A simple case for intelligent design

[Polymath257]

"...knowing the composition isn't required for knowing something exists" has to do with observed effects. Yet, you don't hold God to the same standard!

Of course I do! I hold the hypothesis of God to *exactly* the same standards.

What actual, testable predictions has the hypothesis of God produced?

What mathematical theory describes the interaction of God with matter?

What alternative explanations have been proposed, tested, and rejected because of the evidence?

What theoretical proposals are there for the composition of God that can be tested (if not with current technology)?

What sort of evidence would show that the God hypothesis is invalid?

The Dark matter hypothesis passes ALL of these tests easily. The God hypothesis passes NONE of them.

So, yes, I hold the God hypothesis to the exact same standards I do any other hypothesis. And it fails miserably when evaluated by those standards.

 

[BilliardsBall]

What has this got to do with what I posted?

Does your God interact with the physical world, or not? If he does, there should be evidence of such. Where is it? (No, vague prophecies from old books aren't evidence of God interacting with the physical world.) Even if you could demonstrate that a prophecy actually came true, how could you connect it directly to the God you worship?

The universe and our existence beg the question:

All known things have a finite beginning and are caused, even the universe would be subject to 100% entropy if eternal > since the universe has a finite beginning, it has a cause...

Your very question, show a THING that causes EFFECTS, indicates your a priori belief that all things have creators, including the universe!

 

[BilliardsBall]

The complexity of a watch and the complexity of a human aren't the same. They have different origins. A watch is clearly designed and manufactured. A person evolved. Reproduction with variation in offspring provided material for natural selection to work with over time, gradually increasing complexity.
Watches don't reproduce.
No they're not.
You don't follow the research, do you?
And it doesn't -- and its not.

Historical or archaeological accuracy is poor evidence of literal or mythological accuracy. Contemporary writings and reports would be expected to reflect facts, places and events that were common knowledge.

We are so far off track, it's my fault, I apologize:

*I believe in natural selection

*Darwinians try to hide the real issue, all things reproduce according to their “kind” or in taxonomy, near the family level (creation could be a few cats that become lions to domesticated cats and etc.)

 

[Polymath257]

"We don't need to detect gravitons," as you wrote, because we accept as fact something invisible/undetected, based on the law of cause and effect:

1) God does the same thing
2) Your point a priori shows you think EVERYTHING has a cause
3) You are begging the question of our existence/an eternal universe subject to entropy/an eternal, uncaused universe

No, we know gravity exists because we can measure it and test it. Gravitons are a theoretical possibility, but certainly NOT proven at this point. They arise naturally when attempts are made to unify general relativity and quantum mechanics, both of which are well-tested descriptions of the universe. That is why the notion of gravitons is taken seriously.

1. God has no testable consequences: predictions that, if they fail, would disprove the hypothesis.

2. Wrong. I don't think everything has a cause. Causality is the sum of uncaused, probabilistic events.

3. Not at all. We know gravity exists, again, because we can *measure* it. And we can perform such measurements in exquisite detail; enough to distinguish Newton's description from Einsteins, from MOND, etc. No such measurements are possible for the God hypothesis.

 

[Polymath257]

The universe and our existence beg the question:

All known things have a finite beginning and are caused, even the universe would be subject to 100% entropy if eternal > since the universe has a finite beginning, it has a cause...

Your very question, show a THING that causes EFFECTS, indicates your a priori belief that all things have creators, including the universe!

Entropy is a statistical law, not a fundamental one. We know of cases where entropy can spontaneously decrease in a closed system (if the system has few particles).

There is a difference between the notion of a 'cause' and of a 'creator'. Not all causes are creators: the latter has a consciousness, but the former need not.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Define a relevant application for "complexity" in each of those cases.

The OP of this thread established only that using IDcreationism techniques and definitions, one must conclude that everything is the result of human design.

I've yet to see anything that would indicate otherwise.

We're far off track, for which I apologize:

I believe in natural selection... Darwinians try to hide the real issue, all things reproduce according to their “kind” or in taxonomy, near the family level (creation could be a few cats that become lions to domesticated cats and etc.)

DNA is clearly encoding/a language, we have no known example of more information being created via DNA, DNA is instructions to make amino acids, life is proteins with instructions to make proteins, begging certain questions...

 

[exchemist]

Another goalpost shift:

* I believe in natural selection

* Darwinians try to hide the real issue, all things reproduce according to their “kind” or in taxonomy, near the family level (creation could be a few cats that become lions to domesticated cats and etc.)

I'm just asking you why you expect that science should be able to replicate the tree of life. It's not moving any goal posts.

Why do you think it should? There are many theories in science that can't be tested via replicating them under artificial conditions.

 

[exchemist]

For one example, my atheist friends insist the Penteteuch is dated to circa the 2nd century BCE, yet it describes, people, places and architecture from 1,200 years prior.

Er, well that would mean it was written after the events it purports to prophesy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Baloney again from you, since recent explorations has repurposed much junk to purpose!

I believe in natural selection... Darwinians try to hide the real issue, all things reproduce according to their “kind” or in taxonomy, near the family level (creation could be a few cats that become lions to domesticated cats and etc.)

You do not seem to understand that your post told us that you accept junk DNA as well.

And when you believe baloney you should never accuse others of the same.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Another goalpost shift:

* I believe in natural selection

* Darwinians try to hide the real issue, all things reproduce according to their “kind” or in taxonomy, near the family level (creation could be a few cats that become lions to domesticated cats and etc.)

What's a Darwinian?

Evolutionary scientists neither posit nor expect to find anything reproducing anything outside it's own species or "kind" (whatever that even is). That's not how evolution works.

 

[SkepticThinker]

"...knowing the composition isn't required for knowing something exists" has to do with observed effects. Yet, you don't hold God to the same standard!

I've asked before and I'll ask again: What are the "observed effects" of God?

 

[SkepticThinker]

The universe and our existence beg the question:

All known things have a finite beginning and are caused, even the universe would be subject to 100% entropy if eternal > since the universe has a finite beginning, it has a cause...

Your very question, show a THING that causes EFFECTS, indicates your a priori belief that all things have creators, including the universe!

Good grief, I hope that's not your evidence of God interacting with the natural world.

The rest of your post is just you putting things in my mouth again.

 

[leroy]

I have been engaged in these "debates" for nearly 30 years, and to me, it looks far more like a conclusion.

To conclude that a belief is false by appealing to the origin of the belief is a fallacy.

Pretend that I believe that Jupiter is the largest planet in our solar system, just because I saw it in a cartoon, does that makes my believe false?

 

[Valjean]

We're far off track, for which I apologize:

I believe in natural selection... Darwinians try to hide the real issue, all things reproduce according to their “kind” or in taxonomy, near the family level (creation could be a few cats that become lions to domesticated cats and etc.)

"Darwinians" don't hide anything. There's no worldwide conspiracy. Small changes occur, and accumulate. If enough changes accumulate you have a "kind" very different from the prototype. There's nothing telling the changes to stop occurring so as to avoid too much change.

Consider: Language evolves, by small changes, all the time. At what point did Latin turn into French?
Small changes accumulate into big changes.

DNA is clearly encoding/a language, we have no known example of more information being created via DNA, DNA is instructions to make amino acids, life is proteins with instructions to make proteins, begging certain questions...

I don't follow. Why would evolution require more information? An organism's complexity has nothing to do with how big its DNA blueprint is.

 

[Milton Platt]

How do you know that there is a vacuum similar to the one we know of OUTSIDE the known universe?

How do you know there isn’t? If there is pressure outside the universe and a vacuum within, what maintains the vacuum?

 

[Milton Platt]

It would leave you with just one other theory of origins......

Evolution was “tossed out” long ago, they just won’t let that vampire die no matter how many stakes are driven through its heart....

Can you answer the question?

 

[Valjean]

How do you know there isn’t? If there is pressure outside the universe and a vacuum within, what maintains the vacuum?

There is no "outside" the universe.

 

[Milton Platt]

There is no "outside" the universe.

No argument from me either way......but the original,poster seems to think so......and it was filled with water.....

 

[tas8831]

Another goalpost shift:

* I believe in natural selection

* Darwinians try to hide the real issue, all things reproduce according to their “kind” or in taxonomy, near the family level (creation could be a few cats that become lions to domesticated cats and etc.)

Why is that the real issue? What is the mechanism by which changes you do not accept for religious reasons are prevented in real life?

 

[tas8831]

Clearly, scientists are wholly unable to replicate how the original tree/original one-celled animals/plant progenitors arose.

Are creation scientists able to replicate how the original tree/original one-celled animals/plant progenitors arose?