Design with no designer?

[tonyrey]

You are still faced with the problem of how persons have developed the power to reason and design such objects.

The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate:

1. Intelligence has a physical basis
2. The **origin **of the power of reason - which you use and take for granted.
3. The origin of purposeful activity - which is implicit in your statements
   .
   You cannot get away with the old trick of attempting to argue from an assumption-less position. The burden of proof is on you to explain how you know that the physical universe is more real and fundamental than an intangible mind. You do know, of course, that the physical universe does not have the power of reason… and is not even aware that you exist… How do you **know **the universe exists? Solely by using your eyes, ears, nose, tongue and skin? You do seem to attach far more importance to the senses than the intellect…

And when you do, by the way, you’re going to win a nobel prize.

A typically nasty remark which does precisely nothing to advance the discussion and merely reveals what type of person you are. It reflects your lack of values.

As I’ve said, all evidence points to the fact that complex things come from simple things.

It is significant that you leave persons out of your scheme of things! The implication is that persons are as equally purposeless and worthless as atomic particles. You are also assuming that complexity has emerged from simplicity as the result of fortuitous events.

If you are suggesting that a disembodied intelligence can exist all by itself, you are making a claim in direct opposition to all observed evidence, and you need to substantiate that claim with much more than an argument from ignorance, which is all that this tonyrey character has ever been capable of doing.

Your insults merely reveal your own ignorance - both moral, scientific and metaphysical…

It is well established that the power of the mind exceeds the scope of a lump of physical tissue in the skull. The most important realities are disembodied whether you like it or not. You won’t find truth, goodness, freedom, justice, purpose or love under a microscope or through a telescope. Science presupposes unobservable principles of knowledge. Observed evidence presupposes an intangible, conscious, rational person. That is the prime reality, not the inferred universe.

Ultimately the choice is between mindless matter - which you favour - or disembodied minds… You can’t have it both ways…

 

[Image_of_God]

You seem to mistakenly think that we can determine the “probability” that something was designed. We can’t. Either we have examples of it being made by a person or we don’t.

This is certainly not true. The probability is perceived subjectively. Objectively, yes, it is made by a person or not.

tonyrey: No, I’m not. I’m not the one asserting that a disembodied intellience is behind the universe. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that the universe must have been the result of intelligence.

The reason why we’re debating is because you have a counterclaim, namely, that an intelligent being did not create the universe. And you have not provided any proof that one didn’t. And there probably won’t be much because we are dealing with a question that is metaphysical at least in part. That means that it is outside the realm of science in some part.

This will trouble some who think that science answers everything.

Image of God: Ok, the leading hypothesis – hypothesis, it hasn’t yet been proven and become a theory (things that are proven through mountains of evidence, like evolution, are called theories) – is that the first self-replicating molecule arose from inorganic molecules. It began replicating, with each successive generation changing slightly. Those changes that didn’t work in the environment died off and didn’t pass on their particular changes…and on and on and on.

It is unlikely that anything that speaks of what happened in the past will become anything, but theory. How do you prove what you were not there to see?

Even if the theory is true, you still have to deal with the idea that only certain environments could be hospitable to life. The others “died off” as you say.

That’s how evolution works. If a particular change does not increase the chances of survival, it may not get passed on.

Seriously, read a book on evolution because the question of improbability can only be surmounted by evolution – not by claiming that a disembodied intelligence always existed. That latter claim, as I said above, contradicts all the observed evidence, which indicates that complex things come from simple things.

I believe that evolution is probably true in many respects, but I still hold that there’s many problems with the theory. But I want this to avoid becoming an evolution thread, so I won’t say any more.

Well, putting aside for a moment the strong possibility that life does exist elsewhere in the universe – they think, for example, there may have been bacteria on Mars – there’s really no problem here. The process of life arising from inorganic molecules may not have happened on other planets. It might be a rare process.

There are many theories on how much life is out there. Some believe that there is none (we may be the only ones), others believe that there is more and there are many subgroups underneath those two categories. All are equally plausible in so far as they are reasonable at the moment. And there is no real reason that we should dismiss one or the other. If we do, it is simply our opinion.

But let’s pretend, for the sake of argument, that it only happened on this planet and nowhere else. What would that prove? The law of averages assures us that for billions and trillions of suns (and potential planets) that at least one of them would have started to develop life.

It would not “prove” anything, according to you. But I think it would disprove a lot of theories.

And if our planet hadn’t, then we wouldn’t be here. There’s no reason we have to exist.

It is the goal of science to find the reason for everything. There is no reason why we *have *to exist. No one has argued such a thing. But there is a reason that we do exist, nonetheless.

Sure. And I’m not sitting here telling you “It’s absolutely impossible for there to be an intelligent force behind the universe!” I’m telling you that I don’t accept that claim because there’s no evidence for it and because it would violate all known existing evidence that complex things come from simple things.

Well, it seems that you are. The bolded above seems to affirm this. What proof do you have for the idea that the universe came about by chance? How do you account for it? Because it seems to me that it’s just a means of dismissing the honestly difficult metaphysical questions of “Why do things exist?” and “Why are things the way they are?” In order to answer these questions, you must necessarily step outside the bounds of science and enter the world of philosophy.

You’re the one making the claim here. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate your claim, and – as I’ve repeated – since your claim violates the evidence that we do have, you’re fighting an uphill battle.

How does the claim violate the evidence that we have? How exactly? What specific evidence does it viol

 

[Thing]

AntiT:

Sure. And I’m not sitting here telling you “It’s absolutely impossible for there to be an intelligent force behind the universe!” I’m telling you that I don’t accept that claim because there’s no evidence for it and because it would violate all known existing evidence that complex things come from simple things.

Have you looked for evidence of an intelligent force behind the universe?
Its one thing for people to ***say ***, ‘‘science’ does not show evidence of an intelligent force behind the universe’ - but you must remember that science is not *looking *for evidence of an intelligent force behind the universe.
So if you believe there is no intelligent force behind the universe and you wish to convince others of that - then you must first personally carry out that search for the intelligent force behind the universe. Catholics here will tell you that if you do indeed carry out that search yourself for evidence of the intelligent force behind the universe you will indeed find it.
But, at the end of the day it is up to you to decide if you are brave enough and have the stamina to take up that search and see it through to the end.

 

[buffalo]

You seem to mistakenly think that we can determine the “probability” that something was designed. We can’t. Either we have examples of it being made by a person or we don’t.

tonyrey: No, I’m not. I’m not the one asserting that a disembodied intellience is behind the universe. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that the universe must have been the result of intelligence.

And when you do, by the way, you’re going to win a nobel prize.

As I’ve said, all evidence points to the fact that complex things come from simple things. If you are suggesting that a disembodied intelligence can exist all by itself, you are making a claim in direct opposition to all observed evidence, and you need to substantiate that claim with much more than an argument from ignorance, which is all that this tonyrey character has ever been capable of doing.

Image of God: Ok, the leading hypothesis – hypothesis, it hasn’t yet been proven and become a theory (things that are proven through mountains of evidence, like evolution, are called theories) – is that the first self-replicating molecule arose from inorganic molecules. It began replicating, with each successive generation changing slightly. Those changes that didn’t work in the environment died off and didn’t pass on their particular changes…and on and on and on.

That’s how evolution works. If a particular change does not increase the chances of survival, it may not get passed on.

Seriously, read a book on evolution because the question of improbability can only be surmounted by evolution – not by claiming that a disembodied intelligence always existed. That latter claim, as I said above, contradicts all the observed evidence, which indicates that complex things come from simple things.

Well, putting aside for a moment the strong possibility that life does exist elsewhere in the universe – they think, for example, there may have been bacteria on Mars – there’s really no problem here. The process of life arising from inorganic molecules may not have happened on other planets. It might be a rare process.

But let’s pretend, for the sake of argument, that it only happened on this planet and nowhere else. What would that prove? The law of averages assures us that for billions and trillions of suns (and potential planets) that at least one of them would have started to develop life.

And if our planet hadn’t, then we wouldn’t be here. There’s no reason we have to exist.

Sure. And I’m not sitting here telling you “It’s absolutely impossible for there to be an intelligent force behind the universe!” I’m telling you that I don’t accept that claim because there’s no evidence for it and because it would violate all known existing evidence that complex things come from simple things.

You’re the one making the claim here. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate your claim, and – as I’ve repeated – since your claim violates the evidence that we do have, you’re fighting an uphill battle.

Then SETI should be shut down.

The language of DNA is an example that was not made from human hands. It is both specified and complex.

Design can be measured. That is exactly what the ID guys are working on. Formulizing design detection whatever the source.

Anthropic coincidences point to design. Again apply the odds.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Then SETI should be shut down.

The language of DNA is an example that was not made from human hands. It is both specified and complex.

Design can be measured. That is exactly what the ID guys are working on. Formulizing design detection whatever the source.

Anthropic coincidences point to design. Again apply the odds.

Natural Science is the search for natural causes, is it not? So what would be the sense of including design in the search?

You give the objection that Seti is the search for intelligent life, but that search is done within the context of natural causes, assuming other animals had evolved naturally on other planets.

Of course i am not an expert, but even if i am wrong about the motivational reasons for Seti as a scientific project, it is certainly not the same as looking for design in nature. Rather it is the search for sentience that might exist on other planets, again assuming that they are developed enough to use “nature” as a tool to develop technology that can communicate vast distances between stars. Seti is not however the search for a transcendent sentience that created physical reality from nothing. Intelligent design is not a natural science. At best it is an advanced form of teleology that might have some philosophical merit. But it is not science.

 

[tonyrey]

Ultimately the choice is between mindless matter - which you favour - or disembodied minds…

I should clarify that mindless matter and embodied minds are realities as far as this universe is concerned because minds do not need a physical substratum any more than truth does. The truth does not exist in a particular place or time whereas the brain does. Unlike the mind the brain is a physical mechanism which does not know what it is doing or why. It functions according to the way it has been programmed and it is not responsible for its activity. We do not even have direct knowledge of our brain! It is a mental construct inferred from our perceptions. All we know for certain is what is occurring in our mind. That is our primary reality which is the sole source of all our knowledge. We are persons who can exist without our body but not without our mind…

 

[buffalo]

Natural Science is the search for natural causes, is it not? So what would be the sense of including design in the search?

You give the objection that Seti is the search for intelligent life, but that search is done within the context of natural causes, assuming other animals had evolved naturally on other planets.

Of course i am not an expert, but even if i am wrong about the motivational reasons for Seti as a scientific project, it is certainly not the same as looking for design in nature. Rather it is the search for sentience that might exist on other planets, again assuming that they are developed enough to use “nature” as a tool to develop technology that can communicate vast distances between stars. Seti is not however the search for a transcendent sentience that created physical reality from nothing. Intelligent design is not a natural science. At best it is an advanced form of teleology that might have some philosophical merit. But it is not science.

My point to antitheist was how would we be able to differentiate if the signal was not human.

 

[AntiTheist]

What proof do you have for the idea that the universe came about by chance? How do you account for it?

I have absolutely no idea how the universe came about. What I do not have is a belief in the claim that a disembodied intelligence created the universe.

If you expect reasonable people to accept this claim, you need to present evidence that 1) there is such a thing as a disembodied intelligence and 2) that this disembodied evidence created the universe.

You can’t do that by saying, “Gee whiz! Life is sure rare…that must mean that a disembodied intelligence is looking out for us, eh? What’s that? You don’t agree that the rare nature of life must mean that a magical disembodied intelligence exists and made the universe with magic!! Why, you closed-minded scientismist! You must believe that science explains everything and that you know everything about the universe! How arrogant!”

That’s the sort of nonsense rant you get from a lot of religious people when you point out that there’s absolutely no evidence that their claim is true.

How does the claim violate the evidence that we have? How exactly? What specific evidence does it viol

The evidence I’m referring to is the evidence for evolution, which is so vast that I cannot cite it all in one place. I would recommend getting a good book on evolution – Dawkins’ recent The Greatest Show on Earth gives a nice overview that is appropriate for laymen to begin an investigation of the subject.

The evidence indicates that complex things come from simple things – we have never had the slightest shred of evidence that a complex thing can exist by itself, without coming from simpler things.

If your claim is that a complex thing – in this case, a disembodied intelligence with the power to create universes – exists all by itself, without any previous generations or simpler forms, then you are asserting the existence of something that would violate every last piece of evidence that has every been discovered since the dawn of human knowledge.

That right there makes your claim highly suspect from the start, and it disinclines me from accepting it. On top of that fact, you have no evidence at all for the claim you advance.

As I say, it might be possible that there is a disembodied intelligence, but you’d have to present evidence that would overturn all of the findings of humanity up to this point. That would, indeed, be worthy of a nobel prize (a comment of mine that tonyrey bizarrely thinks is “nasty,” but is only a statement of fact: such a monumental discovery would be the biggest news ever in the history of humanity).

As it stands, I don’t think there’s sufficient evidence for accepting your case. You’re welcome to try and convince me if you like, but you’re really fighting an uphill battle because – to repeat myself – you’re trying to contradict all known evidence.

 

[AntiTheist]

The language of DNA is an example that was not made from human hands. It is both specified and complex.

Right – it’s a natural pattern. We’ve already established that patterns exist in nature.

As you note, we know that this pattern was not created by humans. If we call things made by humans “designed” and things not made by humans “natural,” then the conclusion is that DNA is natural and not designed.

Thanks for playing.

 

[buffalo]

Right – it’s a natural pattern. We’ve already established that patterns exist in nature.

As you note, we know that this pattern was not created by humans. If we call things made by humans “designed” and things not made by humans “natural,” then the conclusion is that DNA is natural and not designed.

Thanks for playing.

Bogus alert.

The argument is that is is a code with a sender, receiver and decoder.

Codes come from a mind.

 

[grannymh]

I have absolutely no idea how the universe came about. What I do not have is a belief in the claim that a disembodied intelligence created the universe.
.

By all means, the realm of science is that of the material and physical world. But that does not automatically eliminate the immaterial or spiritual realm from inquiry as if it were non-existent. Ah, one says. The immaterial cannot be put under a natural science microscope. True. But that does not exclude the reality of spiritual existence which can be known by the human tools of reason, self reflection, logical evaluation, and analytical thought.

Take the example of the human species, a one-of-a kind design, different from all the other living organisms. What makes the design of human nature different? Did change or natural selection take on a specific purpose? Why? Could something spiritual or immaterial belong to human nature?

By definition, the spiritual is supernatural, that is, it is beyond the realm of natural science; thus, empirical science cannot explain it. But, one asks. Doesn’t modern natural science research eliminate the possibility of the spiritual in the human species? Not true. Appearances can be deceiving. One should not judge the research book by its abstract. Those who analyze actual research papers pay special attention to the sections on materials and methods. Are the assumptions valid or proven? is the key question.

In any case, just because scientists deal with the material and physical realm, that does not mean that the spiritual cannot be explored by the human microscope of reason, self reflection, logical evaluation, and analytical thought.

Blessings,
granny

The quest for knowledge is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

 

[AntiTheist]

By all means, the realm of science is that of the material and physical world. But that does not automatically eliminate the immaterial or spiritual realm from inquiry as if it were non-existent. Of course not. If someone wanted to claim that the spiritual realm existed, though, that person would have to provide evidence that it is real.

What’s that, you say? There’s no “evidence” that can be measured and quantified according to science? Then how do you know this “spiritual realm” is actually real and not imaginary?

That’s the purpose of evidence, to tell us what’s real.

Take the example of the human species, a one-of-a kind design, different from all the other living organisms. What makes the design of human nature different?

 

[Image_of_God]

**I have absolutely no idea how the universe came about. **What I do not have is a belief in the claim that a disembodied intelligence created the universe.

If the bolded were true, you would at least admit honestly that our theory of an intelligent being creating the universe might be true. But since you dismiss the idea (yet claim you don’t). But your refusal to at least truly accept its possibility as a reality shows that you do have some idea of how the universe came about.

If you expect reasonable people to accept this claim, you need to present evidence that 1) there is such a thing as a disembodied intelligence and 2) that this disembodied evidence created the universe.

If you want me to provide “direct evidence” at this current time, you will receive nothing. If you wish for indirect evidence that hints at such a being, you have plenty. You need only to ask “why?” and truly search for the answer.

You can’t do that by saying, “Gee whiz! Life is sure rare…that must mean that a disembodied intelligence is looking out for us, eh? What’s that? You don’t agree that the rare nature of life must mean that a magical disembodied intelligence exists and made the universe with magic!! Why, you closed-minded scientismist! You must believe that science explains everything and that you know everything about the universe! How arrogant!”

Your want me to believe that you don’t that you don’t reject the possibility of an intelligent being creating the universe, yet your choice of words don’t show that you take the idea too seriously. The current idea of the universe as accepted in the scientific mainstream is that the universe came as a result of the Big Bang. Depending on how you look at it, that could very well mean the universe came from absolutely nothing.

That’s the sort of nonsense rant you get from a lot of religious people when you point out that there’s absolutely no evidence that their claim is true.

You cannot say that since there is no evidence for God, that God does not exist. That is absolutely silly, particularly when it involves scientific evidence. If you make such a claim, you are making a philosophical one, not a scientific one. Science provides no direct evidence that God does or does not exist.

The evidence I’m referring to is the evidence for evolution, which is so vast that I cannot cite it all in one place. I would recommend getting a good book on evolution – Dawkins’ recent The Greatest Show on Earth gives a nice overview that is appropriate for laymen to begin an investigation of the subject.

The evidence indicates that complex things come from simple things – we have never had the slightest shred of evidence that a complex thing can exist by itself, without coming from simpler things.

If your claim is that a complex thing – in this case, a disembodied intelligence with the power to create universes – exists all by itself, without any previous generations or simpler forms, then you are asserting the existence of something that would violate every last piece of evidence that has every been discovered since the dawn of human knowledge.

To be honest, we really have no idea what happened before homo sapiens came to be. We can only take what “evidence” we have and make assumptions as to what probably happened. I mean, just because something doesn’t happen today, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen in the past. You are ascribing to nature a uniform action that is not necessarily there. Again, just because the universe or (alternative universes as far as we know of) aren’t being created today, doesn’t mean it never happened. This is not a dismissal of certain theories about the past, only a recognition that they are only theories. Short of being there, or some insight into the past, there really is no way to ascertain these facts.

That right there makes your claim highly suspect from the start, and it disinclines me from accepting it. On top of that fact, you have no evidence at all for the claim you advance.

You claim that you aren’t making a counterclaim and so the “burden of proof” is on us. Yet, you are and you have not provided certain evidence for it short of theories. What you claim to be “evidence” is really an assumption (reasonable at that) based on what we possess. It’s like looking at a house and finding many things the way your grandmother arranges it, you conclude that she must have been there. But the fact of the matter is that that’s only highly probable, not absolutely certain. It might later be discovered that someone who knew her very well was there instead.

As I say, it might be possible that there is a disembodied intelligence, but you’d have to present evidence that would overturn all of the findings of humanity up to this point. That would, indeed, be worthy of a nobel prize (a comment of mine that tonyrey bizarrely thinks is “nasty,” but is only a statement of fact: such a monumental discovery would be the biggest news ever in the history of humanity).

That’s why we should be careful when we make sarcastic or hyperbolic statements as the above. Let our yes be yes and our no be no. Then, nothing can be misconstrued.

 

[grannymh]

]
What’s that, you say? There’s no “evidence” that can be measured and quantified according to science? Then how do you know this “spiritual realm” is actually real and not imaginary?
.

Pardon me. I’m not sure what the above is about.

I did say: “By definition, the spiritual is supernatural, that is, it is beyond the realm of natural science; thus, empirical science cannot explain it.” It is important not to confuse the spiritual realm with the material and physical realm–even when the spiritual realm is not recognized by one’s free will choice.

One can experience the spiritual realm by one’s experience of rational thought, conceptional thinking, self reflection, logical and analytical evaluations. One can experience the spiritual realm through beauty and unity of the universe. One can experience the spiritual realm in moments of love.

How do I know that the spiritual realm is real? I trust my gut instincts.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is sacred.

 

[Image_of_God]

Anti Theist:

As it stands, I don’t think there’s sufficient evidence for accepting your case. You’re welcome to try and convince me if you like, but you’re really fighting an uphill battle because – to repeat myself – you’re trying to contradict all known evidence.

I am not contradicting any evidence. I am only contradicting what you perceive the evidence to conclude. What you misunderstand is that I believe the universe points to God. You believe it doesn’t. I believe there is evidence that it does. You believe that there is evidence that it doesn’t. It is a matter of finding who has the right interpretation of the evidence. You claim that the evidence supports your interpretation, but the evidence, speaking for itself (in this case) says little. Of course, that is all until you begin to ask metaphysical questions. “Why does the world exist ?” You ought to provide some rational “evidence” that shows why we should dismiss the arrangement of elements as an accident or “chance”. You ought to provide some rational evidence, of why we human beings exist as we do, completely conscious of our existence and able to abstract (that unnatural…above-natural) thing. There is no evidence in nature for mathematics. Yet you believe it is real. Why?

Saying that it happened accidentally or by chance, seems much more like an evasion than an actual answer.

 

[buffalo]

Of course not. If someone wanted to claim that the spiritual realm existed, though, that person would have to provide evidence that it is real.

What’s that, you say? There’s no “evidence” that can be measured and quantified according to science? Then how do you know this “spiritual realm” is actually real and not imaginary?

That’s the purpose of evidence, to tell us what’s real.

Every species is different from the others, possessing unique characteristics. That is what enables us to classify them as separate species.

Buffalo:
So you keep repeating, and yet here is an example of a pattern with results that does not come from a mind. The evidence of DNA proves you incorrect.

If you want to claim it comes from a mind – and presumably you are thinking of a discarnate mind with the magical powers to create a universe – then provide evidence of 1) a discarnate intelligence and 2) that this discarnate intelligence “wrote” the “code” of DNA.

You’re not going to be able to do that because, as I explained to someone else a moment ago, these claims fly in the face of all the observed evidence, which indicates that complex things (like intelligence) come from simpler things.

It’s a bogus claim. Everything descended from hydrogen, including you.

It is usual for a designer to take simple things and build more complex things with them. A designer uses the materials available to construct something useful. That does not necessarily imply common descent but using the same materials in different ways implies common design.

So one should build a house by starting with a finished product? Of course complexity is built upon simpler materials.

The DNA molecule (itself not that simple, but built on simpler materials) is the mechanism the language/code uses to accomplish its purpose.

 

[tonyrey]

As I say, it might be possible that there is a disembodied intelligence, but you’d have to present evidence that would overturn all of the findings of humanity up to this point. That would, indeed, be worthy of a nobel prize (a comment of mine that tonyrey bizarrely thinks is “nasty,” but is only a statement of fact: such a monumental discovery would be the biggest news ever in the history of humanity).

It would be worthy of a Nobel prize and a monumental discovery that would be the biggest news ever in the history of humanity if you presented evidence that intelligence is produced by particles which lack intelligence. The difference is that we don’t state the obvious in a futile attempt to belittle those who disagree with us. Such a statement reveals more about your character than you realise; otherwise you would not waste your time and energy on such pointless remarks…

 

[tonyrey]

As I say, it might be possible that there is a disembodied intelligence, but you’d have to present evidence that would overturn all of the findings of humanity up to this point.

What an absurd remark! To imply that “all of the findings of humanity up to this point” are related to the subject of a disembodied intelligence is the hallmark of a fanatical materialist who cannot even account for the fact that the most important realities of life are intangible. The truth is the exact reverse. There is not one finding of humanity which indicates that intelligence is a tangible phenomenon which originates in electrical impulses.

That would, indeed, be worthy of a nobel prize (a comment of mine that tonyrey bizarrely thinks is “nasty,” but is only a statement of fact: such a monumental discovery would be the biggest news ever in the history of humanity).

It would, indeed, be worthy of a Nobel prize and the biggest news ever in the history of humanity if you presented clear evidence that intelligence has emerged from unintelligent particles. The difference is that we do not state the obvious in a futile attempt to belittle the views of those who disagree with us. Such a statement reveals more about your character than the topic being discussed…

 

[Thing]

Of course not. If someone wanted to claim that the spiritual realm existed, though, that person would have to provide evidence that it is real.

What’s that, you say? There’s no “evidence” that can be measured and quantified according to science? Then how do you know this “spiritual realm” is actually real and not imaginary?

That’s the purpose of evidence, to tell us what’s real.

Every species is different from the others, possessing unique characteristics. That is what enables us to classify them as separate species.

Buffalo:
So you keep repeating, and yet here is an example of a pattern with results that does not come from a mind. The evidence of DNA proves you incorrect.

If you want to claim it comes from a mind – and presumably you are thinking of a discarnate mind with the magical powers to create a universe – then provide evidence of 1) a discarnate intelligence and 2) that this discarnate intelligence “wrote” the “code” of DNA.

You’re not going to be able to do that because, as I explained to someone else a moment ago, these claims fly in the face of all the observed evidence, which indicates that complex things (like intelligence) come from simpler things.

I think you said somewhere that scientific evidence contradicts an intelligent designer of the universe. I would like you to tell me of the specific scientific tests undertaken which critically examined creation and scientifically tested it for evidence for an intelligent designer of the universe - and I would like to see those negative test results which you seem to claim exist in science.

 

[grannymh]

I think you said somewhere that scientific evidence contradicts an intelligent designer of the universe. I would like you to tell me of the specific scientific tests undertaken which critically examined creation and scientifically tested it for evidence for an intelligent designer of the universe - and I would like to see those negative test results which you seem to claim exist in science.

Thank you for this reminder.

The phrase I have seen over and over again is –
This and That Research PRECLUDES the possibility of …

I believe that current " scientific talk" is misusing the principles of the Induction Method.
There used to be two scientific methods of obtaining knowledge. Remember?
There was the Deduction Method and the Induction Method.

Now there is the Assumptions Method and the Presumptions Method.