Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It isn't "just because you feel it should be the case". If you want to debunk intelligent design then you most certainly do have to account for that stuff.
This isn't intelligent design people debunking evolution. It's the other way around. That puts the burden of proof on the evolution supporter.
The OP's video debunked the "intelligent" in intelligent design already. The conjecture of "Intelligent Design" has no scientific explanation for the origin of the universe.
According to the book Of Pandas and People (the 'textbook' the Dover school board wanted to use in their science classes in 2005), the conjecture of Intelligent Design is:
"that the origin of new organisms is in an immaterial cause: in a blueprint, a plan, a pattern, devised by an intelligent agent" and "a sudden appearance ex nihilo of already intact fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc."
Basically, that an "intelligent agent" poofed animals, birds, fish, humans etc into existence already intact at one time out of nothing.
It doesn't really take much debunking as it doesn't fit the observations at all, it doesn't predict anything, and it's main claim of irreducible complexity has been debunked.
It's not a Scientific Theory or even a scientific hypotheses. It's just religious Creationism with the word God replaced by the phrase "Intelligent Designer".
I've decided I don't believe in accidental perfection and I want to see proof that atoms were not designed with order in mind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lunar Delta
That well-ordered matter didn't emerge from nothing. The basic elements were forged by the death throes of massive stars. Chemical elements, especially carbon, have affinities for other chemical elements. It is not inconceivable that over billions of years and with billions of planets to work with, the building blocks of life would be created on at least one of them.
Massive stars?
OK (as if I didn't already specifically ask the question), and where did "massive stars" come from?
You don't get to ignore the question, make up a fairy tale or claim selective immunity has been bestowed upon you by the god of superior ignorance, bail out with "we don't have to invent a religion to explain what we don't yet understand" and then go right back to mocking people who take the reality of obvious design at face value.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceist
Who said anything about anything spontaneously emerging from 'nothing'?
The topic is of the thread is debunking "Intelligent Design", but if you insist:
"..when icy comets collide into a planet, amino acids can be produced. ... The researchers suggest that this process provides another piece to the puzzle of how life was kick-started on Earth, after a period of time between 4.5 and 3.8 billion years ago when the planet had been bombarded by comets and meteorites."
In order for finite time and definable space to exist in the present, they must have come to exist at a definable starting point in the past, and since nothing begets nothing, something independent of both time and space must have first existed to create finite time and definable space.
Without that, there is no here because there is no other place by which we may define here and now never arrives as the approaching moment is forever lost in eternity past.
That's funny. "Yeah, Mr. Galileo-smartass, why should we listen to your heliocentric nonsense when you can't even tell us how the Sun came to be? How about we start from the beginning and without all the convenient assumptions?"
Scientific theories don't have to cover everything from soup to nuts just because you feel that it should be the case. The book was called "The Origin of Species", not "The Origin of Life" - and Darwin was kinda careful when choosing his words.
Straw man argument and evading the question.
Fundamental to the Intelligent Design question is the matter of a designer.
Yes. And no-one is claiming otherwise. You received several answers about what life on earth evolved from. (It's IDers who claim that a designer "designed" everything from nothing.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
I've decided I don't believe in accidental perfection and I want to see proof that atoms were not designed with order in mind.
Well good for you- go do some research on the natural causes then. Here, this may help start you off:
But the thread is about the imperfect 'design' in the human body which debunks the idea of intelligent design and supports evolution. Do you have anything to add to the discussion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
Massive stars?
Icy comets?
Planets?
You people aren't even trying.
No, you aren't even trying to discuss the OP's video about the imperfect 'design' of the human body. You are trying to derail the thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
You don't get to ignore the question, make up a fairy tale or claim selective immunity has been bestowed upon you by the god of superior ignorance, bail out with "we don't have to invent a religion to explain what we don't yet understand" and then go right back to mocking people who take the reality of obvious design at face value.
You don't get to ignore the topic of the thread - which is about the imperfect 'design' of the human body which debunks the idea of intelligent design and supports evolution. Do you have anything to add to the discussion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
Here's a hint...
In order for finite time and definable space to exist in the present, they must have come to exist at a definable starting point in the past, and since nothing begets nothing, something independent of both time and space must have first existed to create finite time and definable space.
Without that, there is no here because there is no other place by which we may define here and now never arrives as the approaching moment is forever lost in eternity past.
Lot's of assumptions there. Go watch Lawrence Krauss talk about 'nothing'.
No one other than creationists use that straw man and claim that scientists say "everything came from nothing". They don't.
But that's still not the topic of the thread which is about the imperfect 'design' of the human body which debunks the idea of intelligent design and supports evolution. Do you have anything to add to this discussion?
Fundamental to the Intelligent Design question is the matter of a designer.
Fundamental to the Intelligent Design question is the matter of a supposed designer creating all life from nothing "already intact, fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc".
Fundamental to the OP's topic is the question - if there was a designer, why is the 'design' of the human body so imperfect and un-intelligently 'designed' and why does it show so much evidence of evolutionary changes over time?
The OP's video debunked the "intelligent" in intelligent design already. The conjecture of "Intelligent Design" has no scientific explanation for the origin of the universe.
According to the book Of Pandas and People (the 'textbook' the Dover school board wanted to use in their science classes in 2005), the conjecture of Intelligent Design is:
"that the origin of new organisms is in an immaterial cause: in a blueprint, a plan, a pattern, devised by an intelligent agent" and "a sudden appearance ex nihilo of already intact fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc."
Basically, that an "intelligent agent" poofed animals, birds, fish, humans etc into existence already intact at one time out of nothing.
It doesn't really take much debunking as it doesn't fit the observations at all, it doesn't predict anything, and it's main claim of irreducible complexity has been debunked.
It's not a Scientific Theory or even a scientific hypotheses. It's just religious Creationism with the word God replaced by the phrase "Intelligent Designer".
Hate to break it to you Skippy but the Big Bang Theory is more or less Genesis by another name plus or minus God.
My contention is that nothing begets nothing, thus something.
If you wish to argue that nothing can create something, do so, but please try to be honest and consistent.
Hate to break it to you Skippy but the Big Bang Theory is more or less Genesis by another name plus or minus God.
My contention is that nothing begets nothing, thus something.
If you wish to argue that nothing can create something, do so, but please try to be honest and consistent.
The Genesis story in the Bible doesn't describe anything like the Big Bang Theory.
No-one is trying to argue that nothing can create something. That's a creationist strawman argument. If you want to waste your time battling that straw man, go ahead -knock yourself out. But don't try to pretend it's anything other than a straw man or that it has anything to do with science.
To have designer, you have to have someone design him. A designer didn't appear out of nowhere.
Also designers don't create their material from nothing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
