Critique of Intelligent Design

[Dagosa]

Why do you abuse yourself as you did above?

You and chem engineer must have the same fraud disclaimers. He pretends to be a chem engineer and you just a what, engineer ? You’re BOTH Hilarious frauds.,

 

[Dagosa]

Many former theories by Science have been proven not to be accurate.

Nope…..they aren’t. , you call yourself an engineer and you don’t know what a theory is. None are necessarily absolute,
That’s why they are called theories. Geesus

 

[Woodznutz]

Nope…..they aren’t. , you call yourself an engineer and you don’t know what a theory is. None are necessarily absolute,
That’s why they are called theories. Geesus

Scientists accept theories as facts, until proven otherwise. Laypersons consider theories just the opposite. But, it's their term not ours.

 

[zaangalewa]

Science is never right or wrong. It’s you who are wrong thinking it is.

Take a big stone, throw it on your own foot and then you will feel pain. Now try to falsify this hypothese.

And when the stone is too big which you use to do so and a chirurg in a hospital has to help your broken foot-bones to heal themselves with osteoclasts and osteoblasts - taking into account a glue-free operating environment and a professional education - then hope that he knows what's right and wrong to do before you'll try to falsify my hypothese again in some months.

 

[Dagosa]

Take a big stone, throw it on your own foot and then you will feel pain. Now try to falsify this hypothese.

And when the stone is too big which you use to do so and a chirurg in a hospital has to help your broken foot-bones to heal themselves with osteoclasts and osteoblasts - taking into account a glue-free operating environment and a professional education - then hope that he knows what's right and wrong to do before you'll try to falsify my hypothese again in some months.

Ignoramus...

 

[zaangalewa]

Ignoramus...

... "Ignoramus, ignorabimus" = We do not know - we never will know ...

... Du Bois-Reymond postulates two fundamental limits to the recognition of nature: on the one hand, the nature of matter and force is unrecognizable, and on the other, the relationship between states of consciousness and their material preconditions. ... The Göttingen mathematician David Hilbert countered with the words: "We must know. We will know." ...

But I fear in the USA have such specific standpoints nothing to do with nothing. Looks to me as if in the USA fight people who don't have a big idea about the own possible standpoint with people who also don't have any big idea about the own possible standpoint with verbal bullets against everything and nothing and the whole world.

What the most people never realized: Kurt Goedel found out that we have in mathematics three possible situations: false, true and not decideable. Every lazybone prefers "not decideable" - but to find this result is perhaps often the most hard work at all. Not determinable is by the way something else than not calculable.

 

[Dagosa]

... "Ignoramus, ignorabimus" = We do not know - we never will know ...

... Du Bois-Reymond postulates two fundamental limits to the recognition of nature: on the one hand, the nature of matter and force is unrecognizable, and on the other, the relationship between states of consciousness and their material preconditions. ... The Göttingen mathematician David Hilbert countered with the words: "We must know. We will know." ...

But I fear in the USA have such specific standpoints nothing to do with nothing. Looks to me as if in the USA fight people who don't have a big idea about the own possible standpoint with people who also don't have any big idea about the own possible standpoint with verbal bullets against everything and nothing and the whole world.

What the most people never realized: Kurt Goedel found out that we have in mathematics three possible situations: false, true and not decideable. Every lazybone prefers "not decideable" - but to find this result is perhaps often the most hard work at all. Not determinable is by the way something else than not calculable.

Wow, you can copied and paste. Typical woo woo. Throw a few math symbols up there and someone might think you’re smart. You dumbass bozos just babble than copy paste.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Experiments and practices invariably originate from pre-conceived ideas. Why else would experiments be performed if not to validate the concept? You make no sense. When the speed of light was first accurately measured, for example, they had the 'pre-conceived idea" that it was very, very fast.
They sure did confirm that, didn't they? Does that invalidate their "pre-conceived idea"?

To you perhaps. But the argument that bias prevents one from making determinations is a Fallacy of Logic. Make all the determinations you wish, from anything you claim to be. Let the world examine the evidence and your explanations should bear fruit if you are right, irrespective of whether or not you are a high school dropout.

The insuperable statistics of naturalistic polypeptide synthesis are essentially mathematical proof of the intelligent design of over 20,000 different proteins in the human body, the largest of which is titin, at 38,138 amino acid residues in unique, precise sequence, all Levorotary, all peptide bonded. The resultant probability of its formation from water dripping on rocks - 1 chance in 10 to the 72,578th power. One chance in 10 to the 50th is impossible, as stated by eminent statistician, Emile Borel.
Ten to the 50 marbles one cm in diameter would fill 82,800 spheres the size of our solar system out to Pluto. Imagine picking out one UNIQUE marble if you were blindfolded in a spaceship which could navigate inside marbles. Pick one sphere. Dig inside and come up with that marble on your first and only try.
Some of Darwin's loyalists think they could do it with a giggle.

Your use of large font and bold type is truly impressive. Unfortunately, it seems to have caused you to miss my point.

I did not say that having a pre-conceived idea invalidates the experiments that follow from it invalid. When you try to force science to fit in with a pre-conceived idea, instead of letting the results of the experiments guide your thinking, then you are not longer practicing science.

Attempts to perform "experiments" to "prove" Darwinian evolution have all been attempts to prove it possible, not to prove that it happened. They have yet to show that it is even possible, in spite of the religious ferver with which they wish it to be.

I understand the math-based arguments against Darwinism, and I agree that they show it to be a pseudo-science. However, eliminating Darwinian evolution as a possible explanation for the origin of species does not provide evidence for intelligent design.

 

[Seymour Flops]

ah, not quite. It was for practical reasons….

No they were not. They were accepted because they were being used and studied since guess when ? Genetics in The 1800s and food supplies and breeding early earlier with more observed evidence.

Man has also used selective breeding for over 11,000 years.

Selective breeding is a living example of intelligent design.

Plus, accepting a theory doesn’t mean you view it as absolute truth. It simply means you understand it enough to be functional and usable. Darwinism is just like any theory, and is subject to change as more evidence is developed and we’ve been using it for over 11,000 years whether we had a name for it or not.

Yet, in 11,000 years of selective breeding, humans have produced exactly zero new species. How long would it take the random forces of nature to produce one? How long to produce all the species that have ever existed through random genetic changes?

“Modern genetics began with the work of the Augustinian friar Gregor Johann Mendel. His work on pea plants, published in 1866, provided the initial evidence that, on its rediscovery in 1900,

Bottom line, within the technological confines of the technology he had, Darwin was not right or wrong. He was right for the times and technology he had. Revisiting his theory resulted in changes, mainly because of inventions. like the microscope and more modern technology.
His proposals were neither right or wrong.

As far as I know, there is no technology today which can provide evidence that speciation via natural selection ever occured, nor that it was the only means by which the variety of species on Earth developed.

 

[badger2]

To get much tinier than big stones.

We will later quote from Hedin's book beginning and story, though jumping ahead into the text, Hedin says:

'That is, why is nature a cosmos rather than a chaos? But just as notable is the fact that the specific strengths or values of these laws are exquisitely fine-tuned, at just their right values to allow the universe to form atoms, stars, and planets -- conditions required for life.

Consider an example. In the moments just after the Big Bang, the universe contained only energy. According to Einstein's famous equation, E=mc2, energy can transform into matter. Other laws of physics state that the result of this transformation is always composed of a particle-antiparticle pair. Antimatter is certainly real, and has been experimentally verified for many decades. What we know about is that when a particle and its antiparticle meet,they annihilate each other and turn back into pure energy.

This gives us a conundrum: all the particle-antiparticle pairs produced out of energy should have annihilated each others in the distant past, leaving nothing but energy in the universe. Thankfully, this process short-circuited early on in the history of the universe. Physicists do not understand the mechanism, but somehow, about one extra particle out of every ten billion particle-antiparticle pairs remained intact. All the rest annihilated each other and turned back into energy. All the matter we see in the universe comes from those one-in-ten-billion leftover particles.'
(Hedin, Canceled Science, p.52)

"Intelligence always comes after. It's best when it does and only when it does."
(Deleuze)

We begin to address the spacing of time.

11 Ap 2022 The Universe Has No Beginning: Physicists Refute the Big Bang

The domain name europeantimes.com is under development.

You can contact us using the email address provided.

europeantimes.com

'....quantum gravity....causal set theory....there is always something before....'

 

[badger2]

Selective breeding is a living example of intelligent design.

Yet, in 11,000 years of selective breeding, humans have produced exactly zero new species. How long would it take the random forces of nature to produce one? How long to produce all the species that have ever existed through random genetic changes?

As far as I know, there is no technology today which can provide evidence that speciation via natural selection ever occured, nor that it was the only means by which the variety of species on Earth developed.

11,000 years is miniscule, though since the universe is expanding, how can Darwinism be blamed/refuted when the opposite is happening: species die-offs. Once a story's told, it can't help but grow old.

 

[badger2]

The universe has no beginning: physicists refute the Big Bang theory

In the beginning there was ... well, maybe there was no beginning. Perhaps our universe has always existed - and the new theory of quantum gravity shows how

europeantimes.news

 

[Dagosa]

Selective breeding is a living example of intelligent design.

Nope. Seems pretty made up. Humans aren’t a god.

 

[Dagosa]

As far as I know, there is no technology today which can provide evidence that speciation via natural selection ever occured, nor that it was the only means by which the variety of species on Earth developed.

Maybe you need to do more research. You’re not going to find answers in a Bible. They have tithings to collect. .

Yet, in 11,000 years of selective breeding, humans have produced exactly zero new species. How long would it take the random forces of nature to produce one? How long to produce all the species that have ever existed through random genetic changes?

You do get that man has been on earth 300k years. You’re really not aware how and when speciation occurs. LOOK IT UP. And yes, there is more evidence it occurs than an Ark.

 

[ChemEngineer]

Your use of large font and bold type is truly impressive. Unfortunately, it seems to have caused you to miss my point.

I did not say that having a pre-conceived idea invalidates the experiments that follow from it invalid. When you try to force science to fit in with a pre-conceived idea, instead of letting the results of the experiments guide your thinking, then you are not longer practicing science.

Attempts to perform "experiments" to "prove" Darwinian evolution have all been attempts to prove it possible, not to prove that it happened. They have yet to show that it is even possible, in spite of the religious ferver with which they wish it to be.

I understand the math-based arguments against Darwinism, and I agree that they show it to be a pseudo-science. However, eliminating Darwinian evolution as a possible explanation for the origin of species does not provide evidence for intelligent design.

Kindly provide readers with your proposal for the origin and development of life on earth. The insuperable statistics of any naturalistic origin for life leaves only intelligent design, unless you know something nobody else does.

My eyesight is not very good and I can read larger fonts in bold much better than these microscopic default fonts, begging your pardon. Others may also be able to read them better, but nobody suffers from my option except you and an anal moderator.
"If it be right, do it boldly." - Bernard Gilpin

I do just that.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Kindly provide readers with your proposal for the origin and development of life on earth. The insuperable statistics of any naturalistic origin for life leaves only intelligent design, unless you know something nobody else does.

Providing you with the needed large and bold print:

I would agree that Intelligent Design seems the most plausible of all currently discussed ideas about the origin. It is not testable, nor is it falsifiable, so I don't think it qualifies as a scientific theory. Not believing that a scientific theory currently exists for the origin and variety of life does not obligate me to come up with one. Greater minds than mine are unable to.

I think it is well past time to admit that we don't know what the causation of the origin of life and the multitude of species on Earth. We should also probably admit that we are unlikely to ever know, barring any sudden appearance by some power able to both create life and explain to us how they did it.

I'm sure that you are aware that Dawkins, noted proponent of Darwinism, put forth the idea that perhaps aliens from space "seeded" the Earth with life that was programed to evolve to adapt to conditions on Earth. If they come back and tell us that's what they did, then we'll know.

In the unlikely event that the Creationists are right, I suppose we will learn the truth in Heaven.

If a non-biblical designer reveals themselves, then we would know that.

As to Darwinism, I'm from Missouri.

My eyesight is not very good and I can read larger fonts in bold much better than these microscopic default fonts, begging your pardon. Others may also be able to read them better, but nobody suffers from my option except you and an anal moderator.

I don't suffer from it, sir. If you need that accommodation, I'm glad for you to have it.

I often teach children with visual impairment and I would never mock them for needing large print. You might consider putting a request for larger print in your signature.

 

[ChemEngineer]

I often teach children with visual impairment and I would never mock them for needing large print. You might consider putting a request for larger print in your signature.

I have done so. It fell on deaf ears.
It is highly likely that Nature's God created the universe, as 85% of Nobel Laureates in science are Christians and Jews (65% - 20%).

God - The Evidence, by Patrick Glynn
The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell
Brilliant Creations - The Wonder of Nature and Life by John Phillip Jaeger

 

[zaangalewa]

Wow, you can copied and paste. Typical woo woo. Throw a few math symbols up there and someone might think you’re smart. You dumbass bozos just babble than copy paste.

Good grief, what an idiot, u-n-b-e-l-i-e-v-a-b-l-e ...

What do you like to know? What is a concrete question from you in context "intelligent design" vs "fitting (or "fitness"? or only "fit"?) of organisms"?

 

[badger2]

One of the current authors of causal set theory and a universe without beginning is Stav Zalel:

 

[badger2]

Hedin on the Drake Equation.

'Something that undoubtedly propels this ongoing search is an estimate of the expected number of intelligent alien races in or galaxy, as given by the so-called Drake equation. Astronomer Frank Drake proposed his mathematical estimate for the likelihood of extraterrestrial life in 1961. HIs equation attempted to take into account factors that Drake supposed were necessary for the existence of advanced life.

In its modern form, presented in most introductory astronomy texts, the Drake equation for the number of communicating civilizations in the galaxy multiplies six factors:

1. the number of stars in our galaxy

2. the fraction of stars that have planets

3. the number of planets in each system that exist in the habitable zone (at the right distance from their parent star so that the planet has liquid water)

4.the fraction of suitable planets on which life begins

5. the fraction of a star's life during which life evolves to intelligence

6. the fraction of a star's life during which the life there is communicative (presumably via radio, or perhaps laser pulses)

We can estimate that about 200 billions stars exist in our galaxy, and it's likely that one-tenth to one-half of them have planets, and at least 1% of those planets should lie within the habitable zone. So far, this is just astronomy research. However, estimating the values of the latter three parameters in the Drake equation is a much dicier affair. What's astounding is that reputable astronomy texts will state, for example, that life begins naturally on anywhere from 1% to 100% of all suitable planets, and evolves to intelligence with the same probability.

That's not merely wild guesswork; it's wild guesswork that ignores much of what astrobiologists have discovered about the cosmos in recent decades. The Drake equation ignores multitudes of factors that cumulatively downgrade any realistic estimate of hearing from E.T., at least if we must depend on purely natural process for evolving alien life.'
(Hedin, Canceled Science, pp. 127-8)