"Intelligent design" creationism basically finished

[Into the Night]

and I would be amused if they could prove they were expecting to create life......as for your popularity poll, can we exclude all the amazonerds from voting?.......you've got them believing your bullshit about theology is actually true......

Only governments and religions use consensus. Science does not use consensus. There is no voting bloc in science. Science has no politics and no religion.

 

[AProudLefty]

Teaching the Theory of Evolution (that 'higher' life evolved from 'lower' life, and in the end produced Man), IS a religion. This is a nonscientific theory. Again, it is not possible to go back and see what actually happened.

The strata and the fossils can be observed, dumbass.

 

[Into the Night]

That's a fallacy.

Then you must provide a third theory to show this.

 

[AProudLefty]

Then you must provide a third theory to show this.

RQAA.

The third "theory" is natural law.

 

[Into the Night]

Yes. Natural laws.

Explain.

BTW, if you roll a dice, will the number be random? Ok what caused it to roll?

Yes. 2nd question answered by 1st question.

A single die is a randR generator.

 

[Into the Night]

so is your argument that natural laws CAUSED it to happen or is your argument that it just happened randomly because the laws were in place......you are still stuck with those two options.......

He seems to be trying semantics fallacies to worm his way around it. He so far has provided no third theory.

 

[Into the Night]

Are you saying that random events are uncaused?

You stated the cause. Denial of self argument fallacy.

 

[AProudLefty]

Explain.

RQAA.

Yes. 2nd question answered by 1st question.

A single die is a randR generator.

There is no such thing as "randR". The word is "random".

 

[AProudLefty]

You stated the cause. Denial of self argument fallacy.

Lie.

 

[Into the Night]

RQAA.

The third "theory" is natural law.

Not a theory. A buzzword. Try again. A theory is an explanatory argument. You must explain what you mean by 'natural law'.

 

[AProudLefty]

He seems to be trying semantics fallacies to worm his way around it. He so far has provided no third theory.

Lie. You don't get to speak for anyone.

 

[AProudLefty]

Not a theory. A buzzword. Try again.

Inversion fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

By definition random events are uncaused. But does not mean they do not occur is a context.

WRONG. Random events indeed have cause. He even stated the cause of the random event in question.

 

[Into the Night]

Something has to move to make it random. Like lottery machine or dice.

And you stated the cause of the movement.

 

[Into the Night]

I mean things are always in motion. Unexpected events happen all the time.

The only thing that are supposedly uncaused are virtual particles and radioactivity.

A 'virtual particle'?????!?

Radioactivity has a cause.

 

[AProudLefty]

And you stated the cause of the movement.

Yes. Rolling a dice with your hand is the cause.

RQAA.

 

[Into the Night]

The idea of self organizing systems is at least as old as Aristotle and something scientists working in connectionism make use of.

"A defining feature of complex systems is their ability to encode, store, process, and employ functional information. This feature encompasses the elementary gradient sensing capabilities of single cells, through to the large-scale perceptual and decision-making abilities of large populations of neurons. Complex intelligent systems are fundamentally collective, distributed, error-prone, and hybrid. "
https://www.santafe.edu/research/themes/complex-intelligence-natural-artificial-and-collec

Aristotle thought ice floated because of it's shape too. Many of his theories have been falsified.

 

[AProudLefty]

A 'virtual particle'?????!?

Yes. Study Quantum Mechanics.

 

[Into the Night]

There is an incredible amount of evidence that the Big Bang happened,

So? Evidence is not a proof. There is also evidence that the Universe has always existed and always will. There is evidence supporting the Theory of Abiogenesis. There is also evidence supporting the Theory of Creation.

this is why it has reached the level of Theory (proven) in science.

A theory is not a proof. It is not possible to prove a theory True. Science has no proofs. It is an open functional system. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).

I fail to see why you would limit your own God to being incapable of planning the universe, setting it into motion, and generating the Big Bang to start it all by saying the words... "Let there be light"...

This produces a paradox.

If God exists outside the Universe, than the Universe is not universal. It is not the Universe.
If God does not exist outside the Universe, where was God before the so-called Big Bang?
If there is no god or gods, then the Big Bang is possible, but it is a nonscientific theory. It is not possible to go back in time to see what actually happened.

Remember, science does not use supporting evidence. Only religions do that. Science is only interested in falsifying evidence.

Basically, pretending that evidence isn't there doesn't make it go away, man.

I am not pretending the evidence isn't there. Word stuffing.

It's real. It is simpler to accept it as an explanation of how God did things than it is to pretend that the evidence isn't there.

Again, you produce the paradox. Which is it, dude? You cannot argue both sides of a paradox. It is irrational.

Does God exist outside the universe, meaning the universe is not universal?
Does God exist as part of the universe, giving no place for God to be before the universe existed?

And finally, does God exist at all?

I say God does exist. I do not place limits on Him. The Universe is infinite. It has no known border or boundary.

You say evidence supports the Theory of the Big Bang. That is true, there is such evidence. I must point out, however, that what we observe is necessarily limited to our little corner of the universe. We have no idea what is happening outside our range of observation.

Science itself does not use supporting evidence. Literally mountains of it mean NOTHING in the face of a single piece of falsifying evidence.

Just because evidence exists to support a theory does not prove the Theory True. It is not possible to prove any theory True. The Theory of the Big Bang is not falsifiable. It is not a theory of science. It remains a circular argument, and belief in it is purely based on faith.

 

[AProudLefty]

So? Evidence is not a proof. There is also evidence that the Universe has always existed and always will. There is evidence supporting the Theory of Abiogenesis. There is also evidence supporting the Theory of Creation.

A theory is not a proof. It is not possible to prove a theory True. Science has no proofs. It is an open functional system. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).

This produces a paradox.

If God exists outside the Universe, than the Universe is not universal. It is not the Universe.
If God does not exist outside the Universe, where was God before the so-called Big Bang?
If there is no god or gods, then the Big Bang is possible, but it is a nonscientific theory. It is not possible to go back in time to see what actually happened.

Remember, science does not use supporting evidence. Only religions do that. Science is only interested in falsifying evidence.


I am not pretending the evidence isn't there. Word stuffing.

Again, you produce the paradox. Which is it, dude? You cannot argue both sides of a paradox. It is irrational.

Does God exist outside the universe, meaning the universe is not universal?
Does God exist as part of the universe, giving no place for God to be before the universe existed?

And finally, does God exist at all?

I say God does exist. I do not place limits on Him. The Universe is infinite. It has no known border or boundary.

You say evidence supports the Theory of the Big Bang. That is true, there is such evidence. I must point out, however, that what we observe is necessarily limited to our little corner of the universe. We have no idea what is happening outside our range of observation.

Science itself does not use supporting evidence. Literally mountains of it mean NOTHING in the face of a single piece of falsifying evidence.

Just because evidence exists to support a theory does not prove the Theory True. It is not possible to prove any theory True. The Theory of the Big Bang is not falsifiable. It is not a theory of science. It remains a circular argument, and belief in it is purely based on faith.

This ^ is a parody account.