Evolutionry/religious nonsense

Is there a difference between observing all isotopes at the same energy level interact exactly the same and assuming they all act the same when you aren't looking? And then, based on that assumption, developing laws of physics that we accept as nearly factual all the time?

The ID crowd has been preaching a form of Theistic evolution and "controlled ecosystems" that were tools used by this undefined Intelligence. In reality, using an Occams Razorly approach, the simplest explanation is random mutation and nat selection of life to its unplannable changing environment

In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result; the preference for simplicity in the scientific method is based on the falsifiability criterion. For each accepted explanation of a phenomenon, there may be an extremely large, perhaps even incomprehensible, number of possible and more complex alternatives. Since one can always burden failing explanations with ad hoc hypotheses to prevent them from being falsified, simpler theories are preferable to more complex ones because they are more testable.[3][4][5]

....the pattern we observe today.....

Random mutations cannot introduce the new information accurately enough in the right sequence.

You will never be able to replicate a being with similar but much greater capabilities than our own. (abiogenis will not happen in a lab until we get better at managing information going into any experiment trying to prove it.) To assume the pattern we establish when we add new information to the universe would be similar to the way a being with capabilities greater than ours is compatible with Occam's razor because it is the simplest explanation that fits the pattern.

It's the obvious 'thought' of an ID-er faced with the 'complexity beyond human understanding' problem.
You are irrational because the implied sophistication of your hypothetical 'designer' is negated by the wastefulness of the 'design process'.
You can't have it both ways. Either there is no 'design' in the only sense we can understand i.e. 'intelligence', or your 'designer' is no more 'intelligent' than a problem solver using 'trial and error', which could be a description for 'mutation based natural evolution'.

Looks like the process is working pretty good.

By what kind of definition are you claiming "the process is working pretty good?" There is no "intelligent designer."

Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.[1][2] Evolutionary processes give rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules.[3]

Re: brianjakub (Post 6627690)
Quote:

Quote:

Random mutations cannot introduce the new information accurately enough in the right sequence.

Qnd you know this HOW?

If one mutation doesnt p[provide a list of re productively preferred advantages over something else, Natural selection will fix it in place and perhaps additional mutations will get it even closer to something "Thatll work".

Evolution does NOT seek perfection, it merely provides somethong like one of three folks who are being chased by a bear. "I dont have to outrun the bear, I have only to outrun you". Of all the options presented by mutations , nat selection merely picks the one that works better and proffers an advantage to the carrier. This then gets spread through the population as a benefit .

It’s the result of the environment that produced the life forms on this planet. This planet existed for 4.5 billion years before Homo sapiens appeared around 200,000 yo. Your god appeared only 2,000 years ago. Somewhat late on the scene, because your god was imagined by men living in the land of Jews, and they determined they were the “chosen” people.