Intelligent Design

Woud you change your position if you saw the evidence? I think not.
I have, on several occasions, and in other posts proved that not only is there no god, but proved there cant be a god or we and this universe would not be here. Unfortunatley, and even though I have emperical evidence to show this, I'm afraid you will not believe it in that you are mandated by christian tenets to accept his existance in the face of over whelming evidence to the contrary; such is the nature of your faith. So to offer the evidence would be moot.
As for no proof that man is older than 6k years, how do you explain things in man's biological make up that could only be from a very long evolution? If I was "Inteligently Created" how do you account for my appendix? Or my coxsis?
Also, if god is omnipotant (and he must be, to be god) why did it take six days (or 6 thousand by some accounts) to affect creation? Why not in the blink of an eye? It certainly would have been more efficient and economical as well as logical.

You sit firmly upon your mocker's seat and insult the intellect of all who confront your ideal.
I don't believe in death.
I haven't argued about your God - I know this to be futile.
I simply confronted your stance on scientific dating.
The bible declares no timespan to its events, the 4,009bc shite was born to a bored victorian who added the ages of its characters.
You are a typical christian protagonist with his head up his anus.

God bless you brother.

Agreed!

I have nothing against anyone AND do agree that we all should be civil to each other --this is a great concept--Even Jesus said to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Now that is actually a pretty courteous way of life.

My Fellow Posters,

I feel your sincere and authentic response. I do apologize for offending any of you: I understand with all humility that you both, I am sure, have a higher IQ than I and I am the first to admit that I am not a scientist. Therefore, I do applauded you for the research and the hard work you both have put into arriving at the conclusions you have; however, I cannot agree with either of those conclusions simply based on my personal experience.

What you said is correct: Even if you showed me your data I could not believe that there is no God simply because I have personal evidence to the contrary.

I understand that there are many "Christians" that believe simply for the sake of the "faith" but I am not one of these. I have experienced miraculous happenings in my life that can only be attributed to God and not to circumstance or science. I am a live still when I should have been dead several times over.

I don't look down upon you for not believing in GOD--I just simply will pray to GOD and have faith that He will reveal Himself to you in infallible proofs that cannot be denied.

I would be willing to bet that what you define as "evidence" would not be considered scientifically valid, and therefor, not really "evidence" in any functional sense. What you really have are "experiences" which have satisfied your level of scrutiny, but have not passed the level of scrutiny required by science.

Rosborne,

Thanks for your comment--It was the medical profession that actually called it divine. "A higher power has done this."

The doctor involved said that I should not be alive by any stretch of the imagination--even science cannot explain this one.

I understand that we all have doubts about many things; however, I would say try to over look your scientific data for a few moments and try to communicate with that supposed Higher Power -as if there were really a God. I think you might be surprised at the results.

I am not sure if you have children or not but if you do how can you measure the love that you have for that child or children? The child may not even understand in totality the sacrifices that you make for him/her or the love that you have for him/her but you know. How can you quantify that love?

I was right, that's definitely not considered "evidence" by any stretch of the imagination.


Just because people have emotions doesn't mean that the world is full of the supernatural. And allowing yourself to overlook facts in an attempt to believe what you want to believe is merely the pathway to delusion. It's not a revelation.

The world is beautiful all the more because it is natural rather than supernatural.

Well, I suppose you can believe what you want but that does not make it true or correct--at least that is what my College professor told me when I failed the mid-term exam.

From where do you suppose emotions, love or feelings originated?
Did they come from an ameba?
Did Mr. Monkey provide them?
Did the Lion pass them on to us?
If this were true, this would be a very senseless existence.

How is it that this natural works so well in harmony? Was that also a result of a big bang explosion and everything just came together in perfect form?

Every time I have seen explosions they have cause a disaster not a perfect orderly existence.

Even you all know that it makes no sense. Why do you believe this? You just cannot come to telling yourself that perhaps there is a GOD and I do have a responsibility to HIM?

lots of emotions and empthy and concern for others , results from the excretion of stuff like serotonin and oxytocin. (look em up and see what they can do in tandem)

Also, the term "Bang" is a sort of euphemism of expansion .

thanks for the clarification --I always wondered how something so beautiful could come from such a disaster.

The only thing I believe is in the philosophy of naturalism and that everything is not just a dream.


Emotions come from our brains. This may be disappointing to you, but it's been demonstrated and proven well beyond any reasonable doubt.

The way I see the world, things in nature are not imposed on it from the outside by an external supernatural force. Instead, all the physics and structures are built into the natural aspect of the Universe, and everything evolves naturally from those rules and structures.


The assumption I start with is that there is no GOD (naturalistic philosophy), so unless something within reality demonstrates that a GOD exists, then GOD does not. And at present, there is absolutely nothing that indicates that any type of supernatural GOD exists. Not only that, but throughout history all the arguments for such an entity have been superseded by superior explanations which match what we observe in nature.

I appreciate your sincerity. You really do come across as having it all summed up; the only thing that you don't include in this physical is that science has NOT proven that there is no GOD.

Read this article that was in Time magazine in April of this year::



Why Science Does Not Disprove God

Amir D. Aczel
April 27, 2014

Biology, physics, mathematics, engineering and medicine help us understand the world, but there is much about life that remains a mystery.

A number of recent books and articles would have you believe that—somehow—science has now disproved the existence of God. We know so much about how the universe works, their authors claim, that God is simply unnecessary: we can explain all the workings of the universe without the need for a Creator.

And indeed, science has brought us an immense amount of understanding. The sum total of human knowledge doubles roughly every couple of years or less. In physics and cosmology, we can now claim to know what happened to our universe as early as a tiny fraction of a second after the Big Bang, something that may seem astounding. In chemistry, we understand the most complicated reactions among atoms and molecules, and in biology we know how the living cell works and have mapped out our entire genome. But does this vast knowledge base disprove the existence of some kind of pre-existent outside force that may have launched our universe on its way?

Science won major victories against entrenched religious dogma throughout the 19th century. In the 1800s, discoveries of Neanderthal remains in Belgium, Gibraltar and Germany showed that humans were not the only hominids to occupy earth, and fossils and remains of now extinct animals and plants further demonstrated that flora and fauna evolve, live for millennia and then sometimes die off, ceding their place on the planet to better-adapted species. These discoveries lent strong support to the then emerging theory of evolution, published by Charles Darwin in 1859. And in 1851, Leon Foucault, a self-trained French physicist, proved definitively that earth rotates—rather than staying in place as the sun revolved around it—using a special pendulum whose circular motion revealed the planet’s rotation. Geological discoveries made over the same century devastated the “young earth” hypothesis. We now know that earth is billions, not thousands, of years old, as some theologians had calculated based on counting generations back to the biblical Adam. All of these discoveries defeated literal interpretations of Scripture.

But has modern science, from the beginning of the 20th century, proved that there is no God, as some commentators now claim? Science is an amazing, wonderful undertaking: it teaches us about life, the world and the universe. But it has not revealed to us why the universe came into existence nor what preceded its birth in the Big Bang. Biological evolution has not brought us the slightest understanding of how the first living organisms emerged from inanimate matter on this planet and how the advanced eukaryotic cells—the highly structured building blocks of advanced life forms—ever emerged from simpler organisms. Neither does it explain one of the greatest mysteries of science: how did consciousness arise in living things? Where do symbolic thinking and self-awareness come from? What is it that allows humans to understand the mysteries of biology, physics, mathematics, engineering and medicine? And what enables us to create great works of art, music, architecture and literature? Science is nowhere near to explaining these deep mysteries.

But much more important than these conundrums is the persistent question of the fine-tuning of the parameters of the universe: Why is our universe so precisely tailor-made for the emergence of life? This question has never been answered satisfactorily, and I believe that it will never find a scientific solution. For the deeper we delve into the mysteries of physics and cosmology, the more the universe appears to be intricate and incredibly complex. To explain the quantum-mechanical behavior of even one tiny particle requires pages and pages of extremely advanced mathematics. Why are even the tiniest particles of matter so unbelievably complicated? It appears that there is a vast, hidden “wisdom,” or structure, or knotty blueprint for even the most simple-looking element of nature. And the situation becomes much more daunting as we expand our view to the entire cosmos.

We know that 13.7 billion years ago, a gargantuan burst of energy, whose nature and source are completely unknown to us and not in the least understood by science, initiated the creation of our universe. Then suddenly, as if by magic, the “God particle”—the Higgs boson discovered two years ago inside CERN’s powerful particle accelerator, the Large Hadron Collider—came into being and miraculously gave the universe its mass. Why did this happen? The mass constituted elementary particles—the quarks and the electron—whose weights and electrical charges had to fall within immeasurably tight bounds for what would happen next. For from within the primeval soup of elementary particles that constituted the young universe, again as if by a magic hand, all the quarks suddenly bunched in threes to form protons and neutrons, their electrical charges set precisely to the exact level needed to attract and capture the electrons, which then began to circle nuclei made of the protons and neutrons. All of the masses, charges and forces of interaction in the universe had to be in just the precisely needed amounts so that early light atoms could form. Larger ones would then be cooked in nuclear fires inside stars, giving us carbon, iron, nitrogen, oxygen and all the other elements that are so essential for life to emerge. And eventually, the highly complicated double-helix molecule, the life-propagating DNA, would be formed.

Why did everything we need in order to exist come into being? How was all of this possible without some latent outside power to orchestrate the precise dance of elementary particles required for the creation of all the essentials of life? The great British mathematician Roger Penrose has calculated—based on only one of the hundreds of parameters of the physical universe—that the probability of the emergence of a life-giving cosmos was 1 divided by 10, raised to the power 10, and again raised to the power of 123. This is a number as close to zero as anyone has ever imagined. (The probability is much, much smaller than that of winning the Mega Millions jackpot for more days than the universe has been in existence.)

The scientific atheists have scrambled to explain this troubling mystery by suggesting the existence of a multiverse—an infinite set of universes, each with its own parameters. In some universes, the conditions are wrong for life; however, by the sheer size of this putative multiverse, there must be a universe where everything is right. But if it takes an immense power of nature to create one universe, then how much more powerful would that force have to be in order to create infinitely many universes? So the purely hypothetical multiverse does not solve the problem of God. The incredible fine-tuning of the universe presents the most powerful argument for the existence of an immanent creative entity we may well call God. Lacking convincing scientific evidence to the contrary, such a power may be necessary to force all the parameters we need for our existence—cosmological, physical, chemical, biological and cognitive—to be what they are.

Science and religion are two sides of the same deep human impulse to understand the world, to know our place in it, and to marvel at the wonder of life and the infinite cosmos we are surrounded by. Let’s keep them that way, and not let one attempt to usurp the role of the other.






science has the easy part, we just proceed as if no god exists. You have the hard part, you must prove that he does.

Simple enough--

Let me ask you this Farmerman--you do come across as an intelligent guy:

Would you believe in GOD if a miracle were to come pass in your life? For example, suppose a loved one had a terminal diseases and the medical profession had given up on that individual. And then lo and behold a person comes along and prays for your loved one asking God to heal your loved one--and suddenly (or even over a period of time) without medicine or any help from the doctors the individual is healed completely and continues to live despite what science and the medical profession say?

Just asking...

Id be very happy were this to happen of course. Would I automatically run to church and light a candle of thanks?? Id have to really be shown some evidence that there was no other reasonable scientific explanation.

Defaulting to divine intervention IS quite easy but its hard to draw anything useful out of it so we could help others.


By the way, Seventh Day Adventists,Pentacostal Snake Handlers,Jehovah's WItnesses , Dukhabors,and Christian SCientists have all been doing this and their track records aint too good.

I agree ; however, what I am really saying is that if you experience it first hand you would be more inclined to believe in GOD...not necessarily run to church and light a candle-- religion aside--just believe in God for the unexplainable happenings?

Of course not. Science doesn't function that way. All science does is give us a methodology for offering naturalistic theories which match the empirical evidence around us.

It wouldn't make any sense for science to be used to disprove things which are assumed to not exist by default (which is why it's a naturalistic methodology), that would be outside of its philosophical basis.

From within science, the supernatural doesn't exist. God doesn't exist. Magic doesn't exist. There are a billion billion magical ideas and supernatural entities which are simply dismissed by default because the basis of science is naturalism. If someone wants an idea to be accepted as a scientific reality, then it's up to THEM to prove it scientifically, not the other way around.

Anyone who is trying to prove that God doesn't exist isn't doing science.

There is nothing intelligent about human design. Human design in the product of millions of years of PRACTICAL evolutionary desingn.

Intelligent design implies that we were somehow put in here, in this world, suddenly, and for some porpouse. And denies the posibility that the rest of the designs of the such called creation are also intelligent. This is ridiculous.

Other species hace incredibly intelligent designs that made them in some way even more prepared than us to survive our enviroment. Roaches for example could survive a nuclear war and repopulate this world with a new type of life form. Humen beens and their CONCEPTS of god will end.

I read a terrible miss conception in the initial post. That why hasn´t human beens evolved on the 6000 years of former civilization. It denotes an obvious lack of idea about how natural selection and evolution works. This takes hundreds of tousand to millions of years to occur. What had been happening during this 6000 thousand years of human civilization is the selection of genes that are more likely to survive to our next generations. Not the development of a new species.

Returning to the subject human design is practical. Evolution selected the best most succesful qualities to create an species that could survive and thrive. Even our inteligence is a product of such practical natural experiments. We are intelligent because it increases our chances to survive. Imagine the last ice age, the hairy mammoths thrived and conquered almost the whole world, the end of the ice age started the dweling of a huge group of their species. They couldn´t on the span of a few tousand years loose their hair completely. Their only related species the african elephant and the asian elephant survived because they alerady lacked their coats of hair.

But what this has to do with humans? If a human group is threatened with a nice age it will hunt and realize that if he covers his body with the skin of a hairy animal he can protect himself from he weather, and when the ice age ended the human just needed to throw away the furs. We detect a patern, understand it and adapt to it. That is why we developed intelligence, is the way it created an species that could survive fast changes and still thrive.

Why we walk in two feet, why we have two free arms, why we have our eyes in the front of our head, it was just because it happened to be that the best suited animal to develop intelligent was a chimp like (i am not saying it was a chimp it was just similar) was in the correct ecosystem with the correct package of genes in the correct moment of time with the correct amount of food. It thrived and it worked.

Other animal are stunningly smart but sometimes we are so selfcentered to notice.

I personally belive in pantheism. Einstein belived in it too. This universe this natural laws this structure of the matter, it was not created by a superior been playing dice just because he feel like it. Theres a beauty in the structure of nature, of biology, on astrophysics that in more marvelous and more breathtaking than whata book wrote by men and for men.

If we want to read the real creation we better look at the fision in the stars, the ionic unions in our dna, the experiments on the supercollider.

Luismtzzz,

Without trying to sound abrasive I believe that you are lowering your self to nothing more than an evolved ameba over eons of time. What you are telling me is that your father was not as intelligent as you are and therefore your great grandpa must have been even less intelligent than your father. According to your logic, how were the humans over 22,000,000 years ago--were they walking erect or were they slumped over like the chimpanzee? Or does this pre-date that? I never have heard of a civilization that was in existence 22,000,000 years ago.

As I stated earlier, you have the right to believe anything you so well choose but that does not make it correct. You say you are a pantheist --how do you account for the origin of the natural beauty of which you worship? Is there not a Creator of it all or is it just all by circumstance?

All science aside, if you were to believe in a GOD out side of nature, as the Intelligent Designer, then you would have a responsibility to change your life-style and your debased concept of how life came into existence. This is not something that most of us want to do. We want to be able to believe whatever we so well wish and speak with such authority that it is correct. Not a single one of you people have seen any evidence that an ameba changed into a human being. This is the biggest lie around and to think that you fell for it.

'You look and act so smart. I just hope science can save you when you die and leave this physical world.

I am very well versed on the theological concepts. I come form a very religious culture that teaches children since young age the ways of god. Anyway i prefer science as the explanation for our universe. And god as the source of hope.

It is really you the one who should become more informed about scientific theories. First, it is considered that Homo neanderthalis and Homo sapiens diverged about 500000 years ago. 22 millions years ago was the cenozoic era, especifically Miocene. There were no humans on that period.

I never stated that i am smarter tha my father or than my grandfather. What has been selected is the genes that had more posibilities to survive. Intelligence is not acumulative. Human beens are as smart as they where 500000 years ago. What caused our species succes was the small techonological progress we had made each geenration. Slowly we had developed a huge civilization in an small amount of time.

We, humans, are a evolutionary succes of millions of years of evolution. WE didn´t evolved from an amoeba, that is as wrong as stating that we evolved from a chimp. But millions of years ago there was a unicelular criature similar to an amoeba that lived in a community. Some of those had genes that find out that multiple cells working togheter had more chances to survive and created the first multicelular organisms. But other group specialized in unicelular survival. Those are modern protozoans. You will never see a human been comming from an amoeba, that is ridiculous.

I strongly recommend at least you see the Cosmos series. It is a good introduction to all this information that can be very eye opening. From there is easy to start learnig about what science has to say.