Search results

Ultimately, everything is subjective, because observation depends upon the objective accuracy of the observer's measuring instruments. However, if you fall back on everything "boils down" to this, then you may as well pack up your equipment and go to church, because there's no longer any point...

Irrelevant. What matters is what the evidence actually shows, not the reason why you begin your research. If you had some evidence of design, you would not complain that an inference is required to find such evidence. You would, instead, simply produce the evidence. But, you have no evidence...

Your first paragraph is false, because if a scientist were to accidently stumble upon a physical message obviously intended for an extrinsic audience etched into biological organisms, then that would lead to a search for design, even though no one was previously looking for design. Your...

I disagree. The fossils do more than merely "look" like they descend from common ancestors. The fossils, are radioactively dated to progressively earlier eras, and they are found in progressively deeper soil and rock deposits. The deeper soil/rock deposits do not have other artifacts indicating...

Re your first paragraph, if something "looks" designed, you are presuming this because you have some advance evidence to support your speculation -- even if said evidence is nothing more than routine prior familiarity with things clearly the same as the thing you are hypothesizing as designed...

You mean that if someone handed you a granite block, dug out from under layers of soil which had obvious signs of not having been disturbed for ~3,000 years, carved in the shape of a tablet, with what appeared to be some sort of systematic communication burned into it (but NOT Hebrew or any...

It doesn't matter how it looks. It matters what evidence exists to support the hypothesis that something which looks designed, is designed. If I walk down the beach and see John loves Mary in the sand, I "know" that what I'm seeing was designed, because I already have evidence from prior...

I didn't respond to your original post -- you responded to mine, so the obvious implication is that you wanted to debate me. Now, you're threatening to cut off debate with me, after I already told you that I won't debate with you or anyone else who chooses ad hominems in preference to logic...

You keep coming back to this argument as if it were insurmountable. To me, your argument makes no scientific sense. You want to infer a designer in an object merely because it "looks" to you to be designed. I can walk out onto the beach and find twenty pieces of driftwood in about 30...

Hawking is talking about time as we know it in this universe. What happened before the big bang is entirely up for grabs. Our universe may be nothing more than the expansion of matter contained in what is observed as a collapsing black hole in some other universe -- a universe in which time...

False premise. We don't know that time started after the big bang. We only choose to measure time from the moment of the big bang. Thus, the question of how the most complex of all possible creations -- an immortal, all powerful, limitless intelligent designer, arises before anything which...

Baron: 1. How many complaints re Z have been received? 2. How many complaints are required to ban Z? 3. If we accept that some number of complaints are necessary to have Z banned, and if it is well-established that Z has previously been banned under previous aliases, then why would Z...

Actually, I'm just playing according to the rules which you have succinctly demonstrated by your conduct over the past couple of years. Answering your questions is a waste of time, because you never return the courtesy. As for adult conversation, this website is a testament to your...

Occam's Razor. All things being equal the simpler solution is preferable. Inferring a creator means that you must BELIEVE that most complex creation possible occurred first, without any foundation at all. Whereas if you accept the EVIDENCE of universe as a roiling sea of turbulent matter and...

No, that wouldn't be my position at all. The existence of something does not automatically demonstrate that it was caused by an intelligent act. And, there is not reason to infer the existence of a designer, absent actual evidence of one. So, if you can show me that X-rays eminating from the...

Until such time as I can find evidence of a designer, no designer exists -- not as you would have it, the other way around. Do you have some evidence of a designer to share, other than some poetic statment of your belief? Can you show me an object which appears in nature and cannot...

I haven't read this thread, nor do I intend to. Has teleologist produced any empircal evidence of a designer? Such proof would be jaw-dropping Nobel Prize winning, world-altering stuff, so I'm fairly certain I would have heard about it within minutes of its discovery.

Iron Pyrite forms cubic crystals. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cubicpyrite.jpg They look like golden dice without pips. I don't infer design to these crystals merely be cause they are shaped like dice. I search for actual evidence of the designer. If there's no evidence of a designer...

This is totally non-responsive to my prior post. However, assuming you're attempting to raise this as a new issue, then your response here is completely irrational, and trivial to refute. No matter how you slice it, if a designer is the foundation of the theory of creation, then every...

How many ways would you like this argument destroyed? 1. You presume something you know is false as a means of hypothesizing it as true. No one has found pyramids on Mars, so everything that follows is impossible until the premise is satisfied. 2. The Egyptian pyramids are constructed in a...