Being a deist

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Consider this then. If this forum was dominated by people arguing for the existence of Leprechauns, I would still be here every day pointing out the absurdity.

You know this to be true.

No I don’t know that to be true and I don’t think it is.

@pb1022 said
No I don’t know that to be true and I don’t think it is.

You don't think I would be here in a forum dedicated to the belief in Leprechauns picking holes?

If anything my appearances would be increased.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
You don't think I would be here in a forum dedicated to the belief in Leprechauns picking holes?

If anything my appearances would be increased.

If that’s true, I think you’ve got way too much time on your hands.

I don’t argue with people who believe patently ridiculous things, let alone argue with them every day.

@pb1022 said
If that’s true, I think you’ve got way too much time on your hands.

I don’t argue with people who believe patently ridiculous things, let alone argue with them every day.

Like most people on this site, I'm here for the chess. It's the reason I sought it out and the main reason I remain. The forums are a bit of fun in between moves. A leprechaun forum sounds like great fun.

@kellyjay said
I have many issues with the mechanisms that evolutionary processes are argued to have and some of their claims. Most surround informational properties within life directing the processes of various functions; they are like biological code, which suggests a code writer. I'm unaware of digital code or written words that do not require an agency behind them for their source. Ev ...[text shortened]... ution is true or not depending on how we define it. Is it a product of mindlessness or intelligence?

"...they are like biological code, which suggests a code-writer." (my bold)

Yes, it is true to say that DNA and RNA are in some ways analagous to computer code. In other ways, they are radically different. Since they carry information from one generation to the next and instruct cellular processes, it would be extremely surprising if they were not in some ways, analagous to computer code. I certainly don't see any reason to extrapolate a code-writer based on that observation. I see absolutely no reason to assume it is a product of intelligence.

@pb1022 said
You were claiming a comparison between atheists like Ghost who argue every day against the existence of God and validity of the Holy Bible and who trash both and myself who *occasionally* argues against the theory of evolution.

That’s a false comparison.

And you can falsely characterize my arguments as uninformed, but the fact remains you couldn’t produce a shred of evidence for macroevolution.

I made no such comparison. I observed how your thought processes worked and deduced from that that your beliefs were not as they had been stated.

@avalanchethecat said
I made no such comparison. I observed how your thought processes worked and deduced from that that your beliefs were not as they had been stated.

<<I made no such comparison.>>

Sure you did, tiger.

<<I observed how your thought processes worked>>

You totally missed the boat on how I stated it was the frequency that atheists argue against the existence of God that leads me to believe they hate God.

<<and deduced from that that your beliefs were not as they had been stated.>>

You’re the one who tells whoppers on here, not me 😉

@pb1022 said
<<I made no such comparison.>>

Sure you did, tiger.

<<I observed how your thought processes worked>>

You totally missed the boat on how I stated it was the frequency that atheists argue against the existence of God that leads me to believe they hate God.

<<and deduced from that that your beliefs were not as they had been stated.>>

You’re the one who tells whoppers on here, not me 😉

As I said, bone up on your reading skills, it will do wonders for your evidently, er - patchy - let's say, comprehension.

Is it a tic? Or are you actually a pervert?

@avalanchethecat said
As I said, bone up on your reading skills, it will do wonders for your evidently, er - patchy - let's say, comprehension.

Is it a tic? Or are you actually a pervert?

No perv here, sailor.

Not a tic either.

Just letting you know, via a wink, that I see through your nonsense.

@pb1022 said
No perv here, sailor.

Not a tic either.

Just letting you know, via a wink, that I see through your nonsense.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

@avalanchethecat said
"...they are like biological code, which suggests a code-writer." (my bold)

Yes, it is true to say that DNA and RNA are in some ways analagous to computer code. In other ways, they are radically different. Since they carry information from one generation to the next and instruct cellular processes, it would be extremely surprising if they were [i]not[ ...[text shortened]... ter based on that observation. I see absolutely no reason to assume it is a product of intelligence.

Can you give an example of informational directions from code coming from a source other than a mind?

@kellyjay said
Can you give an example of informational directions from code coming from a source other than a mind?

DNA/RNA

@avalanchethecat said
DNA/RNA

Little circular thinking.

@kellyjay said
Little circular thinking.

Not at all. You believe a mind was involved in creation and cite the function of DNA as a method of information transfer as evidence. I don't believe a mind was involved and cite the function of RNA as non-encoding molecules involved in protein transfer and translation as evidence. It demonstrates the evolutionary adaptation of intercellular processes.

@avalanchethecat said
Not at all. You believe a mind was involved in creation and cite the function of DNA as a method of information transfer as evidence. I don't believe a mind was involved and cite the function of RNA as non-encoding molecules involved in protein transfer and translation as evidence. It demonstrates the evolutionary adaptation of intercellular processes.

I believe it takes a mind to realize a mind was doing something, which is why you can get movies like "Contact" makes sense; we see things that are not naturally occurring occur, then there is a reason beyond a natural occurrence at work. We recognize works when written, the meaning behind them, when we see things like a watch, we know it wasn't a naturally occurring piece of equipment. The structure and functionality within life have so much more going on than our intelligence can understand. Yet, people want/need to make sure that isn't acknowledged because it would change worldviews. We are talking about something far more advanced than cave drawings.