Conclusive evidence for Design!

[Jesusaves777]

“I know you are, but what am I?”

I think you’ll find that there’s a much vaster matrix of mutually supportive evidence for the big bang and for evolution by natural selection than there is for the proposition that God ‘intelligently’ designed the universe and everything in it. The ID camp are missing a key component, for a start, in the form of the verifiable presence of an actual designing entity. Even if such a being were convincingly identified, if you’re looking at animals in particular, there are numerous examples of what could be called supremely unintelligent design, so the ‘designer’ might more properly be called a ‘tinkerer’.

That is true that there are imperfections in creation, as result of Adam’s fall from God. And of course, I’m sure that you don’t believe in Adam and Eve…prove me wrong! You can’t. Science goes on observation, which is a start, but let me ask you, have you seen these observations? Yes, we are all different species as a part of micro evolution, there are different types of cats…but they have a common ancestor…a cat. Now, as for life not coming from God…can I have the evidence? I don’t put a whole lot of thought into Richard Dawkins based on the fact that he is simply a Zoologist…and that’s it. Plus, a lot of staunch atheists will call Dawkins an “embarrassment to atheism”. I’m not like a lot of Christians, you can’t just throw a bunch of “big words” together to make it sound like you think you know what you’re talking about. Dawkins was at his “reason” rally and commanded everyone in a Hitler- esqe style and told everyone to “Ridicule the religious with contempt”. Essentially he said let’s bully Christians to believe what we do. Where’s the logic with that? In the book Darwin’s black box he had even stated that he didn’t know where we originally came from, and if you don’t find the missing links in a certain period of time, throw my theory out. Plus, he was lazy, he got kicked out of 2 universities because of a lack of study. Then he stole his grandfathers idea of evolution Erasmus Darwin from his book “Zoolania”. Sounds like Darwin has some doubt, Dawkins has resorted to act like a 5th grader and force people into believing in something that is non-proven, Lucy’s bones were found a mile and a half away from each other and in different parts of the strata, Piltdown man was a hoax that other atheists say scientists found out it was a hoax, but it took them 40 years, even though scientists knew it was fake it was through social pressures that it was found out. And a plethora of scientists that say evolution or spontaneous generation has never been proven…then why is it a so called “fact”, there were even scientists who went to the museum in England and no one knew anything about evolution, I could go on. So, to summarize; the teaching of evolution is an agenda and not science period. If you have clear cut, air tight evidence of your biased filled hypothesis I would like to see it, otherwise this case is closed.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Sair

Then what are they? The ball is in your court, as an ID supporter, to back up your insistence that there is no way natural mechanisms could lead to the diversity of life as we observe it. Scientists only cite natural mechanisms because there is no evidence of anything else.

Because there is no evidence, or because they don’t want to admit the plausibility of design and the virtual impossibility of happenstance?

 

[aragonjohn1]

As to that, it seems that detailed knowledge of Christianity can be detrimental to common sense, if highly conducive to doublethink and cognitive dissonance. I am reminded of Richard Dawkins’ response to his critics after the publication of The God Delusion - in particular those who pointed out that he was unaware of the ‘finer points’ of theological discourse…

But what does common sense do to the common man?

Merry Christmas
God bless You

 

[Jesusaves777]

But what does common sense do to the common man?

Merry Christmas
God bless You

Agreed!!!

 

[tonyrey]

Sair

Then what are they? The ball is in your court, as an ID supporter, to back up your insistence that there is no way natural mechanisms could lead to the diversity of life as we observe it. Scientists only cite natural mechanisms because there is no evidence of anything else.

Because there is no evidence, or because they don’t want to admit the plausibility of design and the virtual impossibility of happenstance?

Atheists are very fond of accusing theists of wishful thinking but it is a two-edged sword, illustrated by those who have admitted their religion was an obstacle to the satisfaction of their desires!

 

[Sair]

Sair

Then what are they? The ball is in your court, as an ID supporter, to back up your insistence that there is no way natural mechanisms could lead to the diversity of life as we observe it. Scientists only cite natural mechanisms because there is no evidence of anything else.

Because there is no evidence, or because they don’t want to admit the plausibility of design and the virtual impossibility of happenstance?

Why the ‘virtual’ impossibility of happenstance? Surely you have at least heard of Dawkins’ thesis in Climbing Mount Improbable - large leaps, vanishingly improbable occurrences, are scaled by smaller, much more probable steps in the evolution of organisms.

Again, if there was evidence of the supernatural - and in principle, there should be, if the supernatural interacts in any way with the natural, as it is claimed to do - then scientists will be the first to detect it, not theologians who seek to rationalise the stories to which they have already committed their faith.

 

[tonyrey]

Why the ‘virtual’ impossibility of happenstance? Surely you have at least heard of Dawkins’ thesis in Climbing Mount Improbable - large leaps, vanishingly improbable occurrences, are scaled by smaller, much more probable steps in the evolution of organisms.

It is significant that the disciples of Dawkins never base their own decisions on happenstance - which is fancifully supposed to have magically created - “by smaller, much more probable steps” of course - the power of insight and understanding into the nature of reality. What do think those powers entail? Molecular arrangements?

Again, if there was evidence of the supernatural - and in principle, there should be, if the supernatural interacts in any way with the natural, as it is claimed to do - then scientists will be the first to detect it, not theologians who seek to rationalise the stories to which they have already committed their faith.

“scientists will be the first to detect it” is an indisputable of an act of blind faith in the power of science to explain everything! Is it not possible that you are rationalising your unquestioning confidence - especially in view of your rejection of free will? You certainly have definite motives for your persistent onslaught on religion… which seem to be quite irrational…

 

[Sair]

It is significant that the disciples of Dawkins never base their own decisions on happenstance - which is fancifully supposed to have magically created - “by smaller, much more probable steps” of course - the power of insight and understanding into the nature of reality. What do think those powers entail? Molecular arrangements?

Oh, happenstance undoubtedly plays a part - but considering how ID proponents are so adamant that the only two options are happenstance or design, then it’s useful to point out that there is a third alternative. And if it’s prior causation that you’re worried about, I’m more than happy to admit that reading The God Delusion was part of a chain of causes that led to my rejection of Christianity. If this was a matter of the rearrangement of the neural connections in my brain that determine the way I see the world, how is this any less a product of my thought processes than if I had merely woken up one day and randomly decided to jettison my childhood faith?

“scientists will be the first to detect it” is an indisputable of an act of blind faith in the power of science to explain everything! Is it not possible that you are rationalising your unquestioning confidence - especially in view of your rejection of free will? You certainly have definite motives for your persistent onslaught on religion… which seem to be quite irrational…

Scientists are the ones who are at the coalface of trying to explain how the world works. Philosophy is impotent if it ignores science; and theology is largely impotent anyway, even when it pays lip service to the existence of scientific discovery - its spiel is easy to summarise: “Well, science has made these discoveries, but it won’t ever impinge on our beliefs because if it does, we’ll just deny its validity, or seek refuge in the fact that science doesn’t know everything, so there’s still room to slot in the workings of God.”

My motives for criticising supernaturalist religion are only the ones I will happily and openly acknowledge - namely its persistent failure to tell us anything useful or valuable about our existence that cannot, and has not, been told by the manifold stories we have made up about ourselves throughout our history - a pantheon to which the indigenous peoples of Australia and the Americas, the Ancient Greek and Roman dramatists, Chaucer, Shakespeare, Austen, Hugo, Dickens etc all belong as well; and its propensity to dance around the difficult questions - like the problem of evil - attempting to justify that which cannot be justified, at least not without denying the very faculty of reason that you so loudly cry up as the greatest attribute of humanity.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Sair

Again, if there was evidence of the supernatural - and in principle, there should be, if the supernatural interacts in any way with the natural, as it is claimed to do - then scientists will be the first to detect it, not theologians who seek to rationalise the stories to which they have already committed their faith.

Genesis, 1000 B.C. : “Let there be light.”

Carl Sagan in Cosmos, 1980 A.D.

“Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened – the Big Bang, the event that began our universe…. In that titanic cosmic explosion, the universe began an expansion which has never ceased…. As space stretched, the matter and energy in the universe expanded with it and rapidly cooled. The radiation of the cosmic fireball, which, then as now, filled the universe, moved through the spectrum – from gamma rays to X-rays to ultraviolet light; through the rainbow colors of the visible spectrum; into the infrared and radio regions. The remnants of that fireball, the cosmic background radiation, emanating from all parts of the sky can be detected by radio telescopes today. In the early universe, space was brilliantly illuminated.”

How’s that for science detecting the supernatural?

 

[tonyrey]

Sair

Again, if there was evidence of the supernatural - and in principle, there should be, if the supernatural interacts in any way with the natural, as it is claimed to do - then scientists will be the first to detect it, not theologians who seek to rationalise the stories to which they have already committed their faith.

Genesis, 1000 B.C. : “Let there be light.”

Carl Sagan in Cosmos, 1980 A.D.

“Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened – the Big Bang, the event that began our universe…. In that titanic cosmic explosion, the universe began an expansion which has never ceased…. As space stretched, the matter and energy in the universe expanded with it and rapidly cooled. The radiation of the cosmic fireball, which, then as now, filled the universe, moved through the spectrum – from gamma rays to X-rays to ultraviolet light; through the rainbow colors of the visible spectrum; into the infrared and radio regions. The remnants of that fireball, the cosmic background radiation, emanating from all parts of the sky can be detected by radio telescopes today. In the early universe, space was brilliantly illuminated.”

How’s that for science detecting the supernatural?

No doubt an **unknown **physical cause will be invoked by some one who believes the power of reason to reach valid conclusions is also due to physical causes! Obviously physiotherapy plays a vital part in deciding what is true or false.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

tonyrey

No doubt an unknown physical cause will be invoked by some one who believes the power of reason to reach valid conclusions is also due to physical causes! Obviously physiotherapy plays a vital part in deciding what is true or false.

Right. When Euclid discovered all those theorems he was only responding to a physical impulse to discover something else merely physical. Euclid and the theorems he discovered were just more physical accidents of nature.

 

[tonyrey]

]Oh, happenstance undoubtedly plays a part - but considering how ID proponents are so adamant that the only two options are happenstance or design, then it’s useful to point out that there is a third alternative.

What is it?

And if it’s prior causation that you’re worried about, I’m more than happy to admit that reading The God Delusion was part of a chain of causes that led to my rejection of Christianity. If this was a matter of the rearrangement of the neural connections in my brain that determine the way I see the world, how is this any less a product of my thought processes than if I had merely woken up one day and randomly decided to jettison my childhood faith?

“my” is only an honorary term because the brain would be the sole mechanism involved. Any other entity is superfluous if neural connections are sufficient.

Scientists are the ones who are at the coalface of trying to explain how the world works. Philosophy is impotent if it ignores science; and theology is largely impotent anyway, even when it pays lip service to the existence of scientific discovery - its spiel is easy to summarise: “Well, science has made these discoveries, but it won’t ever impinge on our beliefs because if it does, we’ll just deny its validity, or seek refuge in the fact that science doesn’t know everything, so there’s still room to slot in the workings of God.”

I wonder what the workings of science are slotted into - if not the machinations of the blind Goddess… Her power is obviously beyond all dispute and never to be questioned - the sole source of light in the eternal darkness…

My motives for criticising supernaturalist religion are only the ones I will happily and openly acknowledge - namely its persistent failure to tell us anything useful or valuable about our existence that cannot, and has not, been told by the manifold stories we have made up about ourselves throughout our history - a pantheon to which the indigenous peoples of Australia and the Americas, the Ancient Greek and Roman dramatists, Chaucer, Shakespeare, Austen, Hugo, Dickens etc all belong as well; and its propensity to dance around the difficult questions - like the problem of evil - attempting to justify that which cannot be justified, at least not without denying the very faculty of reason that you so loudly cry up as the greatest attribute of humanity.

As far as science is concerned evil doesn’t even exist. There is really no problem at all because nothing makes sense in a senseless world - including the conclusions of its purposeless inhabitants who imagine they are rational but are merely the hapless and helpless victims of happenstance…

Sooner or later the blind Goddess always returns to the scene of the crime - of having created life!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

tonyrey

**As far as science is concerned evil doesn’t even exist. There is really no problem at all because nothing makes sense in a senseless world - including the conclusions of its purposeless inhabitants who imagine they are rational but are merely the hapless and helpless victims of happenstance… **

This was the philosophy of atheist philosopher Jean Paul Sartre, whose writings honestly reflect a gloom and doom approach to life. Yet, months before he died, he was inquiring about the teachings of the Old Testament, and one of his friends who conducted interviews with him during this period was convinced he had ceased to be an atheist.

This realization comes to many atheists when they contemplate that even their own death is without purpose if there is no design behind anything. A joyless existence is what the atheist is really seeking, even when he thinks that the hedonism justified by atheism is immensely satisfying.

 

[tonyrey]

**As far as science is concerned evil doesn’t even exist. There is really no problem at all because nothing makes sense in a senseless world - including the conclusions of its purposeless inhabitants who imagine they are rational but are merely the hapless and helpless victims of happenstance… **

This was the philosophy of atheist philosopher Jean Paul Sartre, whose writings honestly reflect a gloom and doom approach to life. Yet, months before he died, he was inquiring about the teachings of the Old Testament, and one of his friends who conducted interviews with him during this period was convinced he had ceased to be an atheist.

This realization comes to many atheists when they contemplate that even their own death is without purpose if there is no design behind anything. A joyless existence is what the atheist is really seeking, even when he thinks that the hedonism justified by atheism is immensely satisfying.

It baffles me how any reasonable person can be joyful at the prospect of the total extinction of humanity after relatively few years on this planet…

 

[Bradski]

It baffles me how any reasonable person can be joyful at the prospect of the total extinction of humanity after relatively few years on this planet…

C’mon, Tony. You got your 1,000 posts. How about claiming victory and letting it go?

 

[Jesusaves777]

C’mon, Tony. You got your 1,000 posts. How about claiming victory and letting it go?

Atheists will never get the fact that Christians are getting wise to the game that they are playing, and that is eventually playing them. The same “scientific” bondage that plays them like a puppet. I give you another quote;
There were no human witnesses to the origin of the Universe, the origin of life or the origin of a single living thing. These were unique, unrepeatable events of the past that cannot be observed in nature or repeated in the laboratory. Thus neither creation nor evolution qualifies as a scientific theory and each is equally religious. As the scientific philosopher Sir Karl Popper has stated, evolution is not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research program. Asimov and Gish, p. 82

 

[Sair]

Sair

Again, if there was evidence of the supernatural - and in principle, there should be, if the supernatural interacts in any way with the natural, as it is claimed to do - then scientists will be the first to detect it, not theologians who seek to rationalise the stories to which they have already committed their faith.

Genesis, 1000 B.C. : “Let there be light.”

Carl Sagan in Cosmos, 1980 A.D.

“Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened – the Big Bang, the event that began our universe…. In that titanic cosmic explosion, the universe began an expansion which has never ceased…. As space stretched, the matter and energy in the universe expanded with it and rapidly cooled. The radiation of the cosmic fireball, which, then as now, filled the universe, moved through the spectrum – from gamma rays to X-rays to ultraviolet light; through the rainbow colors of the visible spectrum; into the infrared and radio regions. The remnants of that fireball, the cosmic background radiation, emanating from all parts of the sky can be detected by radio telescopes today. In the early universe, space was brilliantly illuminated.”

How’s that for science detecting the supernatural?

Try again - there’s nothing here that suggests anything other than natural causes. Sagan remained an atheist (perhaps even a naturalistic pantheist, as I am) despite being aware of such things. Where in this do you see evidence of any conscious, intelligent being taking a hand?

 

[Sair]

Atheists will never get the fact that Christians are getting wise to the game that they are playing, and that is eventually playing them. The same “scientific” bondage that plays them like a puppet. I give you another quote;
There were no human witnesses to the origin of the Universe, the origin of life or the origin of a single living thing. These were unique, unrepeatable events of the past that cannot be observed in nature or repeated in the laboratory. Thus neither creation nor evolution qualifies as a scientific theory and each is equally religious. As the scientific philosopher Sir Karl Popper has stated, evolution is not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research program. [Asimov and Gish, p. 82

There are often no witnesses to murders either, yet the evidence that remains after the fact either is or is not sufficient to convince a jury and obtain a lawful conviction for the perpetrator. The evidences of evolution and the origins of the universe are of this kind - perhaps we will never know exactly what happened, but there is sufficient evidence to make some possibilities far more plausible than others. The operation of a vast supernatural intelligence is a proposition for which there remains no evidence other than pure speculation and wishful thinking.

(In any case, I might point out parenthetically, you are incorrect in stating that the mechanisms that drive evolution, for example, are not repeatable or observable - they have indeed been observed, both in the field and the laboratory; as for the conditions obtaining at the origin of the universe, well, that’s pretty much what the Large Hadron Collider was built to replicate…)
[/quote]

 

[tonyrey]

Atheists will never get the fact that Christians are getting wise to the game that they are playing, and that is eventually playing them. The same “scientific” bondage that plays them like a puppet. I give you another quote;
There were no human witnesses to the origin of the Universe, the origin of life or the origin of a single living thing. These were unique, unrepeatable events of the past that cannot be observed in nature or repeated in the laboratory. Thus neither creation nor evolution qualifies as a scientific theory and each is equally religious. As the scientific philosopher Sir Karl Popper has stated, evolution is not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research program. [Asimov and Gish, p. 82

Sensational post!

 

[tonyrey]

There are often no witnesses to murders either, yet the evidence that remains after the fact either is or is not sufficient to convince a jury and obtain a lawful conviction for the perpetrator. The evidences of evolution and the origins of the universe are of this kind - perhaps we will never know exactly what happened, but there is sufficient evidence to make some possibilities far more plausible than others. The operation of a vast supernatural intelligence is a proposition for which there remains no evidence other than pure speculation and wishful thinking.

There is certainly not one iota of evidence that absolutely everything - and particularly everyone - is the operation of a vast natural lack of intelligence…

(In any case, I might point out parenthetically, you are incorrect in stating that the mechanisms that drive evolution, for example, are not repeatable or observable - they have indeed been observed, both in the field and the laboratory; as for the conditions obtaining at the origin of the universe, well, that’s pretty much what the Large Hadron Collider was built to replicate…)

What precisely is the mechanism that was initially responsible for the Big Bang? Your thinking certainly appears to be quite mechanical - i.e. totally devoid of insight (as one might expect from some **body **which rejects the primacy of reason in favour of unreasoning processes)…