Intelligent Design is not creationism

Quote from jem:

the question where did the designer come from or who made the designer may be non-sensical.


The question is being asked as if the designer is inside of time. But we know time started after the big bang. So if someone or something created the big bang he would be outside of time.

From the perspective of the designer there may be know before or after.
More...

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 follows, remains completely relevant.

The far simpler answer is that in this universe, matter is scientifically proven to self-assemble into more complex organizations, and that humans are one of the many results.

There is evidence for the latter, and no evidence for the former. And, in the absence of evidence, the latter is the scientifically preferred answer.
 
Quote from kjkent1:

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 follows, remains completely relevant.

The far simpler answer is that in this universe, matter is scientifically proven to self-assemble into more complex organizations, and that humans are one of the many results.

There is evidence for the latter, and no evidence for the former. And, in the absence of evidence, the latter is the scientifically preferred answer.
More...

I do not know where you get your science from but guys like hawking say that science breaks down at the big bang there is no way to no what happened before. And many others say time began after the big bang.

In my comments you can see I allowed for the fact that science has no way to tell us about existence prior to the big bang. so I suggested that there may be no before or after. Your msiguided rebuttal seems to have served no purpose. You did not counter my point at all.


here is a quote from hawking


The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down.

[
and he is not the only one who says time began at the big bang or shortly thereafter. in is a widespread statement best on curren science.
 
Thus, the question of how the most complex of all possible creations -- an immortal, all powerful, limitless intelligent designer, arises before anything which follows, remains completely relevant.
More...

It might have some relevance when pondering ultimate reality but ID is focused on the origin of life on earth. One doesn't need to invoke an immortal, all powerful, limitless intelligent designer to account for the origin of life on earth. Once again, consider any artifact found on earth. Now ask yourself: if scientists found a similar object on a planet where humans had never been would they infer it was designed by an immortal, all powerful, limitless intelligent designer or would they infer it was created by an entity with human-like intelligence? I submit they would infer it was produced by an entity with human-like intelligence.
 
Quote from jem:

I do not know where you get your science from but guys like hawking say that science breaks down at the big bang there is no way to no what happened before. And many others say time began after the big bang.

In my comments you can see I allowed for the fact that science has no way to tell us about existence prior to the big bang. so I suggested that there may be no before or after. Your msiguided rebuttal seems to have served no purpose. You did not counter my point at all.


here is a quote from hawking


The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down.

[
and he is not the only one who says time began at the big bang or shortly thereafter. in is a widespread statement best on curren science.
More...

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 operates according to the rules of that universe.

There is zero scientific evidence for a creator within the scope of this universe, but evidence does exists demonstrating increased complexity by natural interaction of matter and turbulence.

Therefore, given two choices, one with scientific evidence -- the other without any, Occam's Razor's selects the simpler answer -- the one with the evidence to support it. Otherwise, you must conjure up a limitless creator from nothing -- in a puff of smoke -- by magic.

You choose the more complex answer of the all powerful creator, not because you have evidence to support it, but merely because you prefer it.

That doesn't make your answer simpler. It just makes it imaginary.

PS. Comments like my "misguided rebuttal seems to have served no purpose," are absolutely guaranteed to cause me to break off further conversation with you.

I hesitated to bring this up in my last post, but now that you are taking the Z-styled insult route, I'll return the favor.

I noted in your previous post that you apparently don't "know" the difference between "know" and "no." I find this remarkable for someone who is supposedly a graduate of a major law school and who claims to be licensed to practice law in two major jurisdictions.

Which makes me wonder whether you are actually the person whom you say you are, or whether you're a child who is using that person's userID. I strongly suspect the latter.

Now, I will refrain from playing the juvenile flame game if you will. OTOH, if you can't control yourself, then you can argue the merits with yourself, because I'm just not interested.
 
Quote from Teleologist:

It might have some relevance when pondering ultimate reality but ID is focused on the origin of life on earth. One doesn't need to invoke an immortal, all powerful, limitless intelligent designer to account for the origin of life on earth. Once again, consider any artifact found on earth. Now ask yourself: if scientists found a similar object on a planet where humans had never been would they infer it was designed by an immortal, all powerful, limitless intelligent designer or would they infer it was created by an entity with human-like intelligence? I submit they would infer it was produced by an entity with human-like intelligence.
More...

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 minutes, each one of which will have what appears to be the face of an old human "designed" into the knurls. I don't infer that someone carved these faces into the wood. If I want to know whether the designs are, in fact designed, I'll put them under a microscope and look for cut marks. If I don't find any, then there's simply no evidence for design. These are nothing more nor less than knurled pieces of driftwood which give the illusion of having old human faces on them.

Such fractal "designs" are abundant throughout nature -- everywhere we look.

I've already explained previously that there's no reason to infer anything from an object found on another planet. Instead, upon finding the purported artifact, the scientific approach is to search for evidence of its source, or of its having been manufactured.

If no evidence appears for a source, and nothing appears showing that the object is manufactured, then the conclusion is that the object is not manufactured, no matter how much it may appear to be so.

This is why I used the iron pyrite example earlier. The crystals are cubic, but scientists don't infer a manufacturer. Instead, scientists attempt to recreate the crystals using conditions which might reasonably appear in nature without the benefit of a manufacturer. And, if this attempt succeeds, then the scientific conclusion is that the object is of natural origin.

If neither conclusion can be reached, then the scientific conclusion is that the result remains inconclusive.

So, if there is a pyramid on Mars and we can't identify a source, evidence of manufacture, or natural conditions which could create it, then there is no inference -- the answer is simply "we don't know," absent new/better information.
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

You did not answer the questions I asked....

Repeat:

Tell us what the designer of the crystals would look like?

How would you know him if you found him/her/it?

What exactly would constitute evidence of a designer? A signature like in a painting?

A written manuscript describing in detail the process?

How do you know that the signature isn't there, but you just can't see it with the tools you are looking with?

____________________________
More...
duuuuuude... u guys unbelievers are just soooo totally unbelievable aintcha!?! i mean, helloooo... big red robe, white beard, leaves footprints by the chimney... do i need to tell u EVERYTHING???
 
Quote from kjkent1:

You keep coming back to this argument as if it were insurmountable. You want to infer a designer in an object merely because it "looks" to you to be designed.
More...

This is only the 30th time in this thread that someone has pointed this out. The entire ID/Creationist position in this thread can be summed up as follows:

"It seems to me that all life on earth was designed by an intelligent designer/Creator God. What's that? No, I have no proof. But I don't need proof. It is up to you to prove that there is no designer. Until you can do this, I will take ID/Creation as a given".

Critical thinking be damned. Faith trumps all.
 
Quote from Teleologist:

It might have some relevance when pondering ultimate reality but ID is focused on the origin of life on earth. One doesn't need to invoke an immortal, all powerful, limitless intelligent designer to account for the origin of life on earth. Once again, consider any artifact found on earth. Now ask yourself: if scientists found a similar object on a planet where humans had never been would they infer it was designed by an immortal, all powerful, limitless intelligent designer or would they infer it was created by an entity with human-like intelligence? I submit they would infer it was produced by an entity with human-like intelligence.
More...
why "human-like"?? with millions of known species on earth alone, and billions of billions of galaxies, its rather likely that there are other forms of life, carbon-based or not, lurking around in this universe... what does that have to do with origin of life on earth???
 
in case u haven't kept updated or even read the two masterpieces written by hawking, he dont believe a unifying theory can be based on a singularity: infact he dont believe in singularities at all so neither in the big bang and has postulated a few theories that discount the big bang mechanism: black holes and newborn universes could be a good start for u.
Quote from jem:

I do not know where you get your science from but guys like hawking say that science breaks down at the big bang there is no way to no what happened before. And many others say time began after the big bang.

In my comments you can see I allowed for the fact that science has no way to tell us about existence prior to the big bang. so I suggested that there may be no before or after. Your msiguided rebuttal seems to have served no purpose. You did not counter my point at all.


here is a quote from hawking


The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down.

[
and he is not the only one who says time began at the big bang or shortly thereafter. in is a widespread statement best on curren science.
More...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top