Intelligent Design Argument Fails Again

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by Shiva_TD, Sep 15, 2016.

  1. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I was reading this article that attempts to dispute the natural origin for life on Earth in arguing for "intelligent design" (creationism) where the flaw in the argument is clearly evident.

    http://cnsnews.com/commentary/eric-metaxas/evolution-just-got-harder-defend

    By way of summary this new intelligent design argument is based upon a recent scientific discovery indicating life could have existed on Earth 3.7 billion years ago when the Earth was dramatically different than what most people can even imagine today. It goes on the note that scientists haven't been able to create life in the laboratory yet while omitting the fact that the early environmental conditions that existed can't be reproduced in the laboratory. It can be noted that some of the chemical reactions that are necessary for the origin of life have been replicated in the laboratory but that was omitted. The opinion misrepresents "Darwinism" that only addressed the evolution of life once it existed not the origin of life,

    These omissions, that are intentional to deceive the uninformed, are not uncommon in the arguments for creationism/intelligent design. While the omissions are nefarious to deceive the uninformed they don't represent the fundamental deception and failure of the "intelligent design/creationist" argument that comes later in the article.



    The deception is that it wasn't that life involved in spite of the harsh conditions but instead it was the harsh conditions that were responsible for the first life form. Of course scientists find it virtually impossible to create the astronomical number of chemical reactions that were occurring during this very harsh period of Earth's evolution but they have been able to reproduce some of those chemical reactions. The lack of the harsh conditions prevents new life from popping up everywhere.

    The failure of Dr. Stephen Meyer's argument is that we know chemical reactions occur that can lead to the creation of life but they're no evidence of a supernatural entity that could be responsible for life. All scientific theories are based upon a foundation of what is known to exist.

    For example science already knew in Darwin's time that life evolved because it was well documented in the stratification of the fossil record. Darwin didn't propose evolution, that was already a fact of science, but instead proposed the theory of "natural selection" to explain the mechanism responsible for the evolution that science already knew existed.

    What is known is the foundation for scientific theory.

    Chemical reactions are proven to "exist" so a theory on the origin of life based upon chemical reactions is valid.

    No evidence of a supernatural entity "exists" so a theory on the origin of life based upon supernatural interventionism is invalid. First the existence of a supernatural entity must be proven to provide a foundation for a theory based upon supernatural interventionism.

    Natural Selection/Creationism remain in the world of myth and superstition because it relies upon a belief established by myth and superstition that lacks any "known" facts to support the beliefs.
     
  2. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    53,262
    Likes Received:
    18,022
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't know why creationists are so desperate to come up with science to prove their beliefs. They use the unknown mechanism of how the primordial soup became life as a lynch pin that disproves evolution. The lack of knowledge does allow wiggle room, but it doesn't render everything known as bunk.

    I may not know exactly what temperature the iron was melted to cast the block of the engine of my truck, but I know how it works.
     
  3. Defiant

    Defiant New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2016
    Messages:
    22
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    To go even further, even if evolution in all it's facets was disproven, that still would not automatically lead to the conclusion that there must be intelligent design. Even if there was proof of a supernatural entity capable of creating life and all we know, that still would note prove it actually did that. Even if we would find proof that a supernatural entity created all we know, that still would not prove any of the known creationist myths (i.e. Genesis).

    Long story short: based on this short chain of hypothesis, the chance that the Bible or Qu'ran are correct, is close to zero.
     
  4. jrr777

    jrr777 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2015
    Messages:
    6,983
    Likes Received:
    279
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Life had to be created at the same time. How does the first animal eat or reproduce? A male and female is required, along with food and water, this cannot happen through evolution rather creation.
     
  5. TrackerSam

    TrackerSam Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2015
    Messages:
    12,114
    Likes Received:
    5,379
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The idea of a magic soup is as fanciful as any religious story. You can't explain how life started so you throw it in a pot and call it soup. You say there is no magic entity known as God, but there is a magic soup. And even that theory is not the favorite of about a dozen such theory's. At least the theists are consistent. Why not just admit that no one knows how life started? And if you do know - tell us now - do you believe in magic?
     
  6. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2008
    Messages:
    8,968
    Likes Received:
    56
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Yeah lets just listen to science where anti matter is simply matter traveling back in time, and there is some phantom matter that no one can see but only know its there based on unknown affect on other visible objects....yeah much more interesting and better fairy tales......
     
  7. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Chemical reactions occur and the early hostile environment of the Earth was extremely prone to massive chemical reactions. Some of the chemical reactions necessary for the evolution of the first life form have already been replicated in the lab but not all. A lab is limited to the number of chemical reactions it can create while the number possible during the very hostile environment was next to unlimited. The very fact that we know that life is based upon chemicals that do react in nature provides a reasonable foundation for the fact that chemical reactions created that life. The foundation exists (chemical reactions) as well as the environment necessary for those chemical reactions (process) for life to come into existence both exist in the scientific theory. It only took one living and reproducing lifeform to come into existence based upon the chemical reactions and all else that followed is based upon evolution that is well documented by science.

    There's no evidence of any supernatural entities that would be required and no processes defined for how a supernatural entity would be able to create life. Simply claiming the tooth fairy waved her wand and magically life poofed out of nothingness is not an explanation for anything and it fails before even being considered because of a lack of any evidence of the existence of the tooth fairy.

    In the entire universe there's been no evidence that a supernatural entity exists. Everything we see has an origin in natural processes.
     
  8. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,180
    Likes Received:
    62,817
    Trophy Points:
    113
    life wasn't that complex in the beginning, it had to evolve

    if something like humans could not exist without a creator, then something as complex as a God would definitely need a creator

    .
     
  9. sdelsolray

    sdelsolray Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2016
    Messages:
    1,322
    Likes Received:
    300
    Trophy Points:
    83
    This one has not heard of asexual reproduction, nor does he understand it.
     
  10. TrackerSam

    TrackerSam Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2015
    Messages:
    12,114
    Likes Received:
    5,379
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is the - "When the moon is in the Seventh House
    And Jupiter aligns with Mars
    Then peace will guide the planets
    And love will steer the stars" - explanation.
    There is no limit to the number of chemical reactions a lab can replicate. You made that up to fit your narrative. And you're saying that given one rain drop more or less could've ruined the soup and there'd be no life. One wind blown twig or leaf could have fallen into the magic minestrone and life couldn't have gotten started. But you're saying we won the mother of all lotteries. Life is not an accidental alignment of the planets and pure happenstance.
     
  11. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    53,262
    Likes Received:
    18,022
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Oh, no, i don't know sorry. I was just posting a hypothesis that didn't involve a deity.

    Like as in David Copperfield? You know that isn't sorcery. It's just slight of hand and playing upon the unknown. Or unseen. I don't call a man that can trick me a god.

    Btw, I never said I wasn't a theist. Don't assume.
     
  12. TrackerSam

    TrackerSam Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2015
    Messages:
    12,114
    Likes Received:
    5,379
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I didn't assume anything. I'm not talking tricks and neither are you. You believe in magic minestrone or was it chicken noodle? It doesn't involve a deity, it involves who knows what elements to come into contact with each other in precise unknown amounts, for an unknown period of time, and I don't know, is there a puff of smoke before the frog's grand daddy appears? In other words it requires faith to believe in because it can't be proven. There's no difference. You just go to a different church.
     
  13. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    53,262
    Likes Received:
    18,022
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It reqires faith to believe there is a scientific explanation for something we don't know? Explain please.

    What methodist? What are you catholic?
     
  14. TrackerSam

    TrackerSam Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2015
    Messages:
    12,114
    Likes Received:
    5,379
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What's to explain? There's nothing scientific about the magic soup theory. No measurements have been taken, no core samples tested. Nothing, and yet some people believe it. That takes faith. It takes faith to believe that scientists will someday be able to prove that Jack bought magic beans and made a delicious soup with them. Of course it's also possible and scientific to say that someday scientists will prove that God is real. Your belief in THE SOUP requires as much faith as a belief in Noah's ark because they both rely on magic, but you like to hide behind the word "science", like it somehow negates the magic aspect of your fantasy.
     
  15. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    53,262
    Likes Received:
    18,022
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    We are still talking about a hypothesis. I never said i believed it, to wit i would ask believe what? A hypothesis? That's called bias.

    Further why do you think phenomena you don't understand are magic? I don't understand exactly why gravity exists outside of it being a property of mass but I wouldn't call it magic.
     
  16. jrr777

    jrr777 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2015
    Messages:
    6,983
    Likes Received:
    279
    Trophy Points:
    83
    There is nothing to understand, to reproduce.........a male and female is absolutely required. No observation or demonstration can prove otherwise.
     
  17. jrr777

    jrr777 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2015
    Messages:
    6,983
    Likes Received:
    279
    Trophy Points:
    83
    God is eternal, He is the creator and has always existed, which is the only way He could be eternal. There is nothing to evolve into, a male and female is the only way to reproduce, to stay alive food and water is absolutely required. Thus life was created at the same time.
     
  18. jrr777

    jrr777 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2015
    Messages:
    6,983
    Likes Received:
    279
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Are you seriously implying because that something that is done by man in a lab, was the result of life, without the man or lab to begin with? What is the process thereof, and how is it achieved naturally without man doing it? A male and female is the only way to reproduce. Are you suggesting otherwise?
     
  19. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,180
    Likes Received:
    62,817
    Trophy Points:
    113
    lol, sorry, if your saying something as complex as a God doesn't need a creator then nothing does

    maybe the truth is energy always existed and evolved into what we see today


    .
     
  20. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,370
    Likes Received:
    9,297
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Okay....so an intelligent designer(God) created life and them billions of years later decided to create new life out of mud and the ribs of some of the life he already created and then decided to ditch the first mudwoman because she liked to be on top. Yup....makes perfect sense is that God is a freakin' moron.

    Not a very intelligent designer.
     
  21. fifthofnovember

    fifthofnovember Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2008
    Messages:
    8,826
    Likes Received:
    1,046
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I know you're just trolling, but jeez...get some better material.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexual_reproduction
     
  22. sdelsolray

    sdelsolray Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2016
    Messages:
    1,322
    Likes Received:
    300
    Trophy Points:
    83
    So you didn't even take the time to research the word "asexual", nor its place within the science of biology. Why am I not surprised? Your ignorance of basic science, demonstrated here and in other threads, is simply stunning.

    Cells in your body reproduce asexually.

    All single cell organisms reproduce asexually. There are no male and female single cell organisms. They are without sex, i.e., asexual. They reproduce asexually.

    Study hard.
     
  23. Pisa

    Pisa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2016
    Messages:
    4,157
    Likes Received:
    1,889
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    There's a very simple explanation why one blown twig or leaf couldn't have prevented life starting: the law of large numbers.

    The primordial soup theory states that the first building blocks of life - monomers - have been born as a result of chemical reactions in gases like methane and ammonia caused by the energy of lightning, heat, or UV rays. There must have been a huge number of such molecules, since methane and ammonia were more wide-spread then. While some monomers might have been destroyed by the atomic equivalent of a wind blown twig, many survived to make polymers, which are more stable than monomers because one molecule of polymer is basically a chain of hundreds of thousands - or even millions - of monomers. DNA is nothing else but one of the naturally occurring polymers. This is how life began.

    Of course it can be proven.

    Need I add that proteins (one of the naturally occurring polymers), that play critical roles in our bodies, are organic amino acids?

    [​IMG]
     
  24. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,423
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And you figure that proves what, precisely?
     
  25. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,174
    Likes Received:
    4,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You do know that the simplest lifeforms reproduce asexually and don't have a male/female dicthomy yes? Food for those creatures is sunlight.
     

Share This Page