Information - Natural or Intelligence?

[Kenny]

So, where did these properties come from?

I thought we agreed the properties were already a part of the cells!

Right, so where did they come from?
If they were in the cell, which they would have to be, how did they get there?

If cells had always existed, and those properties were a part of the cells, that would mean those properties had always existed; right?

Sure, but are you saying that cells have always existed?

No; I'm not saying that. As I said before, I don't have answers to these questions you guys are asking me, I'm just pointing out possibilities that sound reasonable to me. The idea that cells have always existed sounds reasonable to me.

[PaulSacramento]

I thought we agreed the properties were already a part of the cells!

Right, so where did they come from?
If they were in the cell, which they would have to be, how did they get there?

If cells had always existed, and those properties were a part of the cells, that would mean those properties had always existed; right?

Sure, but are you saying that cells have always existed?

No; I'm not saying that. As I said before, I don't have answers to these questions you guys are asking me, I'm just pointing out possibilities that sound reasonable to me. The idea that cells have always existed sounds reasonable to me.

None of us have answers, that is why we are all here.
Why does the idea of cells always existing sound reasonable to you? any evidence of that? are cells immortal? eternal?

[Kenny]

Right, so where did they come from?
If they were in the cell, which they would have to be, how did they get there?

If cells had always existed, and those properties were a part of the cells, that would mean those properties had always existed; right?

Sure, but are you saying that cells have always existed?

No; I'm not saying that. As I said before, I don't have answers to these questions you guys are asking me, I'm just pointing out possibilities that sound reasonable to me. The idea that cells have always existed sounds reasonable to me.

None of us have answers, that is why we are all here.
Why does the idea of cells always existing sound reasonable to you?

Because cells exist.

any evidence of that? are cells immortal? eternal?

If such evidence did exist, do you think anybody would be able to recognize it? I doubt it.

[PaulSacramento]

Right, so where did they come from?
If they were in the cell, which they would have to be, how did they get there?

If cells had always existed, and those properties were a part of the cells, that would mean those properties had always existed; right?

Sure, but are you saying that cells have always existed?

No; I'm not saying that. As I said before, I don't have answers to these questions you guys are asking me, I'm just pointing out possibilities that sound reasonable to me. The idea that cells have always existed sounds reasonable to me.

None of us have answers, that is why we are all here.
Why does the idea of cells always existing sound reasonable to you?

Because cells exist.

any evidence of that? are cells immortal? eternal?

If such evidence did exist, do you think anybody would be able to recognize it? I doubt it.

So, because cells exist that means they have ALWAYS existed ?

[Philip]

Paul to Ken: Why does the idea of cells always existing sound reasonable to you? any evidence of that? are cells immortal? eternal?

Ken doesn't appear to realize the massive sophistication and complexity of the most simple biologic cell. And cells were only possible after the conditions of the early earth slowly became hospitable for life to exist. And even that doesn't explain how non-life formed the first cell. So, I don't know what science classes you've taken, but they couldn't have been based upon current scientific understandings of the early earth - a place with no life or even cells due to the impossible conditions for such to live.

But, Ken, wouldn't you say that the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) took intelligence to build? In fact (from Wikipedia), "it is the world's largest and most powerful particle collider and the largest machine in the world.[1] It was built by the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) between 1998 and 2008 in collaboration with over 10,000 scientists and hundreds of universities and laboratories, as well as more than 100 countries." Ken, that required great intelligence of a substantial number of top scientists. And yet, the collider is not complex compared to a cell!

Biochemist Michael Denton, longtime senior research fellow in the Biochemistry Department at the University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand, says of the simple cell:

“Molecular biology has shown that even the simplest of all living systems on the earth today, bacterial cells, are exceedingly complex objects. Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 gms, EACH is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than ANY machine built by man and absolutely without parallel in the nonliving world.”

So, Ken, if our top scientists' most sophisticated machine required such a massive assemblance of intelligent designers, that even the collider pales in comparison to the complexity of a cell - how can you assert a cell didn't require intelligence???!!! That is an entirely illogical belief - not to mention impossible! And the complexity of the necessary conditions pre-existing those first (massively complex) cells has to first be in place - adding just another statistical impossibility of astronomical odds they could have existed without an Intelligence guiding it all!

[Kenny]

If cells had always existed, and those properties were a part of the cells, that would mean those properties had always existed; right?

Sure, but are you saying that cells have always existed?

No; I'm not saying that. As I said before, I don't have answers to these questions you guys are asking me, I'm just pointing out possibilities that sound reasonable to me. The idea that cells have always existed sounds reasonable to me.

None of us have answers, that is why we are all here.
Why does the idea of cells always existing sound reasonable to you?

Because cells exist.

any evidence of that? are cells immortal? eternal?

If such evidence did exist, do you think anybody would be able to recognize it? I doubt it.

So, because cells exist that means they have ALWAYS existed ?

No it doesn't mean that. I'm saying, if something exists, I don't know it's origin, it makes more sense to me that it always existed than it was created by magic; because I don't believe in magic.

[Kenny]

Paul to Ken: Why does the idea of cells always existing sound reasonable to you? any evidence of that? are cells immortal? eternal?

Ken doesn't appear to realize the massive sophistication and complexity of the most simple biologic cell. And cells were only possible after the conditions of the early earth slowly became hospitable for life to exist. And even that doesn't explain how non-life formed the first cell. So, I don't know what science classes you've taken, but they couldn't have been based upon current scientific understandings of the early earth - a place with no life or even cells due to the impossible conditions for such to live.

But, Ken, wouldn't you say that the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) took intelligence to build? In fact (from Wikipedia), "it is the world's largest and most powerful particle collider and the largest machine in the world.[1] It was built by the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) between 1998 and 2008 in collaboration with over 10,000 scientists and hundreds of universities and laboratories, as well as more than 100 countries." Ken, that required great intelligence of a substantial number of top scientists. And yet, the collider is not complex compared to a cell!

Biochemist Michael Denton, longtime senior research fellow in the Biochemistry Department at the University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand, says of the simple cell:

“Molecular biology has shown that even the simplest of all living systems on the earth today, bacterial cells, are exceedingly complex objects. Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 gms, EACH is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than ANY machine built by man and absolutely without parallel in the nonliving world.”

So, Ken, if our top scientists' most sophisticated machine required such a massive assemblance of intelligent designers, that even the collider pales in comparison to the complexity of a cell - how can you assert a cell didn't require intelligence???!!! That is an entirely illogical belief - not to mention impossible! And the complexity of the necessary conditions pre-existing those first (massively complex) cells has to first be in place - adding just another statistical impossibility of astronomical odds they could have existed without and Intelligence guiding it all!

If your argument is that the more complex, the more likely it had to have been created, yet you make an exception to this rule for God; what’s stopping me from applying the exception to everything else?

[RickD]

Paul to Ken: Why does the idea of cells always existing sound reasonable to you? any evidence of that? are cells immortal? eternal?

Ken doesn't appear to realize the massive sophistication and complexity of the most simple biologic cell. And cells were only possible after the conditions of the early earth slowly became hospitable for life to exist. And even that doesn't explain how non-life formed the first cell. So, I don't know what science classes you've taken, but they couldn't have been based upon current scientific understandings of the early earth - a place with no life or even cells due to the impossible conditions for such to live.

But, Ken, wouldn't you say that the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) took intelligence to build? In fact (from Wikipedia), "it is the world's largest and most powerful particle collider and the largest machine in the world.[1] It was built by the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) between 1998 and 2008 in collaboration with over 10,000 scientists and hundreds of universities and laboratories, as well as more than 100 countries." Ken, that required great intelligence of a substantial number of top scientists. And yet, the collider is not complex compared to a cell!

Biochemist Michael Denton, longtime senior research fellow in the Biochemistry Department at the University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand, says of the simple cell:

“Molecular biology has shown that even the simplest of all living systems on the earth today, bacterial cells, are exceedingly complex objects. Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 gms, EACH is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than ANY machine built by man and absolutely without parallel in the nonliving world.”

So, Ken, if our top scientists' most sophisticated machine required such a massive assemblance of intelligent designers, that even the collider pales in comparison to the complexity of a cell - how can you assert a cell didn't require intelligence???!!! That is an entirely illogical belief - not to mention impossible! And the complexity of the necessary conditions pre-existing those first (massively complex) cells has to first be in place - adding just another statistical impossibility of astronomical odds they could have existed without and Intelligence guiding it all!

If your argument is that the more complex, the more likely it had to have been created, yet you make an exception to this rule for God; what’s stopping me from applying the exception to everything else?

Again Kenny,

God is not complex. We've asked you to read this before, but I guess you really don't want to understand.

[Kenny]

Paul to Ken: Why does the idea of cells always existing sound reasonable to you? any evidence of that? are cells immortal? eternal?

Ken doesn't appear to realize the massive sophistication and complexity of the most simple biologic cell. And cells were only possible after the conditions of the early earth slowly became hospitable for life to exist. And even that doesn't explain how non-life formed the first cell. So, I don't know what science classes you've taken, but they couldn't have been based upon current scientific understandings of the early earth - a place with no life or even cells due to the impossible conditions for such to live.

But, Ken, wouldn't you say that the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) took intelligence to build? In fact (from Wikipedia), "it is the world's largest and most powerful particle collider and the largest machine in the world.[1] It was built by the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) between 1998 and 2008 in collaboration with over 10,000 scientists and hundreds of universities and laboratories, as well as more than 100 countries." Ken, that required great intelligence of a substantial number of top scientists. And yet, the collider is not complex compared to a cell!

Biochemist Michael Denton, longtime senior research fellow in the Biochemistry Department at the University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand, says of the simple cell:

“Molecular biology has shown that even the simplest of all living systems on the earth today, bacterial cells, are exceedingly complex objects. Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 gms, EACH is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than ANY machine built by man and absolutely without parallel in the nonliving world.”

So, Ken, if our top scientists' most sophisticated machine required such a massive assemblance of intelligent designers, that even the collider pales in comparison to the complexity of a cell - how can you assert a cell didn't require intelligence???!!! That is an entirely illogical belief - not to mention impossible! And the complexity of the necessary conditions pre-existing those first (massively complex) cells has to first be in place - adding just another statistical impossibility of astronomical odds they could have existed without and Intelligence guiding it all!

If your argument is that the more complex, the more likely it had to have been created, yet you make an exception to this rule for God; what’s stopping me from applying the exception to everything else?

Again Kenny,

God is not complex. We've asked you to read this before, but I guess you really don't want to understand.

My point is; just because something is complex, does not mean it had to have been created by an intelligent being.

[Philip]

Ken: My point is; just because something is complex, does not mean it had to have been created by an intelligent being.

Let me get this straight, Ken, you believe that the world's most astonishing achievement in building the most sophisticated machine ever,the Hadron Collider, which required the work of "10,000 scientists and hundreds of universities and laboratories, as well as more than 100 countries" - that although the machine all of these professionals and entities spent 10 years building, that though it isn't nearly as complex and sophisticated as a simple biological cell, you nonetheless believe the cell didn't require intelligence to engineer it as well? Ken, this just shows how badly you want to believe this about the cell, but also reveals there is zero logic behind why you would. And while the mass expertise in many of the world's greatest minds, materials, and planning were deliberately and painstakingly gathered, planned and pursued to produce the Collider, you think not only the cell came about by pure time and happenstance, but likewise the immensely complex physical and chemical requirements that HAD to precede it so as to provide the exceptionally precise and necessary conditions for that cell to live and thrive?

Ken, the odds of both of these things (the conditions and elements occurring and the cell coming into existence uncaused) are, individually, statistically impossible. Put them together and the impossibilities become many more times exponential. You fail to admit the absurdity of what you believe non-intelligent forces can produce, as you most certainly are aware of the statistical improbabilities against them both! That you continue to assert them possible is simply not rational! It must be exceptionally difficult to maintain what you insist to be possible, while knowing it's immense improbabilities and total lack of evidence for them!

[RickD]

Kenny wrote:
My point is; just because something is complex, does not mean it had to have been created by an intelligent being.

Name one complex thing, and prove scientifically that it wasn't created by an intelligent being.

[Kenny]

Ken: My point is; just because something is complex, does not mean it had to have been created by an intelligent being.

Let me get this straight, Ken, you believe that the world's most astonishing achievement in building the most sophisticated machine ever,the Hadron Collider, which required the work of "10,000 scientists and hundreds of universities and laboratories, as well as more than 100 countries" - that although the machine all of these professionals and entities spent 10 years building, that though it isn't nearly as complex and sophisticated as a simple biological cell, you nonetheless believe the cell didn't require intelligence to engineer it as well? Ken, this just shows how badly you want to believe this about the cell, but also reveals there is zero logic behind why you would. And while the mass expertise in many of the world's greatest minds, materials, and planning were deliberately and painstakingly gathered, planned

*Again; Just because something is complex does not mean it was created.
*Again; for the umpteenth time, this is not what I believe, this is what sounds reasonable, considering I know cells exist, and I have no idea of their origin; or if they even have an origin.

I know you want me to put something on the table for you to pick apart, but this ain’t it! If you wanna pick apart my beliefs, you need to find a subject I actually have an opinion on.

[Kenny]

Kenny wrote:
My point is; just because something is complex, does not mean it had to have been created by an intelligent being.

Name one complex thing, and prove scientifically that it wasn't created by an intelligent being.

If you are going to make the argument that because I am unable to prove this, that it is therefore impossible throughout the entirety of the Universe; that is a very poor argument to make.

[Kurieuo]

Kenny wrote:
My point is; just because something is complex, does not mean it had to have been created by an intelligent being.

Name one complex thing, and prove scientifically that it wasn't created by an intelligent being.

If you are going to make the argument that because I am unable to prove this, that it is therefore impossible throughout the entirety of the Universe; that is a very poor argument to make.

I actually thought that a very relevant question. Wondered why many more people don't ask of it skeptics who often say complex things don't need creating by an intelligent being. I think it's a good question Rick.

It gets one thinking about how exactly something might be "complex" i.e., what counts as complexity. That's a good thing to think about--unpacking the language of what is meant by terms used--even if one disagrees with the conclusion of any arguments based upon such.

[Kenny]

Kenny wrote:
My point is; just because something is complex, does not mean it had to have been created by an intelligent being.

Name one complex thing, and prove scientifically that it wasn't created by an intelligent being.

If you are going to make the argument that because I am unable to prove this, that it is therefore impossible throughout the entirety of the Universe; that is a very poor argument to make.

I actually thought that a very relevant question. Wondered why many more people don't ask of it skeptics who often say complex things don't need creating by an intelligent being. I think it's a good question Rick.

It gets one thinking about how exactly something might be "complex" i.e., what counts as complexity. That's a good thing to think about--unpacking the language of what is meant by terms used--even if one disagrees with the conclusion of any arguments based upon such.

I think it is a poor argument to make because there is so much about the Universe we just don’t know. Just because in our daily lives, everything complex seems to have been created by an intelligent being doesn’t mean that is the case for the entire Universe. That would be like reading a book in a Library, and assuming all the other books there are like the one you just read.

BTW a Coral Reef looks pretty complex to me; what do you think?

https://images.search.yahoo.com/search/ ... fr=yfp-t-s