An intelligent design, requires an intelligent designer, it should be obvious...?

[Michael]

The Big Bang, which is admittedly not well understood, is nevertheless expected to have fully obeyed the applicable natural laws and so no "reversal" of them need be contemplated.

If the "natural" laws had applied, the "near singularity" thingy would have *imploded* in upon itself instantly. Inflation was the first "miracle" that overcame the "natural" laws of "gravity". It's presumed "method" for overcoming gravity was to cause "space expansion" when all mass/energy of an entire universe was presumably concentrated to something smaller than a proton, yet today something like the gravitational curvature of a single planet, or a single sun anywhere in the vicinity somehow prohibits "space expansion".

BB theory is one *gigantic* contradiction and violation of the natural laws we know of today.

In any case, no scientist pretends to know what came before the Big Bang,

Evidently you haven't heard of multiverse theories.

whether nothing or something, and only "evolutionists" who are also atheists don't believe that God created it.

I think most scientist would acknowledge that since energy cannot be created or destroyed, "something" existed prior to the presumed bang.

 

[Loudmouth]

ID doesn't say one way or the other. That is an assumption which you prefer to make in order to place ID in the religious framework so you can tag it as an appeal to magic.

Do you or do you not think the designer is the Christian God?

 

[Loudmouth]

A concept has to be evaluated on its own merits and not on personalities or on a strong aversion to anything or everything indicating an intelligent designer.

Given the inability of ID to make even simple predictions, such as the divergence of exons and introns, it has failed on its own merits already. There is no one doing ID research. There is no one submitting research grants based on ID. You can't even come up with a single experiment that one could do to directly test ID. That's a complete failure.

 

[Loudmouth]

The wonder of life is that evolutionists say that God is supernatural, therefore outside science, yet they call for a big bang, which is something from nothing, without even God to create it, and reversal of all scientific laws in order to create the universe, stars, planets and life before anything approaching 'natural' appears in their theories.

It is theists who define God as untestable, unfalsifiable, and undetectable. It is theists who will continue to believe in God no matter what scientists find. Scientists have nothing to do with that.

On the other hand, scientists are trying to develop ways that one could test for the cause or causes that led to our universe.

 

[Loudmouth]

As for your evaluations, to me they are really of no consequence as are all other evaluations which are totally devoid of logical merit.

So says the person who uses logical fallacies in almost every post.

 

[Speedwell]

Evidently you haven't heard of multiverse theories.

There are no "multiverse theories." Merely speculation at this point--along with many other speculations, including yours.

I think most scientist would acknowledge that since energy cannot be created or destroyed, "something" existed prior to the presumed bang.

Creationists assert (see post #278, for example) that science claims the Big Bang arose from nothing without a cause. My point was that this is a lie; science claims no such thing.

 

[Radrook]

So says the person who uses logical fallacies in almost every post.

Fallacies which you are unable to prove are fallacies of course because they only exist in your wishful thinking.

 

[Radrook]

Do you or do you not think the designer is the Christian God?

I explained myself several times but you invariably respond by claiming profound confusion.
Perhaps the problem isn't my explanation.

 

[Loudmouth]

Fallacies which you are unable to prove are fallacies of course because they only exist in your wishful thinking.

Please show that an Argument from Incredulity is not a logical fallacy.

Argument from incredulity - RationalWiki
Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia
Your logical fallacy is personal incredulity
CA100: Argument from incredulity
divine fallacy (argument from incredulity) - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com

 

[Loudmouth]

I explained myself several times but you invariably respond by claiming profound confusion.
Perhaps the problem isn't my explanation.

A simple yes or no will do.

Do you or do you not think the designer is the Christian God?

 

[Radrook]

A simple yes or no will do.

Do you or do you not think the designer is the Christian God?

That is irrelevant to issue of an intelligent designer evident in nature and doesn't belong in the science forum.

 

[Loudmouth]

That is irrelevant to issue of an intelligent designer evident in nature and doesn't belong in the science forum.

It is completely relevant.

How do you think life originated? What were the processes involved?

 

[Radrook]

It is completely relevant.

How do you think life originated? What were the processes involved?

Then why did you just agree with my post when I posted it saying that it is irrelevant?
As I keep telling you but to no avail-life originated via an intelligent designer.
The nature of that designer is totally irrelevant to the conclusion that nature shows evidence of intelligent design. What you are seeking is for me to positively identify who that intelligent designer is. Well, sorry but within the scope of the intelligent design argument I am not allowed to postulate anything specific in that area because doing so goes beyond the scope of the ID argument. In short the ID argument doesn't claim to know who the intelligent designer is. You would need to ask me that question in one of the religion forums in order to maintain relevancy. However, let me just say that the ID viewpoint does not rule out the alien, extra dimensional nor the supernatural as a viable answer. But please keep well in mind that it doesn't postulate these either. It just simply tells us that intelligent design is evident in nature and that therefore it is justifiable to infer an intelligent designer, designers, source, etcetera.

 

[Loudmouth]

That is irrelevant to issue of an intelligent designer evident in nature and doesn't belong in the science forum.

A simple yes or no will do.


Do you or do you not think the designer is the Christian God?

 

[Loudmouth]

As I keep telling you but to no avail-life originated via an intelligent designer.

How? That is what I keep asking.

 

[Radrook]

How? That is what I keep asking.

I cannot divest a person from a modus operandi of claiming inability to see or inability to reason.

 

[Loudmouth]

I cannot divest a person from a modus operandi of claiming inability to see or inability to reason.

How do you think life originated? What were the physical processes that caused life to arise?

Can you answer these questions or not?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I think it might be more productive to consider what you would expect from a universe that did not have an intelligent designer. If one can judge that the universe was intelligently designed, there must be some feature or features that cause you to think so, and that you would expect to be different if it was not designed; i.e. there must be an intelligent designer because we see X rather than Y, or because we would expect to see Y rather than X if it was not intelligently designed.

If an ID proponent cannot describe any feature or features of the universe in this way, then it seem to me that the ID idea is not based on observation and judgement, and so has no rational basis.

What say you, IDers?

 

[Michael]

I think it might be more productive to consider what you would expect from a universe that did not have an intelligent designer. If one can judge that the universe was intelligently designed, there must be some feature or features that cause you to think so, and that you would expect to be different if it was not designed; i.e. there must be an intelligent designer because we see X rather than Y, or because we would expect to see Y rather than X if it was not intelligently designed.

If an ID proponent cannot describe any feature or features of the universe in this way, then it seem to me that the ID idea is not based on observation and judgement, and so has no rational basis.

What say you, IDers?

While I embrace and believe in an ancient Earth, and I embrace evolutionary theory, that doesn't really explain where and how life got started or *why* it even exists in the first place.

I don't really see how "life/intelligence/awareness" would necessarily be a "prediction" that pops right out of a non-intelligently designed universe full of random elements and random events.

I might simply expect that all planets would be like Mercury, Mars, the moon, etc without any obvious signs of life. What is life, and how can you be sure that it wasn't "intelligently designed" to start with, even if evolutionary theory applied from that point forward?


“DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.”

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I don't really see how "life/intelligence/awareness" would necessarily be a "prediction" that pops right out of a non-intelligently designed universe full of random elements and random events.

Is that your answer - an argument from incredulity?

“DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.”

That quote is over 22 years old, a lot of molecular genetics water has passed under the bridge since then. I'd be surprised if he still held that view, because current knowledge tells us it isn't really like a computer program.