Intelligent Design Argument Fails Again

Scientific truth is just one kind of truths. Actually it's just a small set of a very specific kind of truths. In a nutshell, it is the discovery of a set of rules governing a repeating pattern. Through the observations and calculations of how a pattern repeats itself we develop theories to explain the pattern. The truth is confirmed when the theory can predictably explain how the pattern repeats. This is referred to as the predictability of science, which ToE failed miserably.

ID on the hand is never based on such a repeating pattern to start with. It doesn't need to do have a "scientific promise" to draw its conclusions as it's not its job to establish a predictable model as it doesn't have a repeating pattern to research against.

They are apples and oranges.

 

Boy, this creationist myth has sure changed over the years. It was about 250 ft of ice, with annual snowfall of 6-7 ft. The planes landed on a glacier. Some creationist hack speculated that because the ice was 250 ft think there must be 1,100 years of ice rings. No one pulled ice cores. Ever. Another creationist lie was born.

 

Someone brought this up some time ago. If you do the research there is a completely rational and scientific explanation. Snow piles up quickly. Compaction of that snow into an ice layer does not. Then there is also the thermodynamic effect of metal which conducts heat causing it melt ice and sink.

The ice core rings have been studied in great detail and are similarly accurate to tree rings. Further, the age of the ice core was not just dated by counting the rings. Various markers such as volcano eruptions (detected in the rings) from known dates were used to fine tune the accuracy of the ring counts. Other markers such as chemical composition of the air bubbles and radioactive dating are also used to further fine tune the accuracy of the ring counts. When you get 3 or 4 different methods all spitting out the same date over various levels. The idea that the earth is 6000 years old or that a global flood happened 4000 years ago is abject nonsense.

It is not just ice cores however. Some coral's go back hundreds of thousands of years. They can tell you how warm the oceans were during certain time periods on the basis of coral analysis.

What about the continuous civilizations ? There was continuous civilization in China, Mesopotamia, Egypt, South America, Europe, India, Australia throughout the period when the flood supposedly happened. How is this possible ? Answ: It isn't.

How did Noah and 3 son's round up 2 of every land creature. How long did it take to get 2 Polar Bears from the north and 2 spectacled bears from South Africa ? Then, how did these animals get back home ? I had one fellow suggest that the the continents were together when the ark landed (Pangaea). Is this your theory as well ?

 

Experience............paranormal experiences. Accounts of NDE and OBE experiences. Ghost stories from the beginning of written history. Billions of people can't be wrong, lying or mistaken. I've had OBEs and have seen ghosts. There really is quite a bit of evidence that there is more than just this Earthly experience.
There's not a shred of evidence in the magic soup story but you believe it.

 

just because people can reduced things to a chemical reaction how does that invalidate the existence of a deity?

 

It doesn't, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". The belief in primordial chemical reactions requires faith, since there is no proof.

 

Sorry I was fuzzy on the details. But why wouldn't there be ice rings? In fact pictures showing the extraction show plenty of rings.

- - - Updated - - -

No I don't believe we came from soup. I'm a young earth creationist. I'm just saying why believe in an afterlife, but not a creator.

 

Not when it's the temperature of the environment. Plus if they did melted to that position why aren't the noses pointed down? Plane noses are specifically designed to be heavier that the rest of the body. So if they got there by melting they they would be pointing down.

Yet we found planes buried in hundreds of ice layers. If you find something like that prerhaps its time to take a second look at our current dating methods.

They go back that far under the current rate. How do you know they didn't had growth spurts due to changes in the environment?

Unless those civilizations' calendars (or our dating methods) are flawed.

They didn't first place they brought two of each family (the polar and spectacled bear are in the same family) and God brought the animals to them. And we don't know the continents' shape before the flood. Though its reasonable to assume that there was more land mass than there is today as God made the earth to be inhabitable and having 70% of the world underwater and 3% of the current land mass is suitable for farming isn't what I call inhabitable.

 

Please identify pictures of any ice cores extracted when the planes were uncovered.

Hint: Watch out for bait and switch creationist misrepresentations.

 

Do you believe that space stretches into infinity? If everything was created in the Big Bang, then the material that became planets and such must have always existed. We accept the concept of infinity but not the concept of a world with no beginning.

 

You are your creationist chumps keep spreading this misrepresentation.

Perhaps its time that you take a first look at current dating methods.

 

So please tell us............how did life begin????????

 

No, actually matter was created after the big bang began. You might want to brush up on the theory if you wish to debunk it.

Infinity is merely an abstract intellectual construct. A planet is a finite physical structure.

There is no proof that life began by abiogenesis. There is no proof that life began by panspermia. There is no proof that life was created at the hand of god.

As for plausibility, that is an entirely different kettle of fish. You contend that a supernatural being is not only possible but is the source of life. I find that highly implausible given the evidence set currently available.

I tend to lean towards the panspermia hypothesis since we are learning more and more just how prevalent organic molecules are in the universe, in particular the recent discovery/confirmation that they exist on comets.

 

So you can make something out of absolutely nothing, so then I guess a God with no beginning is also possible. But, it's just a theory that everything was created at the BB. I never ever said a supernatural being is the source of life. My point is that no one knows, except of course for the people at PF who post as though they were there when it happened and have all the answers and anyone who doubts them is an idiot. Infinity is not abstract or maybe you know where the universe ends. Or I could agree with you that infinity is an abstract construct but people still believe that the universe is infinite, and if there is an end to the universe, what's on the other side? Plus, while a planet may be finite, it's atoms are infinite, meaning they will exist for eternity, which is probably another abstract construct.
The law of conservation of mass or principle of mass conservation implies that mass can neither be created nor destroyed, although it may be rearranged in space, or the entities associated with it may be changed in form.

 

I believe we live in a finite, young created universe.

 

By the time that there was what you would call "animals", life had already been rolling on and solved your problem for quite some time. Even in the life that exists right now, we find there are animals who can change their gender if necessary. Plus, primitive life forms were asexual and did not require a partner for reproduction. Water was easy. Food was easy since early life forms didn't eat the same things that animals eat right now. It's no surprise that as conditions on Earth changed, so did it's life.

Creationism is a fairy tale. You'll never, ever, be able to shoehorn it in to fit the facts of reality. You might as well claim the Elves from Lord of the Ring made the world and all it's life.

 

From whatever ancestor branched off to become the first "bear" as we would know them. It wasn't that one day there were no bears, and then the next day, poof, bears. There was a species that already existed prior to a "bear", one that was probably pretty similar to a "bear" but not quite the same. The evolution into a bear would not have happened overnight either. It would have been a slow process for the specific population of whichever species evolved into a "bear".

That's why asking where the first "anything" came from, other than life itself, is kind of silly and nonsensical because the answer will always be..."From the life that came before it". That's why every living thing on this planet shares at least some portion of DNA.

 

Here's a picture of the plane.



Notice two things:

1. The layers in the background.

2. The plane is level indicating that it didn't melt in that position.

Here's a picture of ice core extraction (not from the same place as far as I can tell)

 

Unless science can create life, a single cell self replicating organism from some ooze, by taking a shortcut and not relying upon chance, then what the current belief is in regards to this is just as much a myth and fabrication as intelligent design. What moves it from myth into fact is simply them creating this. Is that really too much to ask? Well, it seems so.

If Consciousness, which of course is intelligent, manifested that first single cell self replicating organism, and has also been involved in evolution of that first life form, then the materialists are wrong, and have been indulging in some mythology of their own. Of course they can disprove this idea, by not relying upon chance and create us a single cell self replicating organism. But until they do that, they got NOTHING. Well, they just have an idea.

Think about it. If life can just manifest from some primordial ooze, using chance, there is no reason why this should not be done by intention, forgoing chance and randomness. So why have they not done it? If it could happen by mere chance? Perhaps it is because a greater Consciousness achieved it, just as it manifested the expanding universe, which also evolves in its own way. And the consciousness of man is just too limited to pull it off. That is, the fragment of consciousness as received by the brain, is just that, a miniscule fragment. In order for the brain to receive the totality of Consciousness, that brain would have to be as large as the universe, or rather, larger.

But really, this entire argument about an unintelligent universe creating intelligence, is a problem with the arrogance of the human ego. Perhaps man is simply not the most intelligent intelligence out there? LOL. I know, very hard for some people to accept.

 

Infinity is most definitely an abstract concept. I suggest you do a little basic research on it.

I totally agree that nobody knows, which is why I am an agnostic. BTW the BB is not "just a theory" it is a scientific theory that to date has made accurate predictions. It would appear you are not familiar with what the BB actual says about the the moment of origin and the first few thousand years of the universes existence. It was pure energy that as Einstein's theory so accurately explained that created all the matter in the universe.

We do not know what is on the other side. eternity is another abstract concept, except we can state that at some point in the distant future the universe will suffer energy death which kinda makes "eternity" as we may conceptually measure it moot as well as abstract.

 

The Evolution vs Creationism debate will always be stalemated because theists can simply say "God himself wrote the laws of evolution".
Senator John McCain nicely sums it up with- "I believe in evolution, but when I hike the Grand Canyon at sunset, I see the hand of God there also"
Personally I think creatures are too perfect to have formed purely by evolution alone; it's as if there's been a guiding hand behind it through the millennia, tweaking and modifying it to keep it on track..

"Sorry kiddo, you're on the way out"

 

This is false of course. It can often take centuries to validate a scientific theory thought tests but the key is that it's a scientific theory. The natural origin of life is a scientific theory but there isn't a scientific theory of intelligent design/creationism.

It's a comparison of "scientific theory v religious belief" and the two are vastly different.

There is physical evidence that "nature exists" but there's no physical evidence, in fact there's no evidence at all, that a super-natural entity exists and there isn't even a theory about how such an entity could come into existence. We have scientific theories about how the universe came into existence based upon mathematical formulas but there's no theory at all, or any math to support, the origin of a supernatural entity. To my knowledge we don't even have wild speculation about how a super-natural entity that could be responsible for "creation" could come into existence.

On a final note we must also understand that historically there are literally hundreds of different religious beliefs of "creationism" and none of them are more valid than any other because they're all "beliefs" that lack any supportive logic or reason. It's rather funny that Christians in the United State often advocate for the teaching of "creationism" in our schools (that would be taught in a philosophy, not a science, classroom) but they really don't want all of the different types of "creationism" taught based upon different religious beliefs. Their reason is really quite simple. If the student was exposed to all of the different historical "religious creationist beliefs" they'd reject them all as being absurd including Christian creationism.

 

That has to be the stupidest thing John McCain has ever said because we know the exact natural process that created the Grand Canyon. It's recorded in the rocks.

 

Calling the theory "science" is wrong and doesn't validate the theory. It's a religious belief that requires faith to believe in it. You and others use the word "science" like it's some magic talisman that you hide behind. It must be true because it's (say it with me) SCIENCE. Of course there are 9 other major theories on creation and they're all (say it with me ) SCIENTIFIC. Well someone is wrong, I don't think they could all be correct, which means that science is wrong 9 times. Could be all ten are wrong. Oh I get it - science is infallible. And here's the truly religious part - scientists with their great minds, tireless intent and the latest technology and tools, can't create life no matter how hard they try, but Mother Nature did it at random without even trying to, using no tools. That's like asking a tornado to pass over a junk yard and pull only the parts necessary to build a 1965 Ford Mustang. And then some other group grabs the name "The Church Of Scientology" when it really belongs here.

 

But you believe that all matter was created at the time of the Big Bang. There's no evidence of that. There's ten major "scientific" theories on creation "and none of them are more valid than any other because they're all "beliefs" that lack any supportive logic or reason".