Intelligent Design

  • Thread starter Thread starter LoganBice
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
DrTaffy said:
Where is the “independent confirming evidence” that immaterial omnipotent entities are even possible, let alone that one produced abiogenesis? At least the processes used to postulate naturalistic abiogenesis can be shown to exist.

How often have you seen an omnipotent immaterial being create living matter ex nihilo?:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
How often have you seen mindless things producing intelligent beings? :whacky:
 
rossum said:
Your sources are grossly misrepresenting chemistry. Chemistry is not random. No scientists attributes abiogenesis to “random events”. That is a strawman put out by misleading creationist sources.

I have never denied the existence of intelligent design. Humans do a great deal of intelligent designing. What I do argue is that we have never seen any example of intelligent design without any independent confirming evidence of the designer/s.

For example, we have Stonehenge, and we also have the remains of where the designers/builders of Stonehenge lived. We have the design and we also have the designers. Where is the designer for ID? That part of the evidence for ID is lacking. The current lack of such evidence is a point against the ID hypothesis.

Not yet. We have seen lifeless matter and chemistry producing molecules found in living organisms. We have never seen any non-human designer producing any such molecules: amino acids, purines, pyrimidines, lipid bilayers and more. ID has absolutely nothing to show.

rossum
Click to expand...
How do you explain the existence of intelligent designers? :confused:
 
Charlemagne_III said:
This is patently false. The Miller-Urey experiment did not show random abiogenesis. Nor has any experiment since M-U showed random abiogenesis. And if any future experiment proved random abiogenesis, the experiment would have been intelligently designed to do so. Hence there is no way of getting around ID.
Click to expand...
Apparently the intelligent designers are the result of random abiogenesis!:whackadoo:
 
rossum said:
Your sources are grossly misrepresenting chemistry. Chemistry is not random. No scientists attributes abiogenesis to “random events”. That is a strawman put out by misleading creationist sources.

I have never denied the existence of intelligent design. Humans do a great deal of intelligent designing. What I do argue is that we have never seen any example of intelligent design without any independent confirming evidence of the designer/s.

For example, we have Stonehenge, and we also have the remains of where the designers/builders of Stonehenge lived. We have the design and we also have the designers. Where is the designer for ID? That part of the evidence for ID is lacking. The current lack of such evidence is a point against the ID hypothesis.

Not yet. We have seen lifeless matter and chemistry producing molecules found in living organisms. We have never seen any non-human designer producing any such molecules: amino acids, purines, pyrimidines, lipid bilayers and more. ID has absolutely nothing to show.
Click to expand...
Is your mind the product of lifeless matter? Such a hypothesis is hardly consistent with Buddhism…
 
rossum said:
If the universe was designed so that chemistry would produce the first life, and that life would then evolve into many species, then both abiogenesis and evolution remain exactly as described in the textbooks.
Click to expand...
Indeed. If God is the Intelligent Designer (and for the sake of this point I will agree that He is), then we have been able to discover how He did it.

As Rossum says, it changes nothing. In fact, you can start any lecture on evolution with a statement that you are free to believe that God caused all this to happen or free to believe it happened naturally. Now, if you would please turn to page 1…
 
Bradski said:
Indeed. If God is the Intelligent Designer (and for the sake of this point I will agree that He is), then we have been able to discover how He did it.

As Rossum says, it changes nothing. In fact, you can start any lecture on evolution with a statement that you are free to believe that God caused all this to happen or free to believe it happened naturally. Now, if you would please turn to page 1…
Click to expand...
You have omitted to consider “Why?” - which is hardly an insignificant question unless you are attached to an aimless form of life… 🙂
 
VyMajoris said:
It was Charlins Dawrn that invented Intelligent Design.

But evolution and Intelligent Design still just a theory where “scientists” still working on gathering evidence. And if what they say is true, both theories can’t be concretely grasped because the only way to apprehend these theories is by doing an abstraction.

Both theories have argued and both have objections against each other and for all intent and purposes, neither of these two has come victories yet. And they never will because these theories intent to prove not only the evolution of life, but of the universe itself. This makes no sense since history still developing, and it will be only at the end of the history that this preposition will be logically sound. And how is history told? By witnesses. Evidence only tells us actions, but not a history with start, middle and ending with a meaning and sense.

For now, my fellow Catholics, You can’t go wrong with Ex Nihilo.
Click to expand...
The difference between the two explanations is that one disposes of intelligence and the other transposes it! The former contradicts itself and the latter consolidates itself. An unintelligent origin is hardly conducive to confidence in our conclusions. 😉
 
tonyrey said:
You have omitted to consider “Why?” - which is hardly an insignificant question unless you are attached to an aimless form of life… 🙂
Click to expand...
A very important question, but not one that science is qualified to answer. That’s why we have religion and philosophy.

We’ll tell you how. You can tell us why.
tonyrey said:
So mindless processes have magically managed to become aware of themselves?
Click to expand...
Nothing magical about it. We are parts of the universe that have become self aware. Cool, isn’t it…
 
fhansen said:
The term “natural” or “processes” do not somehow magically distance a system from needing to be designed- they only indicate that conditions already exist -and time may be involved- in the formation of those systems; the form of any given snowflake, in fact, would be completely predictable if all variables necessary for its formation could be previously known and ascertained by us.
Click to expand...
👍
The term “natural” is indefinitely extensible to accommodate new discoveries, no matter how alien they are to the hypothesis that reality consists of nothing more than the physical universe(s).
 
Bradski said:
Indeed. If God is the Intelligent Designer (and for the sake of this point I will agree that He is), then we have been able to discover how He did it.

As Rossum says, it changes nothing. In fact, you can start any lecture on evolution with a statement that you are free to believe that God caused all this to happen or free to believe it happened naturally. Now, if you would please turn to page 1…
Click to expand...
This sort of relegates the either/or to a question that is never to be answered one way or the other except by personal preference.

I’m with Newton and Einstein.

I vote for a mindful God over mindless matter.
 
Bradski said:
A very important question, but not one that science is qualified to answer. That’s why we have religion and philosophy.

We’ll tell you how. You can tell us why.

Nothing magical about it. We are parts of the universe that have become self aware. Cool, isn’t it…
Click to expand...
An unsubstantiated hypothesis - and it must be incomplete if it cannot explain the value, meaning and purpose of life…
 
tonyrey said:
The term “natural” is indefinitely extensible to accommodate new discoveries, no matter how alien they are to the hypothesis that reality consists of nothing more than the physical universe(s).
Click to expand...
If it’s not natural, it’s super natural. That’s the domain of religion (and astrology, fairies, hobgoblins, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter etc).
Charlemagne_III said:
This sort of relegates the either/or to a question that is never to be answered one way or the other except by personal preference. I’m with Newton and Einstein.

I vote for a mindful God over mindless matter.
Click to expand...
And who could argue with that…
tonyrey said:
An unsubstantiated hypothesis - and it must be incomplete if it cannot explain the value, meaning and purpose of life…
Click to expand...
Again, that’s for you to decide via religion (or studying the entrails of goats or philosophy or smoking certain illegal substances). You try the first two, I’ll do the others and I’ll let you know if I come across anything interesting.
 
Bradski said:
Again, that’s for you to decide via religion (or studying the entrails of goats or philosophy or smoking certain illegal substances). You try the first two, I’ll do the others and I’ll let you know if I come across anything interesting.
Click to expand...
Apparently, you’ve been primarily engaged with the last at the expense of the third since you’ve been sharing more smoke than substance.
 
Bradski said:
Indeed. If God is the Intelligent Designer (and for the sake of this point I will agree that He is), then we have been able to discover how He did it.

As Rossum says, it changes nothing. In fact, you can start any lecture on evolution with a statement that you are free to believe that God caused all this to happen or free to believe it happened naturally. Now, if you would please turn to page 1…
Click to expand...
👍

Actually, it is not even a dichotomy between “God caused all this to happen” or “it happened naturally”. If God created the natural causes (standard theistic philosophy), then also under God it happened naturally, just like it would if the natural causes were uncreated.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top