Peterken05

this is your problem

What is my problem; you asked me a question and I answered you. You can't provide a response and you are pointing fingers

'God is the un-caused first cause, not created, outside time and
space and eternal. So, God can't be created because creation
started with Him. If you want proof, I can provide one.'

You asked me a question, I provided an answer and you can't respond accordingly so you are trying to side-step

are we still talking science here?

Of course, I can scientifically draw conclusions that our universe has an intelligent design. If you are willing to challenge my responses; I will engage you.

Asking you to show proof is synonymous to asking you to preach.

Cha, I am dealing with another evolutionist. Listen, there are only two outcomes here:

1. Either our universe is eternal and never had a beginning i.e. it existed eternally
2. Either our universe is not eternal and does have a beginning i.e. it was created or came about in some-way

Now, from the above; which is more scientific? Whilst you are looking that up, please refer to the KALAM Cosmological Argument. I will particularly appreciate if you could throw some light on the argument and if it's scientific

Would reply your mention later, alexis

No shaking, I am waiting for your response.

alexis, sorry for replying late, have been busy lately.

before we go further, what is science?

Science is a particular way of knowing about the world. In science, explanations are restricted to those that can be inferred from the confirmable data – the results obtained through observations and experiments that can be substantiated by other scientists. Anything that can be observed or measured is amenable to scientific investigation. Explanations that cannot be based upon empirical evidence are not part of science

Intelligent Design advocates’ hostility towards naturalism and desire to replace it with supernatural speculation received detailed analysis so it is not science because of the following reasons;

1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation;

(2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980’s; and

(3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community.


now back to intelligent design itself,

so you are telling me someone designed everything.

you think The inner solar system is a shooting gallery. And look how long it took for multicellular life to evolve—3.5 billion years! Obviously not a good design. Then there are the earthquakes, volcanoes, floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, tsunamis that we experience on this planet. who designed this shit.

And consider all the natural diseases. Lukemia, hemophilia, sickle cell anemia, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, and ALS. The list goes on and on. But that’s not all. Our limited human vision system can only perceive a narrow band of the entire electromagnetic spectrum. what about others? who designed our eyes not to see others?

We have to eat constantly because we’re warm-blooded. So we’re always looking for food. And what about carbon monoxide? You can’t smell it or taste, but you breath it in and “your dead.”

This is all simply stupid design. The problem is, if you look for what is intelligent, and yes you can find some things that are really beautiful, and really—“hey, that’s clever,” such as the ball-socket of the shoulder. There are a lot of things you can point to, but then you stop looking at all the things that confound that revelation. And so, if I came upon a frozen waterfall, and it just struck me for all its beauty, I would then turn over the rock and try to find a millipede, or some kind of deadly newt, and put that in context, and realize, of course, the universe is not here for us
And so the final verdict: “No engineer would design that, at all

Peterken05

alexis, sorry for replying late, have been busy lately.

No shaking, it happens

before we go further, what is science?

Science is a particular way of knowing about the world. In science, explanations are restricted to those that can be inferred from the confirmable data – the results obtained through observations and experiments that can be substantiated by other scientists. Anything that can be observed or measured is amenable to scientific investigation. Explanations that cannot be based upon empirical evidence are not part of science

You are referring to natural science and I agree with you

Intelligent Design advocates’ hostility towards naturalism and desire to replace it with supernatural speculation received detailed analysis so it is not science because of the following reasons;

1). ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation;

(2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980’s; and

(3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community.

You seem to be mixing Intelligent Design with Religion. Intelligent design is a scientific theory just the same way you have the theory of evolution. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an un-directed process such as natural selection. You raised several points but yet never supported them in anyway. Let me break it down for you:

1. Does intelligent design theory implement the scientific method? = The Short Answer: Yes. The scientific method goes from observation --> hypothesis --> experiment --> conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if objects were designed, they will contain CSI. They then seek to find CSI. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity (IC). ID researchers can then experimentally reverse-engineer biological structures to see if they are IC. If they find them, they can conclude design.

2. Evidence for Design in Physics and Cosmology = The fine-tuning of the laws of physics and chemistry to allow for advanced life is an example of extremely high levels of CSI in nature. The laws of the universe are complex because they are highly unlikely. Cosmologists have calculated the odds of a life-friendly universe appearing by chance are less than one part in 1010^123. That’s ten raised to a power of 10 with 123 zeros after it! The laws of the universe are specified in that they match the narrow band of parameters required for the existence of advanced life. As an atheist cosmologist Fred Hoyle observed, “[a] common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology.” The universe itself shows strong evidence of having been designed.

3. Is intelligent design based on the Bible? = No. The idea that human beings can observe signs of intelligent design in nature reaches back to the foundations of both science and civilization. In the Greco-Roman tradition, Platoand Cicero both espoused early versions of intelligent design. In the history of science, most scientists until the latter part of the nineteenth century accepted some form of intelligent design, including Alfred Russel Wallace, the co-discoverer with Charles Darwin of the theory of evolution by natural selection. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, meanwhile, the idea that design can be discerned in nature can be found not only in the Bible but among Jewish philosophers such as Philo and in the writings of the Early Church Fathers. The scientific community largely rejected design in the early twentieth century after neo-Darwinism claimed to be able to explain the emergence of biological complexity through the unintelligent process of natural selection acting on random mutations. In recent decades, however, new research and discoveries in such fields as physics, cosmology, biochemistry, genetics, and paleontology have caused a growing number of scientists and science theorists to question neo-Darwinism and propose intelligent design as the best explanation for the existence of specified complexity throughout the natural world.

4. Are there established scholars in the scientific community who support intelligent design? = Yes. Intelligent design theory is supported by doctoral scientists, researchers, and theorists at a number of universities, colleges, and research institutes around the world. These scholars include biochemist Michael Behe at Lehigh University, microbiologist Scott Minnich at the University of Idaho, biologist Paul Chien at the University of San Francisco, quantum chemist Henry Schaefer at the University of Georgia, geneticist Norman Nevin (emeritus) at Queen’s University of Belfast, mathematician Granville Sewell at the University of Texas, El Paso, and medical geneticist Michael Denton. Research centers for intelligent design include the Evolutionary Informatics Lab, led by Robert Marks, Distinguished Professor of Engineering at Baylor University; and the Biologic Institute, led by molecular biologist Douglas Axe, formerly a research scientist at the University of Cambridge, the Cambridge Medical Research Council Centre, and the Babraham Institute in Cambridge.

I don't want to bombard you with too much info, I suggest you review what I have posted.

so you are telling me someone designed everything.

I am telling you nothing comes out of nothing - THAT IS A SCIENTIFIC FACT. It is scientific fact in our day and age that our universe had a beginning. So, if the universe wasn't eternal and had a beginning; where did it come from?

Asking the question another way - if you see a beautiful painting; would you assume that the painting had no origin? Did the painting pop out of no where?

you think The inner solar system is a shooting gallery. And look how long it took for multicellular life to evolve—3.5 billion years! Obviously not a good design. Then there are the earthquakes, volcanoes, floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, tsunamis that we experience on this planet. who designed this shit.

Dude, why are you ignorant; did I ever claim our solar system is a shooting gallery? Can you please present some facts when debating

And consider all the natural diseases. Lukemia, hemophilia, sickle cell anemia, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, and ALS. The list goes on and on. But that’s not all. Our limited human vision system can only perceive a narrow band of the entire electromagnetic spectrum. what about others? who designed our eyes not to see others?

Who designed your brain to figure out ways to observe the electromagnetic spectrum? Stop using logical fallacy to prove the extremes. It shows you know little about the subject at hand

We have to eat constantly because we’re warm-blooded. So we’re always looking for food. And what about carbon monoxide? You can’t smell it or taste, but you breath it in and “your dead.”

You should be asking yourself why aren't humans on Pluto or Saturn but on earth which is just PERFECT for human life? Think about next time before you talk about carbon momoxide

This is all simply stupid design. The problem is, if you look for what is intelligent, and yes you can find some things that are really beautiful, and really—“hey, that’s clever,” such as the ball-socket of the shoulder. There are a lot of things you can point to, but then you stop looking at all the things that confound that revelation. And so, if I came upon a frozen waterfall, and it just struck me for all its beauty, I would then turn over the rock and try to find a millipede, or some kind of deadly newt, and put that in context, and realize, of course, the universe is not here for us

So, you have left the origins of the universe an jumped to why intelligent design is not feasible? Before we continue, I asked you some simple questions that you haven't addressed:

1. Either our universe is eternal and never had a beginning i.e. it existed eternally
2. Either our universe is not eternal and does have a beginning i.e. it was created or came about in some-way

What is your science position on the above?

Today, we live in a world where poverty, hunger and malnutrition are prevalent. It has been estimated that 14 percent of the global population or 852 million people are going hungry.
Micronutrients deficiencies or hidden hunger in one form or the other are affecting more than 2billion people worldwide with 5.5 million children dying of causes related to hunger and malnutrition (Worldfish Centre Quarterly, 2006).
The Millennium Development Goals adopted by the world’s government in 2000 set a target at reducing the hungry and malnourished population by 2015. However, hunger and malnutrition still remain the most devastating problems facing the poor in developing countries and we have along way to go towards eliminating hunger (Conquerand Holub, 2002).
Fish and fisheries can play an important role in addressing hunger and poverty. Fish are rich sources of protein, essential fatty acids, vitamins and minerals.
Continue.....
http://uniprojectsearch.com/nutritional-br…-otuocha-river/

This is a pretty interesting thread to read up on. Why are you both wasting your time?

Does Alexis really think he can intelligently convince Agentofallah (or anyone for that matter) to believe intelligent design?

Does Agentofallah really think he can convince Alexis and discredit what his existence revolves around?

I answer this with a resounding NO! You guys need to chill for a minute.

In my opinion, Agentofallah makes a hell of an argument in support of Evolution and Science.

Alexis, you should do more research and not resort to name calling when arguing along these lines, its just not an intelligent way to go.

Agentofallah, i dont think it looks good on you when you exchange insults - keep it classy like you've tried too - no doubt you are a scholar and a gentleman.

My views - i believe in evolution because i haven't found scientific reason not to. Religion helps me maintain my sanity at the vanity that is life.

emwye:
This is a pretty interesting thread to read up on. Why are you both wasting your time?

Does Alexis really think he can intelligently convince Agentofallah (or anyone for that matter) to believe intelligent design?

Does Agentofallah really think he can convince Alexis and discredit what his existence revolves around?

I answer this with a resounding NO! You guys need to chill for a minute.

In my opinion, Agentofallah makes a hell of an argument in support of Evolution and Science.

Alexis, you should do more research and not resort to name calling when arguing along these lines, its just not an intelligent way to go.

Agentofallah, i dont think it looks good on you when you exchange insults - keep it classy like you've tried too - no doubt you are a scholar and a gentleman.

My views - i believe in evolution because i haven't found scientific reason not to. Religion helps me maintain my sanity at the vanity that is life.

I responded, not because I believed I would convince him of evolution, but because I believed making sound arguments online might prove beneficial to someone that wasn't even party to the discussion when it happened. That you have shown appreciation for my diligence vindicates my position.

emwye:
This is a pretty interesting thread to read up on. Why are you both wasting your time?

Does Alexis really think he can intelligently convince Agentofallah (or anyone for that matter) to believe intelligent design?

Does Agentofallah really think he can convince Alexis and discredit what his existence revolves around?

I answer this with a resounding NO! You guys need to chill for a minute.

In my opinion, Agentofallah makes a hell of an argument in support of Evolution and Science.

Alexis, you should do more research and not resort to name calling when arguing along these lines, its just not an intelligent way to go.

Agentofallah, i dont think it looks good on you when you exchange insults - keep it classy like you've tried too - no doubt you are a scholar and a gentleman.

My views - i believe in evolution because i haven't found scientific reason not to. Religion helps me maintain my sanity at the vanity that is life.

Wasn't my intent to call anyone names or insult anyone. Next time, I should be a bit patient. For that, my apologies to AgentofAllah and everyone else.

@emwye:

I have made my point quite clear. I believe in evolution that we can observe. The evolution my friends are talking about is that no one has ever seen it or can't be observed. It requires a BIG assumption on our part - that over millions or years, these possibilities could have happened.