Who honestly doesn't belive in intelligent design?

[rightwinger]

God made us from dust....you don't get any more intelligent than that

 

[Foxfyre]

And then there is the vacuum cleaner theory. If you put all the parts of a vacuum cleaner into a big sack and shook it, given unlimited time all those parts in the sack would eventually come together as a working vaccuum cleaner until further shaking shook them all apart again. Those advocating that theory assume that we are at this particular junction of the universe because that's how all the parts came together in the sack at this time.

That's ludicrous, since there are no laws of nature that would predict that that would ever happen. There are, however, chemical laws that allow for the formation of some bonds and chemicals over others that eventually would lead to macromolecules and all the complexity of life we see today.

Um, I think you missed the point of the analogy.

But since you brought it up, what determined what the laws of nature would be?

 

[westwall]

And then there is the vacuum cleaner theory. If you put all the parts of a vacuum cleaner into a big sack and shook it, given unlimited time all those parts in the sack would eventually come together as a working vaccuum cleaner until further shaking shook them all apart again. Those advocating that theory assume that we are at this particular junction of the universe because that's how all the parts came together in the sack at this time.

That's ludicrous, since there are no laws of nature that would predict that that would ever happen. There are, however, chemical laws that allow for the formation of some bonds and chemicals over others that eventually would lead to macromolecules and all the complexity of life we see today.

Um, I think you missed the point of the analogy.

But since you brought it up, what determined what the laws of nature would be?

konrad usually does....

 

[edthecynic]

And then there is the vacuum cleaner theory. If you put all the parts of a vacuum cleaner into a big sack and shook it, given unlimited time all those parts in the sack would eventually come together as a working vaccuum cleaner until further shaking shook them all apart again. Those advocating that theory assume that we are at this particular junction of the universe because that's how all the parts came together in the sack at this time.

That's ludicrous, since there are no laws of nature that would predict that that would ever happen. There are, however, chemical laws that allow for the formation of some bonds and chemicals over others that eventually would lead to macromolecules and all the complexity of life we see today.

Um, I think you missed the point of the analogy.

But since you brought it up, what determined what the laws of nature would be?

As far as what specific molecules will form naturally, it is the structure of the atom itself.

With the exception of the inner shell which holds 2 electrons, when the outer shell of an atom or molecule holds 8 electrons it is a stable atom or molecule. Atoms and molecules will exchange or share electrons to achieve this stable state. The electrons in the outer shell are called valence electrons.

There are no non-natural "designer molecules" in any known form of life.

 

[Foxfyre]

And then there is the vacuum cleaner theory. If you put all the parts of a vacuum cleaner into a big sack and shook it, given unlimited time all those parts in the sack would eventually come together as a working vaccuum cleaner until further shaking shook them all apart again. Those advocating that theory assume that we are at this particular junction of the universe because that's how all the parts came together in the sack at this time.

That's ludicrous, since there are no laws of nature that would predict that that would ever happen. There are, however, chemical laws that allow for the formation of some bonds and chemicals over others that eventually would lead to macromolecules and all the complexity of life we see today.

Um, I think you missed the point of the analogy.

But since you brought it up, what determined what the laws of nature would be?

As far as what specific molecules will form naturally, it is the structure of the atom itself.

With the exception of the inner shell which holds 2 electrons, when the outer shell of an atom or molecule holds 8 electrons it is a stable atom or molecule. Atoms and molecules will exchange or share electrons to achieve this stable state. The electrons in the outer shell are called valence electrons.

There are no non-natural "designer molecules" in any known form of life.

Yes, but what was the proces or what happened that resulted in an expectation that atoms and molecules will exchange and share electrons in a specific manner? How did it come to be that way?

 

[edthecynic]

Um, I think you missed the point of the analogy.

But since you brought it up, what determined what the laws of nature would be?

As far as what specific molecules will form naturally, it is the structure of the atom itself.

With the exception of the inner shell which holds 2 electrons, when the outer shell of an atom or molecule holds 8 electrons it is a stable atom or molecule. Atoms and molecules will exchange or share electrons to achieve this stable state. The electrons in the outer shell are called valence electrons.

There are no non-natural "designer molecules" in any known form of life.

Yes, but what was the proces or what happened that resulted in an expectation that atoms and molecules will exchange and share electrons in a specific manner? How did it come to be that way?

Magic!

It is the nature of the structure of the atom, a stable form of energy.

 

[Foxfyre]

As far as what specific molecules will form naturally, it is the structure of the atom itself.

With the exception of the inner shell which holds 2 electrons, when the outer shell of an atom or molecule holds 8 electrons it is a stable atom or molecule. Atoms and molecules will exchange or share electrons to achieve this stable state. The electrons in the outer shell are called valence electrons.

There are no non-natural "designer molecules" in any known form of life.

Yes, but what was the proces or what happened that resulted in an expectation that atoms and molecules will exchange and share electrons in a specific manner? How did it come to be that way?

Magic!

It is the nature of the structure of the atom, a stable form of energy.

Where the the structure of the atom that resulted in the nature come from?

 

[JBeukema]

Yes, but what was the proces or what happened that resulted in an expectation that atoms and molecules will exchange and share electrons in a specific manner? How did it come to be that way?

Magic!

It is the nature of the structure of the atom, a stable form of energy.

Where the the structure of the atom that resulted in the nature come from?

Can you please learn how to construct a valid sentence before trying to discuss anything more complicated than American Idol, dipshit?

 

[edthecynic]

Yes, but what was the proces or what happened that resulted in an expectation that atoms and molecules will exchange and share electrons in a specific manner? How did it come to be that way?

Magic!

It is the nature of the structure of the atom, a stable form of energy.

Where the[did] the structure of the atom that resulted in the nature come from?

From Energy changing from.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

But since you brought it up, what determined what the laws of nature would be?

I think you're missing the point of NATURAL laws if you're looking for the person writing them.

Yes, but what was the proces or what happened that resulted in an expectation that atoms and molecules will exchange and share electrons in a specific manner? How did it come to be that way?

Expectation? Expectations are for humans, not atoms. Atoms are atoms. We observe them, and can determine expectations.

But let's fast forward your bottomless pit of an argument: Regardless of how many answers you are given for underlying reasons, you continue to ask "but what made THAT thing?" in true second grade fashion, unable to be satiated because people can't tell you things that happened before the evidence trail goes cold. It doesn't matter whether you get a hundred or a million explanations of the preceding step, because in your mind none of these things can simply just exist. But the moment the evidence is no longer there, that's when you step in and claim a magical being made it. And if you were asked the same question of "and who made that magical being?" you'd give some answer that didn't satiate you when you were doing the asking, but for absolutely no reason whatsoever works just fine as long as its applied to your magical being.

Am I close?

 

[Foxfyre]

But since you brought it up, what determined what the laws of nature would be?

I think you're missing the point of NATURAL laws if you're looking for the person writing them.

Yes, but what was the proces or what happened that resulted in an expectation that atoms and molecules will exchange and share electrons in a specific manner? How did it come to be that way?

Expectation? Expectations are for humans, not atoms. Atoms are atoms. We observe them, and can determine expectations.

But let's fast forward your bottomless pit of an argument: Regardless of how many answers you are given for underlying reasons, you continue to ask "but what made THAT thing?" in true second grade fashion, unable to be satiated because people can't tell you things that happened before the evidence trail goes cold. It doesn't matter whether you get a hundred or a million explanations of the preceding step, because in your mind none of these things can simply just exist. But the moment the evidence is no longer there, that's when you step in and claim a magical being made it. And if you were asked the same question of "and who made that magical being?" you'd give some answer that didn't satiate you when you were doing the asking, but for absolutely no reason whatsoever works just fine as long as its applied to your magical being.

Am I close?

You would have to define 'magic' if you want to know whether you are close. I have argued that one does not have to believe in a "God" or deity in order to accept the basic concept of intelligent design. Einstein, for instance, did not accept a concept of a personal God, but he was smart enough not to pooh pooh intelligent design as a rational explanation for why things are as they are.

And if you have no 'expectations' for how certain components of the universe/nature will behave, you don't believe anything is 'natural' then, do you?

One member said my 'vacuum cleaner in the sack' analogy was foolish, yet I am guessing that the member has no better theory for how the universe came to be as it is observed by us now. How did the atom or the materials that form the atom come to be in the first place and what caused the rules governing any specific atom to be set into motion? What happened to set the rules of nature into motion?

If we accept the big bang theory as the origin of the universe as we know it, is it too much to ask how the materials that exploded came to be there? For that matter, how did the 'there', wherever it was, come to be there? How did sufficient energy build up to allow such explosive force? What lit the fuse?

All these are reasonable questions to many reasonable people.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

You would have to define 'magic' if you want to know whether you are close. I have argued that one does not have to believe in a "God" or deity in order to accept the basic concept of intelligent design. Einstein, for instance, did not accept a concept of a personal God, but he was smart enough not to pooh pooh intelligent design as a rational explanation for why things are as they are.

Einstein also didn't pooh pooh Obama's candidacy. This is not evidence. Einstein wasn't even alive to see genetics come into full swing. Over 50 years has passed since his time. That's half a century of invaluable knowledge. Einstein was a brilliant physicist, but he knew nothing about what we know regarding evolution today. Using him as support is not only outdated, but short sighted.

And if you have no 'expectations' for how certain components of the universe/nature will behave, you don't believe anything is 'natural' then, do you?

Where on earth did you draw that conclusion? The two halves of that sentence have nothing to do with one another. Regardless of that, the fact still remains that the natural laws in no way required human expectation to continue doing their thing.

One member said my 'vacuum cleaner in the sack' analogy was foolish, yet I am guessing that the member has no better theory for how the universe came to be as it is observed by us now. How did the atom or the materials that form the atom come to be in the first place and what caused the rules governing any specific atom to be set into motion? What happened to set the rules of nature into motion?

Your vacuum cleaner in the sack analogy WAS foolish for the reasons he pointed out. I'm happy to restate his reasoning if you're at all confused. The remainder of your questions in this above quote appear to be entering that bottomless pit stupidity I had referred to in my previous post. The fact still remains that answering such questions is useless in someone like you, because as soon as the evidence trail runs cold and things aren't explained by modern science, you chalk it up to God. This has gone on by ignorant people such as yourself throughout history. The sun was too mysterious, so it was God. The parts that make up people are too mysterious, so that was God. Then we discovered cells and the things that made the cells work were too mysterious, so that was God. Then we figured out DNA, and the things that make up DNA are too mysterious, so that was God. It's an endless load of vacuous crap.

And somehow, out of that crap, you think you have some reason to believe in intelligent design, when understanding the origins of atoms has NOTHING to do with evolution. Evolution can and does exist regardless of what started it, or what makes the irrelevant physical forces that progress it.

If we accept the big bang theory as the origin of the universe as we know it, is it too much to ask how the materials that exploded came to be there? For that matter, how did the 'there', wherever it was, come to be there? How did sufficient energy build up to allow such explosive force? What lit the fuse?

All these are reasonable questions to many reasonable people.

Sure, they are reasonable questions that demand reasonable investigation. The only UNreasonable answer would be throwing up your hands and saying "it must be God cuz I'm too dumb to know". Lack of knowledge does not mean God. It means you don't know. There are a number of brilliant physicists who can offer a ton of explanation for a lot of them, but again, you're currently hitting the part where the evidence trail goes cold. You can either learn from your ignorant heritage and believe there is still a reasonable explanation to these questions, or follow in their footsteps. "Because throughout history, every mystery ever solved has turned out to be. . . not magic!"

 

[edthecynic]

But since you brought it up, what determined what the laws of nature would be?

I think you're missing the point of NATURAL laws if you're looking for the person writing them.

Yes, but what was the proces or what happened that resulted in an expectation that atoms and molecules will exchange and share electrons in a specific manner? How did it come to be that way?

Expectation? Expectations are for humans, not atoms. Atoms are atoms. We observe them, and can determine expectations.

But let's fast forward your bottomless pit of an argument: Regardless of how many answers you are given for underlying reasons, you continue to ask "but what made THAT thing?" in true second grade fashion, unable to be satiated because people can't tell you things that happened before the evidence trail goes cold. It doesn't matter whether you get a hundred or a million explanations of the preceding step, because in your mind none of these things can simply just exist. But the moment the evidence is no longer there, that's when you step in and claim a magical being made it. And if you were asked the same question of "and who made that magical being?" you'd give some answer that didn't satiate you when you were doing the asking, but for absolutely no reason whatsoever works just fine as long as its applied to your magical being.

Am I close?

You would have to define 'magic' if you want to know whether you are close. I have argued that one does not have to believe in a "God" or deity in order to accept the basic concept of intelligent design. Einstein, for instance, did not accept a concept of a personal God, but he was smart enough not to pooh pooh intelligent design as a rational explanation for why things are as they are.

And if you have no 'expectations' for how certain components of the universe/nature will behave, you don't believe anything is 'natural' then, do you?

One member said my 'vacuum cleaner in the sack' analogy was foolish, yet I am guessing that the member has no better theory for how the universe came to be as it is observed by us now. How did the atom or the materials that form the atom come to be in the first place and what caused the rules governing any specific atom to be set into motion? What happened to set the rules of nature into motion?

If we accept the big bang theory as the origin of the universe as we know it, is it too much to ask how the materials that exploded came to be there? For that matter, how did the 'there', wherever it was, come to be there? How did sufficient energy build up to allow such explosive force? What lit the fuse?

All these are reasonable questions to many reasonable people.

Let me try again.

Atoms and the materials that make up the atom are forms of energy. According to the First Law of Thermodynamics, energy can neither be created nor destroyed. That means that energy in all its changing forms always exists in the exact same total quantity. The FLoT was proven with a repeatable experiment by James Prescott Joule, so it is not a theory so you will have to just accept it as fact whether you understand it or not.

Where I think you are confused is you have time and energy flip-flopped. I suspect you think time is eternal and energy has a beginning and end. It is time that has a beginning and end not energy. Time exists only in terms of motion, no motion, no time. Time begins at the Big Bang, not energy. Energy is what went bang. And time ends at the Big Crunch.

But that ending of time is only for an instant too small to measure. Please visualize in your mind a ball tossed straight up into the air. It rises up to a single point where it is neither rising nor falling for an instant. This singularity is very unstable and in the very next instant it starts to fall again.

So too the universe. The universe expands from the Big Bang and compresses to the Big Crunch and for one singular instant all the energy of the universe is compressed into one single and very unstable point that for that instant is neither contracting nor expanding. On one side of that singularity, if you will, is the Big Crunch and on the other is the Big Bang, but for that one singular instant, like the ball described earlier, there is no motion and time does not exist.

That is the simplest way I can explain it and it actually is quite oversimplified, but that is the best way I know how to show the difference between time and energy.

I hope it helps.

 

[Foxfyre]

Really? I can use my imagination to mentally erase everything that doesn't absolutely have to be there out of the universe. But I cannot mentally erase time and space. Why not? And where did those come from? And where is the beginning of time? When is the end? Where is the beginning of the universe? Where is the end?

By what authority can you say that atom or that energy has always existed? Has existed in the form that it currently exists?

You can explain science facts until the cows come home and it won't change my opinion one bit that science is incapable of answering such questions as how did those scientific facts happen to become facts?

Intelligent design can answer such questions. And in fact would be the author of science.

 

[THE LIGHT]

And then there is the vacuum cleaner theory. If you put all the parts of a vacuum cleaner into a big sack and shook it, given unlimited time all those parts in the sack would eventually come together as a working vaccuum cleaner until further shaking shook them all apart again. Those advocating that theory assume that we are at this particular junction of the universe because that's how all the parts came together in the sack at this time.

That's ludicrous, since there are no laws of nature that would predict that that would ever happen. There are, however, chemical laws that allow for the formation of some bonds and chemicals over others that eventually would lead to macromolecules and all the complexity of life we see today.

Really? What are these laws?

 

[edthecynic]

I think you're missing the point of NATURAL laws if you're looking for the person writing them.



Expectation? Expectations are for humans, not atoms. Atoms are atoms. We observe them, and can determine expectations.

But let's fast forward your bottomless pit of an argument: Regardless of how many answers you are given for underlying reasons, you continue to ask "but what made THAT thing?" in true second grade fashion, unable to be satiated because people can't tell you things that happened before the evidence trail goes cold. It doesn't matter whether you get a hundred or a million explanations of the preceding step, because in your mind none of these things can simply just exist. But the moment the evidence is no longer there, that's when you step in and claim a magical being made it. And if you were asked the same question of "and who made that magical being?" you'd give some answer that didn't satiate you when you were doing the asking, but for absolutely no reason whatsoever works just fine as long as its applied to your magical being.

Am I close?

You would have to define 'magic' if you want to know whether you are close. I have argued that one does not have to believe in a "God" or deity in order to accept the basic concept of intelligent design. Einstein, for instance, did not accept a concept of a personal God, but he was smart enough not to pooh pooh intelligent design as a rational explanation for why things are as they are.

And if you have no 'expectations' for how certain components of the universe/nature will behave, you don't believe anything is 'natural' then, do you?

One member said my 'vacuum cleaner in the sack' analogy was foolish, yet I am guessing that the member has no better theory for how the universe came to be as it is observed by us now. How did the atom or the materials that form the atom come to be in the first place and what caused the rules governing any specific atom to be set into motion? What happened to set the rules of nature into motion?

If we accept the big bang theory as the origin of the universe as we know it, is it too much to ask how the materials that exploded came to be there? For that matter, how did the 'there', wherever it was, come to be there? How did sufficient energy build up to allow such explosive force? What lit the fuse?

All these are reasonable questions to many reasonable people.

Let me try again.

Atoms and the materials that make up the atom are forms of energy. According to the First Law of Thermodynamics, energy can neither be created nor destroyed. That means that energy in all its changing forms always exists in the exact same total quantity. The FLoT was proven with a repeatable experiment by James Prescott Joule, so it is not a theory so you will have to just accept it as fact whether you understand it or not.

Where I think you are confused is you have time and energy flip-flopped. I suspect you think time is eternal and energy has a beginning and end. It is time that has a beginning and end not energy. Time exists only in terms of motion, no motion, no time. Time begins at the Big Bang, not energy. Energy is what went bang. And time ends at the Big Crunch.

But that ending of time is only for an instant too small to measure. Please visualize in your mind a ball tossed straight up into the air. It rises up to a single point where it is neither rising nor falling for an instant. This singularity is very unstable and in the very next instant it starts to fall again.

So too the universe. The universe expands from the Big Bang and compresses to the Big Crunch and for one singular instant all the energy of the universe is compressed into one single and very unstable point that for that instant is neither contracting nor expanding. On one side of that singularity, if you will, is the Big Crunch and on the other is the Big Bang, but for that one singular instant, like the ball described earlier, there is no motion and time does not exist.

That is the simplest way I can explain it and it actually is quite oversimplified, but that is the best way I know how to show the difference between time and energy.

I hope it helps.

Really? I can use my imagination to mentally erase everything that doesn't absolutely have to be there out of the universe. But I cannot mentally erase time and space. Why not? And where did those come from? And where is the beginning of time? When is the end? Where is the beginning of the universe? Where is the end?

By what authority can you say that atom or that energy has always existed? Has existed in the form that it currently exists?

You can explain science facts until the cows come home and it won't change my opinion one bit that science is incapable of answering such questions as how did those scientific facts happen to become facts?

Intelligent design can answer such questions. And in fact would be the author of science.

Obviously I wasted my time since you didn't bother to even read what was written as the red highlighted parts show.

But thank you for admitting your mind is completely closed no matter how much you might pretend the contrary.

 

[THE LIGHT]

If matter sprang from nothing, as some claim - than logic dictates that matter continues to spring from nothing. This is, of course, unless we have run out of "nothing" from which matter can spring. But, but, but... if that is the case... nothingness is rendered finite. That would then render matter as infinite, because there would be no more nothingness left to absorb its decay.

So, my dear atheists, your Big Bang theory is now reduced to absurdity; more appropriately called... bullshit.

Reductio ad absurdum, at its best!

~Mark

Where did gravity come from? and how does gravity act on nothing?

The only "as some claim" who say everything came from nothing are Creationists!

In science there is no such thing as nothing!!! According to the First Law of Thermodynamics, Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, therefore there always was and always will be energy in the exact same total quantity. Only its form will change.

No, I'm afraid you don't know what you believe.

"as recent advances in cosmology suggest, the laws of gravity and quantum theory allow universes to appear spontaneously from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going." -Stephen Hawking

 

[edthecynic]

If matter sprang from nothing, as some claim - than logic dictates that matter continues to spring from nothing. This is, of course, unless we have run out of "nothing" from which matter can spring. But, but, but... if that is the case... nothingness is rendered finite. That would then render matter as infinite, because there would be no more nothingness left to absorb its decay.

So, my dear atheists, your Big Bang theory is now reduced to absurdity; more appropriately called... bullshit.

Reductio ad absurdum, at its best!

~Mark

Where did gravity come from? and how does gravity act on nothing?

The only "as some claim" who say everything came from nothing are Creationists!

In science there is no such thing as nothing!!! According to the First Law of Thermodynamics, Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, therefore there always was and always will be energy in the exact same total quantity. Only its form will change.

No, I'm afraid you don't know what you believe.

"as recent advances in cosmology suggest, the laws of gravity and quantum theory allow universes to appear spontaneously from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going." -Stephen Hawking

Hawking is not infallible.
Gravity cannot be defined without mass, and quantum theory accounts for certain interactions between energy and matter. Both are useful for understanding how EXISTING things function. Neither is useful to account for the origin of those things. If there had ever been a time when absolutely nothing existed, nothing would exist now.

 

[THE LIGHT]

Your vacuum cleaner in the sack analogy WAS foolish for the reasons he pointed out. I'm happy to restate his reasoning if you're at all confused. The remainder of your questions in this above quote appear to be entering that bottomless pit stupidity I had referred to in my previous post. The fact still remains that answering such questions is useless in someone like you, because as soon as the evidence trail runs cold and things aren't explained by modern science, you chalk it up to God. This has gone on by ignorant people such as yourself throughout history. The sun was too mysterious, so it was God. The parts that make up people are too mysterious, so that was God. Then we discovered cells and the things that made the cells work were too mysterious, so that was God. Then we figured out DNA, and the things that make up DNA are too mysterious, so that was God. It's an endless load of vacuous crap.

And somehow, out of that crap, you think you have some reason to believe in intelligent design, when understanding the origins of atoms has NOTHING to do with evolution. Evolution can and does exist regardless of what started it, or what makes the irrelevant physical forces that progress it.

Just answer his questions Hick. Or is there a reason you wish to dodge them?

And no, it isn't Christians who attributed the sun as God. We have gone over this many times before and you know that is a lie. Just because science points to a creator doesn't mean that it was unexplainable.

In fact that is how science works. It uses the best theory to explain a phenomenon until a better one is devised. So far ID is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the universe and will remain so until you and your evolutionist friends are willing answer the questions in a logical and scientific fashion which you have been unable to do thus far.

 

[Sallow]

I like the rock theory..