DannHuff

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content

    79

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Posts posted by DannHuff

  1. Quote


    The USD will crash, that is inevitable, you cannot go on printing money like that (QE1, QE2 etc...) without suffering the consequences.



    I'd be interested to understand what a crash would look like. Is it simply the USD falling in value relative to other currencies or do you mean a broader systematic crash (e.g. banks no longer able to repay cash deposits)?

  10. When I was 15 yrs old, I worked part-time at Kmart. There was a guy who brought in a circular power saw, 12 months after purchasing it, wanting a refund. The state of the power saw looked like he had built a house and now was returning it for his money back. It was incredible to me that the store knew it was being taken for a ride but still went ahead claiming customer satisfaction and return purchases.

  11. Quote

    Quote

    Yes he is saying that no one has ever discovered a code (ie an agreed convention) that was not designed by a conscious mind.



    But you see that his definition of a code ('an agreed convention') requires a code to be something that was designed by a conscious mind. He then takes DNA and shoehorns it into this definition.

    Quote

    His challenge is "show me a code that occurs naturally" to topple his conclusion.



    a) That code is DNA.

    b) If you do show him another one, he'll say that either that one must have been designed as well, because all the other ones are or he'll say it doesn't fit his definition of a code, because his definition of a code requires it to be designed.

    Quote

    There are 56 pages of posts on an atheists forum debating this.



    So? That doesn't mean the argument has any credibility, it just means that there are people on atheist forums happy to sit there and write the same answers to the same objections over and over and over again.



    Sounds like you have not watched the video. If you get a chance to watch it, I'd be interested to know whether you still have the same comments.

  12. Quote

    Quote

    You say you would gladly change your views if presented evidence to the contary. If you're interested there is a case presented here.



    I didn't watch the full one-hour video, but I skimmed through it and read other stuff on the website. So please correct me if I have misunderstood...

    Basically, he seems to be saying that DNA is a code, and that all codes are designed by a conscious mind (they don't occur naturally), and so therefore DNA was designed by a conscious mind. And that is his proof that an intelligent creator exists. (Nevermind the complexity of such a creator and where it came from.)

    The problem in his "proof" is stating that all codes are designed by a conscious mind. He states that as if it is a fact, but it is not, so he has proven nothing.



    Yes he is saying that no one has ever discovered a code (ie an agreed convention) that was not designed by a conscious mind. Therefore the best available alternative to explain code in DNA is a designer. His challenge is "show me a code that occurs naturally" to topple his conclusion. There are 56 pages of posts on an atheists forum debating this.

  13. Quote

    Quote

    Quote



    Nope, I'm not really interested in restating what is better said by experts in that field.



    Well then we wont know whether you have an understanding or simply have blind faith in someone else's theories.


    OK, so only personal origional research is valid. Upon birth, everyone should set out to learn everything about the natural world themselves or their knowledge is dismissed as "blind faith"


    If you require to know 100% of every detail on the origion of the universe, the only stance that you can take is agnosticism. However, that does not mean that everything else is on equal footing.

    I dismiss creationism because it totally disregards the scientific method, gives up on examining new evidence and says "give up on learning, just accept that God made everything!" I accept the big bang theory and evolution because it uses human observation and investigation, and everything is up for scrutiny. Even if it was wrong, the methodology is still leaps and bounds ahead of creationism's "blind faith". I would gladly change my views if presented evidence to the contrary. Creationism leaves no such room for improvement.

    Belief in an ancient book full of contradictions is "blind faith". The only faith (probably not the best word choice here) that my views require is hope in human inginuity to eventually fill in the details in our current theories:)


    Ok, thank-you for your response.

    There are some in the scientific community who acknowledge that faith is not the sole domain of religion and science has its own faith based belief system. This has been previously debated but there is an article I found interesting on this topic.

    You say you would gladly change your views if presented evidence to the contary. If you're interested there is a case presented here.

  16. Quote

    The best explanation that we have for this is evolution. Invoking god to solve the infinite regress presented above is, IMO, a cop out and a non-answer. Saying "I don't understand, it must be magic (i.e. deity)!" is pretty silly.



    Let me get this straight. You believe first there was nothing and then there was something. Something came from nothing. Sounds like faith to me.

  18. Quote

    why wont god heal amputees]



    Amputations are performed to save lives. In effect healing takes place as a result of the amputation. So to me this statement does not make sense.

    What the writer is getting at is why doesnt God grow legs on people who he had already given legs to at an earlier time.

  19. Quote

    What a ridiculous petition.
    Why do they think the opinion of vets, medical doctors and those with simply undergrad degrees in any science subject (pyschology, economics etc?) is relevant to climate science?
    science isn't done by petition, anyone that knew anything about science would know that. Hell, you could find petitions of scientists that back ID.



    Beautifully put - we find evidence to believe what we want to believe. This includes everyone one on this forum.

  21. Thanks for the material pointing to the earth getting warmer.

    From my perspective I have no trouble believing the earth is warming. This may be part of natural cycles. The question remains whether, for example, man made CO2 is contributing to the warming. One is able to find scientists that believe in both camps - for and against. It seems what is evidence for some is lies for others. In the end we filter evidence through our own worldview.

  23. Quote

    Quote

    Regarding the OP, I think that everything about an individual's character has a "physical, biological, even neuroanatomical and genetic basis" (or something like that). But as to which of our traits are "defects," well, that seems largely subjective.



    Anything that makes a person believe in invisible omnipotent omniscient omnipresent beings for which there is no evidence of existence that I accept should be considered a defect, IMHO.



    There fixed it for you.