I'm trying to figure out where these self-replicating, self-healing computers are...

I totally want one!

@Terraphon: I'm trying to figure out where these self-replicating, self-healing computers are...

My first computers were a couple of TRS-80s that I bought in the early 1980s. My wife and I used them for word processing, etc. When they stopped working we'd drop them from varying heights and talk to them severely. And they'd heal themselves!

But although we left them alone together in the office every night, they never produced any offspring. Maybe they were just too floppy.

Bwaaa haaa haaa haaa ha ha ha haaaaa ha ha...LOL. Intelligent design argument? Bwaaaa haaa ha haaaaaaa ha a haaaa ha ha LMAO.
Ya Ya that's it...a god made our entire universe, and payed particular attention to our solar system, by creating life on our planet earth...
...and then put the andromeda system on a cataclysmic collision course with ours.
Yup, that's some design.
But I imagine god has a plan and works in mysterious ways.
or
doesn't fuckin exist you moron.

sourcecodewizard:

YOUR TEST SCORES HAVE ARRIVED: "Let the poo flinging begin" Cog's Shovel. (Edited for these comments)

This has to be either ProgrammingGodJordan or hes finally release a prisoner from his dank basement and that individual is now here displaying all the tell tell signs of indoctrination and Stockholm syndrome...

Oh dear, another supernaturalist has stepped up to the plate, thinking that his vacuous apologetics will "stick it to the stupid atheists".

Start looking for the nearest fallout shelter for your apologetics. Let's take a look at this shall we?

Many children are brainwashed into believing the irrational idea that the existence of a Creator cannot be proven.

First of all, the mere fact that you've used the word "proven", alone tells me that you never paid attention in the requisite classes. Proof is only applicable in the domain of formal systems, such as those covered by pure mathematics. What supports a postulate about concrete entities in the observable universe is observational data. So on this ground alone, your apologetics fails miserably.

Second, those of us who paid attention in class, know what is required in order to establish that a god type entity is something other than the figment of someone's imagination. Namely, for that entity to provide us with reliable observational data, as cited above. This hasn't happened yet, therefore the question of the existence of such an entity remains unanswered.

Technically this is correct since nothing can ever be proven completely even our own existence.

Pure mathematicians would like to disagree with you here, at least with respect to the theorems in their formal systems.

As for concrete entities such as ourselves, well, we have a habit of providing observational data supporting the postulate that we exist.

But in terms of the spectrum of knowledge, the fact that our world is designed is more certain that the existence of our parents or even our perception of reality.

Poppycock.

You, like every other supernaturalist, do not know what is required, in order to convert the "design" assertion into something other than the product of your rectal passage. Let's see if you can work this out from first principles, without any prompting from me, shall we? Here's a hint: "it looks 'designed' to me, therefore it must be" doesn't count.

First, radio static will never produce a valid radio program. Neither will TV noise produce a valid TV program. So how could molecules randomly create working computers? It does not make any sense.

Except that no scientist has ever claimed this. Instead, what scientists working in the requisite fields actually claim, if you bother paying attention to their output, is that testable natural processes were responsible for the origin of the biosphere and its contents. Courtesy of the fact that chemical reactions are not "random", but obey well-defined rules regarding such matters as energy exchanges and bond formation. Indeed, one of the reasons that the requisite scientists look to chemistry for answers to the question of the origin of life, is because life is chemistry writ large. Millions of well-defined chemical reactions are taking place in your body right now, and if some of those reactions stop, then you die.

Also, we need to factor in here, that scientists actually postulate that the origin of life centred around simple protocells, which then acquired additional features over time. How those protocells might have been constructed, and how they might have acquired additional features, is an active field of research.

Furthermore, even though my collection of papers covering the relevant research is incomplete, I still have enough papers in that collection, to know that the hypotheses being proposed are supported by experiment. Which of the 322 papers in that collection would you like me to bring here first?

As for evidence, Earth is filled with working computers that replicate and self-heal using nanotechnology. EVIDENCE.

This isn't evidence for an invisible magic man, it's evidence for a large swathe of testable natural processes. See the above research I've cited for more on this.

Now imagine SETI found a star flickering in repetition. Imagine they recorded the flickers as binary numbers, saved them into a .mpeg file and found that they produced a movie showing the correct location of the star relative to all others along with daily alien life.

A laughable scenario. Because stars don't do this. Just ask any actual practising astronomer. Who will probably give you a nice, in-depth exposition on how nuclear fusion works, among other topics, and in the process of so doing, will inform you that stars don't produce bitstreams of photon data changing at the speed that would be required to collect such data in a reasonable time frame.

Once it was verified that the signal had origins outside of our solar system, 99% of humans would regard this as solid evidence of alien intelligence outside our solar system.

Except that every properly tenured astronomer on the planet will tell you that your fantasy scenario won't happen. Along with detailed reasons for this. Nuclear fusion reactions don't produce laser bitstreams.

Now compare the two: 1) Flickering Light, 2) Planet filled with networked computers. EVIDENCE.

[1] above is a fantasy scenario on your part, and [2] is evidence for testable natural processes, not an invisible magic man from mythology.

Also, anyone who believes that science can explain the origin of life needs to get a science lesson or start producing some EVIDENCE.

Which of those 322 scientific papers do you want me to bring here first?

Notice the word is capitalized indicating it is important.

We know that supernaturalists love their ALL CAPS typing. Doesn't make their fantasies any more risible.

Science fantasy combined with conjecture and wishful thinking have built this magical world of “what if land” where people actually believe that there is some factual, scientific basis to explain how life began

There is. Which of those 322 scientific papers do you want me to bring here first?

when this is not even remotely based on EVIDENCE. It is a faith, pure and simple.

Those 322 scientific papers say you're talking bollocks.

To counter their lack of evidence

Which of those 322 scientific papers do you want me to bring here first, demonstrating that your assertion about "lack of evidence" is horseshit?

science has dubbed the phrase “God of Gaps” thereby 1) glorifying their lack of EVIDENCE

Bollocks. you obviously don't know what the term means.

Basically, what this term refers to, is the fact that every time scientists have yet to provide a detailed answer to a given question, ignorant supernaturalists point to this and immediately exclaim that their fantasy mythological magic man is needed to provide an answer. Except, of course, that when scientists subsequently do provide a detailed answer, one accompanied by a usefully predictive, quantitative theory, the supernaturalist assertion looks absurd. This has happened with electricity, with weather, with disease, and dozens of other observational phenomena, all asserted in the past to require a supernatural "explanation", only for the assertion in this vein to look fatuous once scientists were able to roll up their sleeves and provide a genuine answer.

Pointing to questions scientists haven't yet answered, thinking that they never will, has always resulted in supernaturalists being left with egg on their faces. As long as scientific research continues, supernaturalists will end up with even more egg on their faces.

and 2) drawing attention away from the EVIDENCE of a planet filled with self aware computers.

Poppycock. Which of those 322 scientific papers do you want me to bring here first, demonstrating that your assertion is horseshit?

To anyone using logic it is clear that our reality must have been designed.

Bullshit. This has nothing to do with logic, and everything to do with wishful thinking about merely asserted mythological entities. Once again, you don't know what it takes to convert the "design" assertion into a properly supported postulate. Care to derive the requisite requirements from first principles? That's a challenge I know you're going to fail right from the start.

The big problem is trying to figure out the personality of the designer(s).

Poppycock. Until you answer the challenge above, all you have here is hot air.

The Christian version of an omnipotent, totally benevolent designer is tough to reconcile with a lot of the stuff that has happened on Earth. Here is where logic cannot help us but can still guide us.

No it can't because it's made up mythological hooey.

I believe the existence of evil by an omnipotent, totally benevolent creator can be explained by the following Christian principles:

No it can't. Euthypro Dilemma anyone?

1)God knows how to make it all better. When it is over everyone will agree it is worth it.

Pathetic. Tell that to all the children raped by Catholic priests. Oh, and you can start work on providing something other than mere assertions that your magic man exists.

2)We are world builders and being a world builder is a sacred trust.

Yawn. Got anything other than blind assertions to offer here?

3)Hence, this is a proving ground where we prove we can be trusted

Poppycock. Once again, all you have here is blind assertions.

Free will. No stencils. Paint whatever you want but be prepared to face the shame of painting a sinfull life.

Take this preaching and shove it where the sun doesn't shine.

Now, your first challenge, is this. Do you know what it takes to convert the "design" assertion into something other than a blind assertion? I'll enjoy seeing you fail on this one, so take your time, only I like my comedy the same way I like my single malt - aged well.