Why can't you just admit you rely on Scientists to answer these questions for you?
That's a complete non sequitur. It has nothing to do with my observation that sometimes there are things we don't understand.
As for your question, who's denying it? We all rely on science to answer questions for us. But accepting those answers is conditional on reason, analysis and evidence. And new analysis and evidence is welcomed if it passes intellectual muster.
This contrasts with religion, where answers are accepted without evidence or reason, questioning is discouraged, and analysis and evidence are considered heresy.
You have no independent thought outside of what Scientists tell you to think..
Incorrect, also a non sequitur, and an illustration of a lack of understanding of the scientific method. The trifecta!
There are several ancient cultures that were able to predict both solar and lunar eclipses with good accuracy, which makes me believe they understood how they occurred..
You're ducking the issue, which is that many of them would not have understood and would have assigned these phenomena to the work of "gods", something we now know to be silly.
There's no reason that in 5,000 years we won't similarly have answers to questions that people like you answer with mythology.
The arguments for intelligent design have become more sophisticated due to the increase in knowledge on living creatures and the Universe.
They haven't actually become any more sophisticated. They've just gotten more deceptive. Even the name "intelligent design" is a deliberate fabrication intended to mislead people.
Oh I have no doubt that intelligent design has been used for religious and political purposes, and may even have had it's inception in such...
That's not to say that it's automatically worthless however as it does ask some valid concerns..
Yes, actually, it is. It is automatically worthless, because it is based on a fraud.
Sorry to disappoint you, but you are not dealing with some ignorant bible thumper. I am not a member of any Church or Religion..
Then why do you keep capitalizing the synonyms for God the way members of Abrahamic religions do?
You obviously belong to some religious belief system. So what is it?
Terrible analogy. Anyway, you insinuated that Creationism was unscientific and naïve. I then gave several examples of great scientists and thinkers who were Creationists.
Thereby proving that a few great scientists and thinkers were naive about creationism. Congratulations.
You have absolutely no idea how many current scientists and thinkers are creationists, so don't even pretend you do..
Here we have a nice encapsulation of the difference between science and.. whatever it is you are doing.
I very much do have an idea of how many current scientists believe in evolution versus creationism. The information is very easy to find. You could have found it if you wanted to -- but you didn't. This is the classic religious approach, used for centuries -- deny the existence of anything you don't want to admit to.
For your benefit:
The vast majority of the
scientific community and
academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of
biology,
paleontology,
molecular biology,
genetics,
anthropology, and others.
[22][23][24][25][26] One 1987 estimate found that "700 scientists ... (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) ... give credence to creation-science".
[27] An expert in the evolution-creationism controversy, professor and author
Brian Alters, states that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution".
[28] A 1991 Gallup poll of Americans found that about 5% of scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists.
[29][30]
Additionally, the
scientific community considers
intelligent design, a
neo-creationist offshoot, to be unscientific,
[31] pseudoscience,
[32][33] or
junk science.
[34][35] The
U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of
supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by
experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new
hypotheses of their own.
[36] In September 2005, 38
Nobel laureates issued a statement saying "Intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent."
[37] In October 2005, a coalition representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers issued a statement saying "intelligent design is not science" and calling on "all schools not to teach Intelligent Design (ID) as science, because it fails to qualify on every count as a scientific theory".
[38]
In 1986, an
amicus curiae brief, signed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners, 17 state academies of science and 7 other scientific societies, asked the
US Supreme Court in
Edwards v. Aguillard, to reject a
Louisiana state law requiring the teaching of creationism (which the brief described as embodying religious dogma).
[6] This was the largest collection of Nobel Prize winners to sign anything up to that point, providing the "clearest statement by scientists in support of evolution yet produced."
[26]
And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
Right, so Copernicus, who was the first western thinker to formulate the heliocentric principle which went against the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church and Society, was obviously "brainwashed." D:
Uh, no, he was specifically NOT brainwashed BECAUSE he went against the RCC. Why would you even try to make such a silly argument?
In fact, I already said I was a Deist (just like Einstein) in post # 408, so I know damn well that Einstein didn't believe in a personal God..
Then why did you suggest that he did? You claimed Einstein believed in creationism, which is utterly preposterous.
I never denied that most ID believers believe that the designer is the Creator. However, it's one thing to believe and another to identify..
That's a non-response. I repeat what I said before: intelligent design is creationism is intelligent design. Everyone knows exactly what "the Creator" is supposed to refer to. This is about as opaque as a hooker asking a man at a bar if he wants to "have some fun", and the man claiming later that he thought she wanted to go play mini golf.
For your information, according to your precious Scientists the Universe had a BEGINNING. They call this event the Big Bang. Time, Space, Matter, Energy etc all had their origins with this amazing event.
As Alzan said, that's not really correct. If the Big Bang theory is correct, then the matter of what occurred before it is unknown (and, some say, unknowable).
Now, I'm sure you know all of this, so why are you asking me why you can't say "the Universe itself has no causal explanation and was always there?"
Because it could well have always been there in some form or another?
Duh! It has a causal explanation, because the Universe is material!
...
God is immaterial and thus not subject to requiring a cause..
This distinction between "material" and "immaterial" was something invented by creationists specifically to allow their God to always exist and the universe not to. One tiny problem: it's entirely arbitrary. There's no reason to believe that something material requires a casual explanation and something immaterial does not.
No matter how you try to slice it, the answer to "At first there was God" is always "Where did God come from?". And when the response is "God was always there", the response is always "Well, the universe could have always been there".
More on this below.
And once again, you have zero evidence that coded information could have developed on it's own.
Both false and irrelevant: research into abiogenesis is ongoing, and as I already said: "Lack of evidence of theory A does not constitute evidence for theory B."
It's an act of reason, based on facts I know about the Universe and Life.
I'll grant that you may well think so, as you strike me as more honest than the typical ID/creationist. But then people believe in all sorts of silly things.
And what if one day, Scientists decide that Intelligence undoubtedly played a central role in the creation of the Universe and of Life.
Whatever will you do with yourself then?
Examine the evidence and the reasoning, and update my understanding and viewpoints as warranted. What else would I do?
This logic is wrong. The Universe DOES have a causal explanation (the Big Bang) because it is material. God does not require a causal explanation because It is immaterial and not subject to causation.
Yes, I get it, you're trying to employ the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
Unfortunately, it's pseudoscientific nonsense. The form of the argument is flawed, and the premises are easily refuted. (And please, don't quote William Lane Craig at me, or I will be forced to laugh.)
Because Consciousness is a fundamental aspect of reality, much like matter and energy. And if it's immaterial, then that lends credence to the belief that the origin or source of the Universe was IMMATERIAL in nature......ie God.
Lovely theory. Now prove that "consciousness is a fundamental aspect of reality". Good luck with that one!
It's quite simple. I'm asking whether or not you can tell if something is designed or not.
Usually I can. Not always.
It's relatively easy to find patterns and objects in nature that look like they were deliberately designed, but were not.
Nice try but I've seen that structure before so I know it's natural.
Nice evasion. The point wasn't that specific structure.
There's no natural force that could explain how atoms and molecules self combine into more complex forms, and gain consciousness..
Prove it.
Facebook
Twitter