Intelligent Design Argument Fails Again

The Biological Theory of Evolution is a well established scientific theory. I don't "believe" in it. I conclude it is the best explanation for all available relevant empirical evidence. If evidence is found which falsifies some or all of it, I would change my views of it. That is hardly a "religious belief that requires faith". Your false equivalence is noted.

Strawman. Only misinformed creationists say this, and do so in jest I suspect.

Non-sequitur. Of course, you're demonstrating yet another creationist misunderstanding. You conflate the Biological Theory of Evolution with the various scientific hypotheses concerning abiogenesis. "Mother Natures" tools include the laws of physics and chemistry.

Ah yes, yet another common creationist PRATT. The physics involved with tornados has nothing to do with the physics and chemistry concerning abiogenesis.

 

"There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming"- Paul Davies (astrophysicist), The Cosmic Blueprint: New Discoveries in Nature's Creative Ability To Order the Universe. New York: Simon and Schuster, p.203.

Yes, beautiful perfectly-formed creatures like this one couldn't have evolved by pure blind chance-

 

And why do you believe this since we know beyond any rational doubt the earth/universe is billions of years older than 6,000 years?

 

A well established theory is still a theory and not proof of anything. There is no scientific consensus. It requires faith and is therefore a religious belief.
Abiogenesis - the now discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation. The belief in abiogenesis or spontaneous generation, as now taking place, has completely disappeared from biological teaching.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/abiogenesis

Now a theist claims that God clapped his hands and kapow - all matter and life was created out of nothing.
A scientist claims that what really happened was there was a Big Bang and kapow - all matter and life was created out of nothing. Well, the first one can't be true because it isn't (say it with me), scientific, so the second one must be true because it was spoken by a scientist in whom we trust. Wait a minute - abiogenesis has fallen out of the top ten theories.
And speaking of Mother Nature's tools - are you implying 'intelligent design'?
Physics and Chemistry didn't exist before the BB so those tools couldn't have been in Mother Nature's tool box. Maybe Mother Nature can put your theory back together for you.

 

This is a typical atom of which there are zillions in the universe. So which of the following possibilities is the most probable?-
1- It was created by a "God"
2- It created itself
3- It always existed and therefore didn't need to be created
4- It's an illusion and doesn't exist at all

Have I missed out any other possibilities?

 

All and none of the above.

 

The usual Fallacies on abiogenesis and 'theory.'

1. Evolution being true does NOT depend on abiogenesis/how life started.
Evolution deals with how life descended into it's many forms over time.
Some may additionally extend that into pre-life transformation, but Evo does NOT depend on how life started.

2. Scientific Theories do Not get "proven," they get affirmed over time.
Evolution is a FACT as well as a theory.

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
Scientific American - June 2002
JOHN RENNIE, editor in chief
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/
.....
1. Evolution is 'only a theory'. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
Scientists do Not use the terms that way, however.
According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a Well-Substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate Facts, Laws, inferences, and Tested Hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.

In Addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the FACT of evolution."..."​

+

 

Because you don't know without rational doubt that the earth and universe is more than six thousand years old.

 

We know beyond any doubt the earth alone is over 4 billion years old. We know beyond a reasonable doubt the universe is over 13 billion.

So, since we know this, why do you believe young earth creationism?

 

More one-line NONCONVERSANT Nonsense.
We know from a Myriad of scienceS the earth is Exponentially older than 6000 years.
Young Earth Creationism/YEC is more DELUSIONAL than anything posted in the conspiracy section.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism#Attitude_towards_science

Attitude towards science

Young Earth creationism is most famous for an opposition to the theory of evolution, but believers also are on record opposing many Measurements, Facts, and Principles in the fields of Physics and Chemistry, Dating methods including radiometric dating, Geology,[96]Astronomy,[97] Cosmology,[97] and Paleontology.[98]...​

YEC is off-the-charts retarded, cultist, or psychosis.
+

 

Actually YOU do not know this, along with a great many other things very clear and proven to those living is a reality beyond your grasp.

 

I thought the consensus was more or less, the big bang created space/time, matter/energy. So, space is on there in relation to matter. Before the big bang, there was no space. So, what is space time matter expanding into? Not space. Space and matter are expanding. Into what?

It can be answered by rejecting materialism, which says matter is the fundamental of reality, and somehow matter creates consciousness. The other school of thought is that consciousness is fundamental If consciousness is fundamental, then what existed before the big bang, was consciousness, the big bang was manifested from it, and then space time matter energy is expanding into consciousness. Alpha Omega.

If consciousness manifested the universe, as a computer creates a virtual reality, then life itself was a manifestation of the universe created by consciousness. The intelligence that gives order, ordered matter to create an evolving self replicating single cell organism.

But this consciousness cannot be the image man has created of it, and formed into gods, of various characteristics. The brain cannot create an image of it that is true. Every image is false.

 

What is wrong with simply admitting "We Do Not Know" a thing. Think of all the many, many things we did not know in our history, and the very many things we have recently come to understand. Tomorrow we will "Know" things we do not today and 1000 years from now what we know today will not be what we know then. The only people who claim they know everything use a God to explain it...purely silly.

 

Please post evidence for an old earth.

- - - Updated - - -

Proving bias. What I said was in response to another poster who offered no evidence.

 

"Bias" by Geologists, Astronomers, Chemists, etc, etc, etc?
As Always, NONCONVERSANT Nonsense trolling.
You cannot even write a short paragraph in support of your beliefs.
NOTHING but One-line Trolling.
+

 

Mr. "I Ignore Evidence That Refutes My Religious Beliefs" provides comical irony.

 

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_age.html

 

seems it took intelligent design to get the correct chemical reactions

if we can do it why not a deity?

 

Yes, Intelligent Design fails whenever infidels, protestants, and renegades to a holy Bible, have a problem with what was Declared very Good and not very Bad, in Genesis 1:29-31.

Marijuana was Established and Ordained very Good, by a God; why do Original Sinners try to gainsay God.

 

because there is no evidence a deity exists.

 

depends; it might, if you believe anarcho-capitalism is a form of "intelligent design". AnCap theory implies, that given a set of "market friendly circumstances", a (capital) transaction will occur, given enough time.

genetic and other forms of molecular engineering are forms of intelligent, redesign; much like alchemy.

 

One major difference between religion and scientific theories is that the later is falsifiable, while the former is not. Science has nothing to do with faith.

Mother Nature didn't create life. It's not like we have nature on one side and life on the other. Life is nature as much as nature is life. The tornado, on the other hand, is not, never has been, and will never be a 1965 Ford Mustang. The comparison is flawed.

There's empirical evidence for the big bang.

The theory doesn't say that the matter was created then. In fact, no scientific theory claims that the matter has been created. Science deals with what is. Religions deal with creation.

I bet this is what a male frog thinks about this:

Physics and Chemistry are not Mother Nature's tools. They're our tools. We invented them, and use them to describe what we observe.

The problem with your "God clapped his hands and kapow - all matter and life was created out of nothing" hypothesis is that there isn't any empirical data to support it. Predictions made by the big bang theory, on the other hand, are so far confirmed by empirical evidence.

The fact that theories are being discarded by scientists if contradicted by observations goes against your "science requires blind faith and is therefore a religion" claim.

That's circular reasoning. Correct chemical reactions therefore intent therefore god therefore correct chemical reactions.

Is there a good reason why we should think of the chemical reactions necessary to support life as "the correct chemical reactions"?

 

Interesting article for tossing into the playpen-


---------------------------------

Jesus said- "And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered" (Matt 10:30)

 

Please provide evidence for a old earth.

- - - Updated - - -

Where did I ignore evidence?

- - - Updated - - -

The method they use assumes the rate we observe today has never changed in history.

 

apparently, the decades of evidence from MULTIPLE scientific disciplines isn't sufficient to entice you to believe a bald faced fact over a particular literal interpretation of a metal aged book.

Geology, Chemistry, Cosmology, Paleontology, Nuclear physics, Archaeology, to name just a few all have yielded evidence that mutually supports each other and confirms that the earth is 4.5 billion years old.

But I do understand some people's need for faith to supersede fact.