Analysis of Christopher Hitchen's argument against God

[OPTIONAL777]

Yes, assuming that the designer of the system has a reason to do so.

Football is so popular, the thought of changing it doesn't come to mind for owners and designers of the rules.

Who knows what a designer's goal is?

Perhaps to design a system that produces human beings who question why the designer designed the system the way it is?

You are assuming that people born to poverty is by chance. Maybe, maybe design, maybe to give the people with wealth an opportunity to do the right thing and help the poor.

Who knows?

My point goes to design, not the designer anyway.

There are many different concepts of a designer in different religions and schools of thought, some simply suggest that cause and effect is the law. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Being born into poverty is just the effect of what happened before being born is an idea of some religions. It maybe a reward, it may be a punishment, or it may just be the consequences of an action that now has its reaction. Such a system would be completely fair. Everyone would be just getting what they deserve...they are eating the fruits of their own past.

Quote from trendlover:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If is true, than the designer who make the ("chance happenings") some people are born to poverty, can make the design to not do that too.

 

[stu]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

My point goes to design, not the designer anyway.

Evolution designs.

Whenever idea of design is looked at , observed and tested, scientifically, empirically, with prediction and proof , the 'programming' and the 'design' is always found to be completed in house by evolution . It's why biology, medicine and understanding of the world and Universe makes progress.

Make believe design really doesn't do any of that..

So why should merely imagining as you are, that there must, should or need be a design that's not from Evolution, have anything going for it that Pink Pixies couldn't explain better ?

 

[jem]

Quote from stu:

Here's why your "top mind" is not making anything like an argument for intelligent design as you proclaim he is...

• 
  “If you equate the probability of the birth of a bacteria cell to chance assembly of its atoms, eternity will not suffice to produce one… Faced with the enormous sum of lucky draws behind the success of the evolutionary game, one may legitimately wonder to what extent this success is actually written into the fabric of the universe.
  
  The answer of modern molecular biology to this much-debated question is categorical: chance, and chance alone, did it all, from primeval soup to man, with only natural selection to sift its effects. This affirmation now rests on overwhelming factual evidence." Christian de Duve "A Guided Tour Of The Living Cell"

It's not that you like to argue for such silly issues particularly, it's the beligerence and the apparent intentional determination to remain ignorant in order to keep repeatedly pushing the same old misinformation obliviously, using only part of Christian de Duve's explanation in presumably hoping to create a false impression, that leaves you with no credibility.

hey troll liar... here was your exact quote... where is the fricken page number... you liar. I was serious....I told you I looked at your quote and for pages after it------ and saw no link or page number. so now you lie... what is your point other than to be a troll.

next
you seem to let science go over your head every time.

since we know de duve knows the search for abogenesis is still continuing. We know that you are the one using the quote out of context.

If you do not know the origin of life... you really can't say it was chance can you? so you quote needs context. And if you had half a brain you would understand that with respect to this context... zzz just schooled you.


and here is the point... from the de duve quote you pasted but , clearly did not understand.

By definition, the science is based on the idea that the object of study is naturally explainable. Why look for an explanation otherwise? What is truly wonderful is how much of nature, including the fundamental features of life, has already proven to be explainable."

 

[OPTIONAL777]

Nonsense.

Make believe random ignorant chance (evolution) doesn't do any of what you suggest.

Keep on believing it tough...if it gets you through the night.

Quote from stu:

Evolution designs.

Whenever idea of design is looked at , observed and tested, scientifically, empirically, with prediction and proof , the 'programming' and the 'design' is always found to be completed in house by evolution . It's why biology, medicine and understanding of the world and Universe makes progress.

Make believe design really doesn't do any of that..

So why should merely imagining as you are, that there must, should or need be a design that's not from Evolution, have anything going for it that Pink Pixies couldn't explain better ?

 

[OPTIONAL777]

Once again the assumption of non design, then the claim that non design is fact.

The lengths some people go to defend what they can't actually defend.

No proof, none. No empirical data of a monkey transitioning to a human being...none, period.

Every theory proposed where a claim of something unproved (i.e. random ignorant chance) works just as well with an ID first assumption...and additionally a programmer program model doesn't change the processes at all.

So why can't the atheist say:

"Yes, it could be design or non design, it doesn't matter as neither have proofs, and the real observed data doesn't change, and no one has ever generated life from non life, or generated energy from non energy...only the conclusion of cause changes...and since I have an atheistic bias (against the Biblical literal position...not actually against deism or other possible theories which don't promote a creation story) I'm going with non design."

At least that would be honest.

Quote from stu:

Evolution designs.

Whenever idea of design is looked at , observed and tested, scientifically, empirically, with prediction and proof , the 'programming' and the 'design' is always found to be completed in house by evolution . It's why biology, medicine and understanding of the world and Universe makes progress.

Make believe design really doesn't do any of that..

So why should merely imagining as you are, that there must, should or need be a design that's not from Evolution, have anything going for it that Pink Pixies couldn't explain better ?

 

[jem]

Quote from stu:

Evolution designs.

Whenever idea of design is looked at , observed and tested, scientifically, empirically, with prediction and proof , the 'programming' and the 'design' is always found to be completed in house by evolution . It's why biology, medicine and understanding of the world and Universe makes progress.

Make believe design really doesn't do any of that..

So why should merely imagining as you are, that there must, should or need be a design that's not from Evolution, have anything going for it that Pink Pixies couldn't explain better ?

explain to how the fine tunings of the universe were designed in house.

explain how abiogenensis happened in house.

by the way i am not against evolution, no one here is against the idea that some things evolve over time. But some of us are for facts. Evolution has not explained life evolving from non life. not yet anyway. .

You pretend science explains away a creator. yet when pinned down and asked for proof you lie and pretend you supplied it somewhere else.

 

[trendlover]

"In the final analysis, the biochemical hypothesis of intelligent design fails not because the scientific community is closed to it but rather for the most basic of reasons — because it is overwhelmingly contradicted by the scientific evidence."

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html

 

[OPTIONAL777]

Flawed again, because design could account for every change...even changes "scientists" say were not the "best" possible change.

Assuming non ID doesn't produce fact of non ID, any more than assuming ID produces fact of ID if examination of the evidence, with a completely unbiased view.

The non IDers argue form their own concept of what they would expect a designer to do.

That is completely flawed, as they are introducing their own concept of a designer to argue against a designer.

Fully circular.

Quote from trendlover:

"In the final analysis, the biochemical hypothesis of intelligent design fails not because the scientific community is closed to it but rather for the most basic of reasons — because it is overwhelmingly contradicted by the scientific evidence."

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html

 

[OPTIONAL777]

Darwin was a deist, not an atheist.

Would any scientific fact have converted him to atheism?

Doubt it. The facts on their own don't yield theism or atheism.

Random ignorant chance is not a conclusion, it is a first proposition necessary to make current evolutionary theory palatable.

Design as a first proposition would produce the same scientific results.

 

[OPTIONAL777]

Just to demonstrate how the atheist have elevated some magical mystical unknown power to Evolution...very similar actually to those who suggest God is some magical mystery unknown power.

Quote from non IDer reference in link:

"Evolution produces complex biochemical machines by copying, modifying, and combining proteins previously used for other functions."

Then an IDer counters:

"Design produces complex biochemical machines by copying, modifying, and combining proteins previously used for other functions."

So the non IDer is making an argument against design by assuming non ID is a fact in evidence, which it is not.

Badly flawed.

These so called "rational people" are using unproved conclusion statements as evidence?

Can you even open up to see that there is not any real science or irrefutable logic on either side?

Really, all you ever have to do is boil things down to where you can no longer boil them down to find out what is really happening.

The IDers, who are primarily western theistic believing in the Bible literally types are responding to the atheistic primarily western atheistic types who oppose the Bible.

This battle will not be won on the level of science.

It is not necessary anyway, because there is no Law of evolution, or force of random ignorant chance.

Just opinions to fill in the gaps, huge logical gaps.

A reasonable person would not object to design, if they knew it were not a way to preach the Gospels...sadly the logicians and philosophers...who are mostly agnostic...are not entering the argument. If they were, they would not be biased towards ID or non ID, they would look at the situation objectively...knowing science can't prove underlying cause until such time that science is working on the level of cause itself.

Quote from trendlover:

"In the final analysis, the biochemical hypothesis of intelligent design fails not because the scientific community is closed to it but rather for the most basic of reasons — because it is overwhelmingly contradicted by the scientific evidence."

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html