Evolutionists

Its certainly true that human design has accomplished many things very rapidly often with precise results, in what way does this offer any sort of argument against RM/NS doing things pretty sloppily and taking millions of years about it? This simply seems to be an argument from your own personal incredulity.TTFN,WK

Yes, and what you are implicating my statements to have said.

You're still ducking my questions.

My apologies, Mike. I forgot your post in the heavy traffic. Interesting also that both admins Jar and Ned have also stated that certain things mentioned in this thread were off topic, needing to be addressed in separate threads. Why are you singling me out here for the same concerns concerning forum guidelines? Pardon, Mike, but here's your question as stated:
Please answer this very simple question... if complexity requires design, who or what designed god? Infantile, I know, but to the point
Conversely, if god does not require a creator, why does anything else?Have you forgotten that your question began with who or what designed god?My response went as follows: Please specify which statement you are alluding to in your quoted statement above as to my either reading you or responding to you "incorrectly."Off topic. Something had to be forever existing in order to produce anything. I say it was God. You might say it was a particle of space as Rich Gore of National Geographic put it, or whatever you think it began from. We all remain at an impasse, for no eye witnesses where there, now, were they. It's disengenuous of you people to label us creos as "ignorant" for believing that mindless processes produced everything. Had someone labeled a thread "Ignorant Evolutionists," I doubt that it would have ever gotten out of Proposed New Topics. That's how unevenhanded things are in this town. No. Please reread me. My statement was to the effect that either god or something else, such as an explosive area of space, as Al Gore put it, had to exist forever, i.e. not be created. Right? LOL, Mike. Regardless of who's the more ignorant, you and a few of my other counterparts might do well to brush up on your reading and comprehensive skills, so as to save us all considerable time and work here.

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buz

Consider though, the tremendous advantage ID gives man over mindless ID/NS, man being nowhere near creating a brain such as ours.Man's ID has thousands of intelligent scientists observing the exact human brain to go by, as well as all the machines, such as computers, electronics, chemistry and physics knowledge, microsopes and other devices for tools to aid him with still no possibility of it imaginable.Mindless RM/NS has nothing. No life, no purpose, no incentive, no information, nothing to begin with, only a particle or so of lifeless inorganic material and time. So don't be so quick and anxious to criticize folks who are incredulant about what we see as an incredible ideology. I know, you say give it enough time and you believe it surpasses hypothesis to become credible to the status of theory. But the more millions and billions of years, i.e, the more distant you get from observation, the more obscure your vision and alleged evidence becomes; thus the more speculative the interpretation.

Actually, you would do well to bone up on your writing. In any case, You said you choose to believe that the eternal thing was god, and I addressed that.You still haven't actually responded.

Yah, I agree that there's always room for improvement in that area. I'm not a fast thinker and often it takes me considerable time to get up a post so as keep within the guidelines on the one hand and debate ideology counter to the majority of board members on the other. How so? Please specify as to what sentence or phrase I haven't responded to.

What advantage is that, exactly? I would argue that the advantage is the other way around; that's why the hottest thing in engineering and computer programming is the use of RM/NS to develop new technologies and software.RM/NS is better at designing things than intelligent design. That's the inescapable conclusion.

Uuuuuh! I must rebuke that notion in the name of Jesus! Thanks to the grace of God, wholistic healing, nutritional knowledge, and availability of good things from garden and store, at 69 I can still do the 100 yard dash, as well as six days of every week of rigorous work involving heavy stuff at times. I pray daily to God for good mind, body and soul health so as to avoid physical invalidity, senility of mind and spiritual regression. I will at this moment pray the same for you, madear, and include in that prayer each and every member of this forum........................................................................................................TO GOD, OUR FATHER, IN THE WORTHY NAME OF JESUS, OUR LORD, SAVIOUR AND MEDIATOR/HIGH PRIEST, AMEN

The difference is that most of those engineers and technicians setting this up are highly educated intelligent people with wonderfully designed minds utilizing it with a special planned purpose in mind.

Right. And they're using that education and intelligence to copy nature's processes to the greatest degree possible. In other words, they're taking their own intelligence out of the picture. So there is no difference. There's no difference at all between nature using RM/NS to design living things, and engineers using RM/NS to design jet airplanes.

But I have documented that my arguments in question have been based solely on evidentual observation and logic, not faith. No. Why do you keep on keeping on falsly alleging this, Ned? My stated religious views have not been utilized at all in my arguments in question. Please document otherwise using specific quotes. If you cannot do that, please stop this incessant malignment of my posting conduct. It's not been like you to operate like this with such vehemency. What's up?? Cough! Cough!! My choice?? What choice are you giving me? To make a false confession or take a hike?

You miss my point, being that there's a whole lota difference in controlled usage of randomness by intelligent beings in a controlled environment with processes set up to utilize randomness within purposefully programmed proceedures implementing specified plans people propose.

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buz

As I pointed out in a previous post your use of "evidence" is incorrect.1) THe evidence you choose to use is only relevant if you assume that the mechanisms of evolution cannot acheive results that other natural mechanisms do not2) The evidence you choose to ignore shows that this is false - with some very limited guidance analagous processes can achieve results superior to those that we can achieve with ID.Clearly the evidence directly dealing with analagous processes is more relevant than that dealing with processes that are simply grouped under the label "natural". Therefore the argument rests on a highly selective use of evidence to reach the desired conclusion. Moreover since it relies on ignoring evidence of greater relevance than that accepted the conclusion cannot be said to be based on a rational evalutation of the evidence. Rather it is an apologetic argument which misrepresents the true stae of the evidence to reach a conclusion already held as a matter of faith.

No, I understood your point. (Please don't assume that just because I disagree, I don't understand.)But you're completely wrong. When intelligent people use their intelligence to copy the work of nature, there's absolutely no difference at all between intelligent use of controlled randomness (great phrase btw) and nature's use of controlled randomness.Absolutely no difference whatsoever. The results don't get magically infused with some "essence" of intelligence. The results of genetic programming and evolutionary engineering are just as much a product of randomness and haphazard selection and recombination as things are in the natural world; and those results are almost always far more advanced than anything intelligence alone is capable of.I understood your point completely. But your point was completely wrong.