Then what do you or he (or anyone) actually have as a default?

If scientists have concluded the universe was the result of a "big bang" and naturally proceeded from there to evolve intelligent life.. what do they attribute that to? Billy said it was not "accident" at one point, so I am not clear what he thinks it is if it is not an accident, or a purposeful act. The only word I could get out of him was "natural" but I don't know what he means by that.

Saying that it is just a "natural process" for an explosion to occur in the middle of 'nothing' and evolve to intelligent life is equally illogical as saying that "God did it."

Also saying "We just don't know." begs the question why they would balk at every idea towards an intentional intelligent design. If they don't have any evidence for or against anything else, what's their beef? Do they think it 'ignorant' to speculate a solution?

Or are they just in a battle against the dogma of religious ideology and can't find a clear path to unbiased thinking?

If they want to claim that they have no position on it at all, then how can they carry on an argument if they have no position on the true solution?

I don't have a default. There is no evidence of intelligent design anywhere, which should actually be the easiest to prove in my opinion, so that is the only one that I can discount fairly easily.

Outside of that there are endless possibilities that I cannot discount yet.

The reason that intelligent design has been so "investigated" is because of our religious background. It put the thought into people's heads from a young age. It has been taught as "the" only way to think of it so many are stuck at that level from exposure.

There is belief of it that runs deep, there is conviction that proof will be there and intention that what is there is proof.

None of which is scientific proof nor verification of any kind.

This whole thread was about proof of intelligent design or lack there of.

I believe it has been proven that there is definitely a lack.

If you don't have a default position then you are in no position to argue the point. There is evidence of intelligent design EVERYWHERE.

There are scientists cloning animals, smashing particles creating mini big bangs, there are designs and designers everywhere you look.

The problem with those who cannot see it is that they are still looking for "a supreme deity or creator" that did it all. You will NOT find that. That is the dogma of religion and it is clouding YOUR thinking.

We are both the design and the designers. There is adequate proof of that. We are the intelligent designers. We design with purpose and intent. We will one day create universes and design DNA and clone humans and seed worlds. Hell we have already started.

It's just not a good option and lacks any reason to accept it over the null.


That's quite incorrect. Irreducible complexity was heralded as proof of ID. It took several years before we found that nothing was irreducibly complex. Again, the Dover Kitzmiller trial has a lot of information about this.

If you're going to talk in science terms "hypothesis" would be more appropriate. Scientific theories are, in layman's terms, proven. Scientifically all things remain open to criticism but on the basis of evidence, not "I don't want to believe that so I'll fight it forever."

If you want to believe that the Earth is flat you have every right to do so but it's not okay for you to complain that other people don't even consider it a possibility and that they have no evidence otherwise when they have brought up how we've seen the Earth from space and that you can sail around the whole thing and so forth.

By the founders' of ID's stance the Earth and all life upon it have been designed and natural evolution has at least been interrupted by having complex systems inserted into organisms. By their less implied stance the sun, moon, and all the lights in the sky were also designed by the same designer.
The admitted duration of this designer's involvement is left unanswered but the uncovered view would be that it is still intervening to this day.

From JB's stance the designer is a psychic network that all things connect into and that had at least enough capability to kick start the first organic life and makes ALL adjustments to life.

Sky seems to be more of the first variety with some "reality is imaginary" solipsism thrown in.

Well if you want to go with what the big bang actually says the hydrogen and helium would have started out evenly spaced and none of it really ever travels more than half the distance between it and the closest stars in every direction. Supernovae are about the only thing that sends anything on longer trips than that but those things are mostly the heavier elements I think you're going to talk about next.

Well no, we need other stars to fuse those and then later toss us the things like silicone and oxygen and carbon. Silicate materials make up most rocks while carbon- well, it can make things other than life but life has grabbed up so much of it as to have a near monopoly on carbon use. And you know more or less what we use oxygen for.

I'd say the last couple of hundred years when people started viewing God as a watchmaker with the universe metaphorically ticking away on it's own after having been wound up.

...but I'm clearly not who you were talking to with this stuff and I don't think the "man created God in the fictional sense" stuff would really fly with them. I thought I'd just insert some emphasis and redirect a few things.

Nope, it lacks the "what steps got you there?" stuff I've asked for~

But ya, it pretty well concludes any conversation we could have with him.

No, I'm letting you use your definition. It's meaningless but if you want to say that nothing in existence is anything but ordered you're free to. I can juggle hundreds of different rule sets and play within any particular one without any problem.

If disorder does not exist anywhere you're usinga word with a meaning but that meaning has nothing to do with anything in our universe so it's pointless to say anything about it.

So can you give me words that describe the difference between a castle built out of legos and legos scattered about all over the place from what was basically just un-aimed destructive force?

An argument from ridicule is when you say something is wrong just because it sounds ridiculous. This is not a valid way to argue that something is wrong because what sounds ridiculous only has any basis in reality to the extent that we already understand it. The logic behind it isn't any better than saying that an argument is wrong because the person who made the argument has sex with barnyard animals- that probably has nothing to do with their argument and is just a distraction.

If you'd like some more introduction to fallacies and why they don't work for arguments try this site: http://www.goodart.org/fallazoo.htm

Occam's Razor gives us the default. It is not always significantly better than the alternatives but if you cannot provide any reason the alternatives are better it is not appropriate to just claim that they are.

The very first time you find the tiniest little thing that does not fit with the default you need to rework the default to compensate it, if you can think of a way to do so.

...basically think of the default as a plain cube of clay. When you see anything that says that should not be the shape you can whittle away some of the clay and if you keep looking you should eventually complete the sculpture. We are just asking that you start with the basic and then work up to the complex and tell us why you take the steps that lead you there.

Again with the invisible pink unicorn: if I can't see it or feel it or touch or hear it or any sign of it how could i have become so convinced it was there in the first place? "I feel there must be a pink unicorn there" is kind of a crappy reason because I've felt that my sister must have misplaced my comb when she didn't so right off the bat I know that my intuition can be wrong. My intuition is usually a good first thing to check but a long time ago I stopped being surprised when my first guess didn't automatically give me the right answer.

I can see you are passionate about your belief but there is still no proof of intelligent design. Everything you mentioned here gave no proof of intelligent design

I told you that you were in agreement with me.

However, where you seem to be totally misguided is in the totally erroneous conclusion that 'happenstance' = null.

Null = "We don't know and can't say one way or the other"

Null does not equal support for atheism.

That's a total abuse and misuse of science that atheists are attemtping to lay claim to.

It's a misrepresentation and it's utterly false!



Occam's Razor doesn't even apply here!

It can't!

Occam's Razor refers to the simplest explanation.

The reason why Occam's Razor doesn't apply here is because happenstance doesn't "explain".

On the contrary what is observed flies in the face of happenstance.

Therefore attempting to use Occam's Razor in this situation only shows that you don't even understand Occam's Razor.

Occam's Razor doesn't just say, "Well, if you can't figure out just call it happenstance."

I hope your not a scientist.

You don't even seem to grasp the most fundamental ideas of even Occam's Razor.



Well, even if you wanted to start with the conjecture of "happenstance" as your 'cube', you'd end up with a puddle of goop by the time you look at all the evidence.

That's my whole point.

The conjecture (or hypothesis) of "happenstance" doesn't stand up in the face of the evidence.

It'd doesn't "explain", on the contrary it's doesn't fit the picture at all. You have to bend over backward to assume that most freakest rare happenstance event ever concocted.

That's not happenstance "explaining" anything. That's just refusing to recognize that an assumption of happenstance doesn't even begin to fit the data.

So you're arguments here aren't even close to being supported even by the very examples that you're giving.



But why are you always coming up with these 'invisible' silly ideas?

We do have observable measurable evidence that strongly suggests that happenstance can't explain.

Therefore it's prefectly reasonable to consider that something other than happenstance must be in the mix.

I honestly don't care what your own personal beliefs are on this. But your reference to Occam's Razor, doesn't fit this scencario because Happenstance does not explain what we see!

Occam's Razor merely says that once you've got a simple explanation that works there's no need to make it any more complex.

But happenstance doesn't explain it in the first place. So Occam's Razor can't even be applied here.

Hey! If happenstance fit the data and looked like a reasonable explanation I'd jump on it myself!

I have no agenda to do anything other than seek TRUTH.

But happenstance does not explain the odds! On the contrary for this unviverse to be happenstance we'd have to assume that it's is the freakiest happenstance event we have EVER encountered!

In fact, if we accept this universe as mere 'happenstance' then why even bother with science at all? Why not just chalk up everything to happenstance?

Science and mathematics do not support happenstance as a reasonble explanation, and because of this, Occam's Razor can't even be applied.

You need to first have a reasonable explanation before you can apply Occam's Razor.

What you're talking about here is a gross abuse and misrepresentation of scientific ideas.

Science does not support a conclusion of happenstance.

That's just not true.

Proof is a always a matter of agreement nothing more. It is proof for me. In fact it is obvious to me. It is glaringly obvious to me. It is self evident to me.

You cannot deny that we (mankind)are designers. You cannot refute that we are smashing particles and creating mini "big bangs." You cannot refute that we are cloning animals (and probably humans too.) You cannot refute that there are scientists currently working on genetic programming and design, and mapping our DNA.

Where do you think this kind of design is going? Where will it be in the next... 1000 years?

All of this in the very short time it took us to evolve from primates. What is it about this that is not proof to you? I am really curious. What kind of Proof are you looking for? Exactly what would be proof to you if anything would be. Please indulge me. What are you looking for?

Who ever said "happenstance" was the only other option or said it was an option anyway?

Intelligent design or "happenstance" (abras word here) are the only two options available?

Intelligent design doesn't negate "happenstance" anyway. "Happenstance" doesn't negate intelligent design either.

I have yet to see scientific proof that proves intelligent design on this thread or any thread yet.

Scientifically I would love to hear who creates the intelligent designer and who creates that intelligent designer into infinite. Or who creates the intelligent designers if there are more than one and who created those intelligent designers into infinite.

So that should be the challenge, if you believe in intelligent design, where/what/who is the origin of the designer/s?

Who asked for proof? I thought we were talking about 'evidence'?

Where's the proof that there is no designer?

If there is no proof of that, then why should that be the default conclusion?

All I'm saying is that it's just as reasonable to believe in either one, and science doesn't favor one over the other.

Although, I did give my scientific-based reasons for why I feel that there is more evidence for intelligent design than for happenstance.



If you believe in the orderly laws of physics then where/what/who is the origin of them?

What's the difference? Either way we're stuck with having to guess.

So any guess is just as good as any other.

That's the real point!

No guess holds any more merit than any other guess.

I would answer your questions but you have not answered mine yet.

WHAT KIND OF PROOF WOULD IT TAKE TO CONVINCE YOU THERE ARE INTELLIGENT DESIGNERS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS REALITY / UNIVERSE?

If that is true that no guess holds more merit, then what the hell have you been trying to prove here?

I haven't been trying to prove anything so I did not provide proof of anything.

I just watched for proof of intelligent design which is what this thread was started for. Which there hasn't even been the "reasonable" evidence that you claimed so far.

You keep talking of default but you are the only one utilizing default as evidence.

I disagree about occam'razor. With all things being equal the simplest answer is going to be the right one. The simplest answer for the universe beginning is that it all started at a molecular level with an energy catalyst.

Because there is motion, there is energy. The energy in atoms is motion. Motion is the catalyst for a lot of things. So all an intelligent designer would have had to do was gently push something and start motion. Then lay back and let nature takes it's course.

Now I am not a scholar and noone told me this. It is a self observation.

Scientifically I would love to hear who creates the intelligent designer and who creates that intelligent designer into infinite. Or who creates the intelligent designers if there are more than one and who created those intelligent designers into infinite.

Exactly.

This whole argument is the same as an argument about the religious idea of the existence of God.

A: "Prove he exists."

B: "Prove he does not exist."

A: "The burden of proof is on you to prove he exists."

Blah Blah Blah etc etc. etc.....

But as Abra pointed out "proof" was not asked for in this thread, only evidence of a designer. And we are not talking about God, we are talking about something else. Intelligent design. Big difference.

So please don't assume this (intelligent design) is the same age old argument about the existence of a "Creator God" and start demanding proof of that. That is what you have turned it into. Try to get out of that mindset and forget about a "creator God."

Accept what we show you as evidence and tell us why it is NOT proof of intelligent design. Don't just say "I do not see the evidence."

Tell me why the evidence I present is not evidence. You cannot refute the existence of design in this world and you cannot refute the existence of designers in this world. You cannot deny that our scientists today are beginning to get into genetic engineering, DNA mapping, cloning, particle smashing, looking for 'black holes' etc.

Where do you think all of this is going? Why do you think religion and science are at odds with each other? Probably because religions want us to believe that we are powerless pathetic creatures who must grovel at the feet of an almighty God, and scientists are "playing GOD" or transforming themselves into designers of worlds and creatures and even human bodies. (clones)

"Hearing" the answer would not be "proof." You would need more proof than than to call it "proof."

All you are asking is the age old question "If God created us, then who created God?"

To understand "the infinite" is quite a different matter. It would get into multi-dimensional realities. Universes within other universes etc. .. these things can only be vaguely imagined. The human consciousness can't comprehend infinity. This is where you may have to raise your consciousness to another level. If you can't do that, try some LSD or other "mind expanding" drugs. Thats all I can suggest.

LOL, that did not answer anything.

My mind doesn't need mind altering drugs to expand...lol People fool themselves into believing that drugs help them in this area...lol

Have you ever seen the Movie "Contact" staring Jodie Foster?

Your answer about the designers is in that movie.

You can expand your consciousness without drugs, but if you can't do that, you can use drugs. I personally would not use drugs.

No it's not, even the designers in that movie did not know who the designers of them were...lol They said it was just the way it had always been done.

They did not know who the ultimate designer was. The first. But their designers were the same as they are. They also did not know who the ultimate designer is. ...and so on.

That my dear, is the nature of the universe and of infinity.

Infinity is the key. Nobody understands that. Sorry. I can't help you there.

INFINITY IS THE KEY.

The infinity symbol.

If you follow the path it will lead you right back to where you started.


This means the YOU are the ONE.

Infinite is the key to what? Intelligent design?

If there was an intelligent designer for this universe, in my opinion, it would be the easiest thing to prove. Because it would be obvious that it is there. Not obvious to a few or some but to all. The obvious in this world is that molecular similarities show that the secret to the universe is molecular, simple, not complex, like a designer would be.

But if a person believes in a designer or designers they had best be prepared to know where their designers come from because it is a valid question. Creation starts from the beginning not the middle.