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

[Loudmouth]

Romans 1:20
New International Version
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

And where are those eternal powers and divine nature?

 

[Radrook]

And where are those eternal powers and divine nature?

There is no excuse for claiming not to perceive them.

 

[Speedwell]

There is no excuse for claiming not to perceive them.

But perceiving them does not guarantee any particular theory of how divine providence is expressed in the material world, even yours.

 

[Radrook]

But perceiving them does not guarantee any particular theory of how divine providence is expressed in the material world, even yours.

Divine Providence? My material world? Please clarify so I can understand exactly what it is that you as an Anglican are striving to prove.

 

[Speedwell]

Divine Providence? My material world? Please clarify so I can understand exactly what it is that you as an Anglican are striving to prove.

That you quote Romans 1:20 as if it validated your particular theory about how God created and sustains the universe. It doesn't.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There is nothing anti-biblical in detecting intelligent design in nature.

How does one detect intelligent design in nature?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

We don't know that nature had a beginning. We only know that our universe had a beginning.

I'ld even dare to say that we don't even really know that the universe had a beginning...
Space-time had a beginning, in the sense that it "started" to expand.
But I don't think that physicists have conclusive evidence that the universe itself "began to exist", as opposed to, for example, just changed in form/state.

Our current knowledge of physics doesn't allow us to "look back" at T = 0... it breaks down at planck time... so how could we know (at this point)?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, I mean the SB of those who cunningly refuse to acknowledge the very obvious compelling indications of intelligent design in nature.

Remind us again, what those indications are, specifically?

A link to a post where you explain it, is fine as well.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Romans 1:20
New International Version
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

That's just a repeat of your claim, that "there are indications".
Loudmouth asked you WHAT those indications are. He didn't ask for a bible verse that basically repeats the empty assertion.

 

[Radrook]

Remind us again, what those indications are, specifically?

A link to a post where you explain it, is fine as well.

Ignoring posts, claiming lack of ability to understand means nothing.
Why not instead meticulously explain exactly how your mindless chemical decided that DNA would need self repair and then went about constructing the means and providing the sequences for that self repair to take place. Also, explain how the DNA was managing BEFORE that repair system magically arose.

 

[Radrook]

That's just a repeat of your claim, that "there are indications".
Loudmouth asked you WHAT those indications are. He didn't ask for a bible verse that basically repeats the empty assertion.

Loudmouth likes to repeatedly repeat and then when explanations are offered to declare total inability to understand and then repeat a request again. Sound familiar? It should since you do the same.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ignoring posts,

What posts? You mean, the one you refuse to link to? Is it a mythical post, by any chance?

If it exists, it should be rather trivial to link to it, I'ld think.
The forum has a very user friendly and efficient search function:

Why not instead meticulously explain exactly how your mindless chemical decided that DNA would need self repair and then went about constructing the means and providing the sequences for that self repair to take place

I don't know. I'm pretty clueless.

Now.... as for your claim concerning the ability to detect intelligent design in nature.... Care to answer the question of how one can do that?

Also, explain how the DNA was managing BEFORE that repair system magically arose.

Why?

I'm not making any claims concerning DNA.
I'm just asking you a question about YOUR claim of being able to detect intelligent design in nature.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Loudmouth likes to repeatedly repeat and then when explanations are offered

When and where were these supposed explanations offered?
A link to a post is fine.

to declare total inability to understand and then repeat a request again. Sound familiar? It should since you do the same.

No, it does not sound familiar.
I don't remember you ever answering the question to explain how one can differentiate design from non-design in nature.

Prove me wrong. Post a link.

 

[Michael]

I'ld even dare to say that we don't even really know that the universe had a beginning...
Space-time had a beginning, in the sense that it "started" to expand.
But I don't think that physicists have conclusive evidence that the universe itself "began to exist", as opposed to, for example, just changed in form/state.

Our current knowledge of physics doesn't allow us to "look back" at T = 0... it breaks down at planck time... so how could we know (at this point)?

You're technically correct, however current theory does predict a "beginning" of all forms of baryonic matter as a result of the bang. No stable form of baryons are thought to even been able to form until it "cooled" enough for that to happen. Our sense of "physical reality" would have begun with the "bang" in big bang theory.

 

[Loudmouth]

There is no excuse for claiming not to perceive them.

Perceive what? Show me?

 

[Loudmouth]

Loudmouth likes to repeatedly repeat and then when explanations are offered to declare total inability to understand and then repeat a request again. Sound familiar? It should since you do the same.

What explanations? A link to a post in this thread will do just fine.

 

[Loudmouth]

Ignoring posts, claiming lack of ability to understand means nothing.

Ignore which posts? Please list a post number.

 

[pat34lee]

How so?

Why is that evidence for intelligent design? Why can't nature produce something complex through natural processes?

DNA is self-checking, self-repairing, self-copying, and if it is damaged beyond repair, can self-destruct. It can replace missing data. Think what it must have been like before a few thousand years of degeneration, when there were giants and man lived to a thousand years.

Natural processes are limited. That's why scientists looking for intelligence are looking for simple things. A straight line, a series of numbers or other repeating pattern. Kind of like you find in DNA.

 

[pat34lee]

I'ld even dare to say that we don't even really know that the universe had a beginning...

2nd LOT. Follow it backwards.
At some point there was 100% energy and no entropy.
The beginning.

Not to mention the fact that there are no true infinities
in space time. If there were an infinite past, you would
never reach the current time.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

2nd LOT. Follow it backwards.
At some point there was 100% energy and no entropy.
The beginning.

That's the beginning of space-time. ie, the beginning of the expansion of the universe.
Following it backwards, we hit a wall at planck time.

The universe exists at planck time.
Hence, the expansion of space-time is a state change of an already existing universe.

Not to mention the fact that there are no true infinities
in space time

Not INSIDE space-time. We don't know about "outside" of space-time. Quotes, because we don't even know if the concept of "outside" of space-time is even sensible.

If there were an infinite past, you would never reach the current time.

There is no infinite past. Space-time had a beginning at T = 0.
Time is a property OF the expanding universe.