A Designer Consistent with the Physical Evidence

Thank you.

So you think that a gradual assembly of molecules can produce life? And you never back that up, at least in any serious manner. Wow! talk about religious!You are a dedicated evolutionist crusader. What you are not is a scientist.When is this forum going to prove that it is not an evolutionist echo chamber, and call you you out for your essentially science-free content-free posting history?

If you think that "life comes only from life" back it up with scientific evidence.If you think there is a "designer" out there, back it up with scientific evidence.That's the subject of this thread, and I've yet to see any scientific evidence.Here's your big chance, eh?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

The topic of this thread is not "What's wrong with evolution?"The topic of this thread is not "What's wrong with Coyote?"The topic of this thread is not "What's wrong with EvC Forum?"If you'd like to criticize evolution then find a thread in the [forum=-5] forum where you can bust on evolution all you like. This thread is in the [forum=-10] forum, and so unsurprisingly we're discussing intelligent design, not evolution.If you'd like to get personal with evolutionists then find another board. At EvC Forum we keep discussions focused on the topic rather than on the people discussing the topic.In other words, unless you have something to contribute that is on-topic, please don't post to this thread.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Hello folks,
I have skimmed the whole thread so if I miss something, my apologies.
For a designer to have created all of the Natural world, he has to be supernatural, am I right? Being such, it is not in our Natural world and can not be tested scientifically. So it can't be proven scientifically. So atheists should stop demanding proof, and christians should stop giving it to them.

Okay, I take it then that the 'evolutionist' can suggest by inference that inert molecules can and will gradually organize and assemble themselves on their own volition onto much more fragile and complex designs, then onto life itself. And for this claim they will offer no credible evidence themselves, but only insist that they have seen no 'scientific evidence otherwise'.IMO, there is a lot of that here from the evolutionist side, that is huge reaches of logic and conclusions with little hard fact to support it, and calling that out is not 'busting on them' or anything else. Give the 'coyotes' a pass on that if you will and warn me, its your forum. That however does equal a strong defense of their posture.What is considered 'scientific evidence' is a very broad area and gets very theoretical, speculative and fuzzy around the edges and highly subject to interpretation. For those who engage science to such ends, science can no more prove or disprove a creator/designer, where/how life originated than they can suggest that inert molecules can and will gradually organize and assemble themselves of their own volition onto much more fragile and complex designs then onto life itself. All they can and will say is 'we are working on it'.

Msg #216 was for you Percy.

Scientists study the natural world, using the working assumption of methodological naturalism. This is nothing more than the requirement that hypotheses be explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events.If evidence can be presented that this assumption is insufficient, science will expand to include that new evidence.Using this method, the scientific method, nothing is ever proven although many things are disproved. The more an hypothesis or theory is tested and not disproved, the more reliable it is considered. But it is never proved.Next, your equation of scientists with atheists is ill founded. Actually its a crock. Scientists are not tools of Satan, as I've seen them called on another website, nor are they automatically atheists. They are often religious believers themselves, but when they do science they use the tools, and the assumptions, of science. If they did not do so they could not call themselves scientists! This is where creation "science" goes wrong: they do not use the scientific method. They are practicing religious apologetics and trying to make us believe that it is science.Finally, regarding proof, you note that "christians should stop giving it to them." Christians have religious beliefs based on scripture and divine revelation. They do not have proof in the scientific sense; they have beliefs.In a number of cases those beliefs have been disproved by science. The "global flood" is one of the better examples. That belief was disproved about 200 years ago. The belief in a young earth has also been disproved.Now, true believers don't accept these disproofs based on scientific evidence--just as scientists don't accept scripture and divine revelation as evidence.Two very different viewpoints. But only one of those viewpoints can fall back on empirical evidence.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Hi, IchiBan. It's a little unfair of you to criticize the abilities and motivations of somebody else when (1) they are honestly admitting their shortcomings and (2) your personal contributions to the field are significantly less than the contributions of the people you're criticizing.This thread is about physical evidence for an intelligent designer (I should know: I am the one who started this thread): please stop talking about physical evidence for things other than a designer.Edited by Bluejay, : No reason given.

---

-Bluejay/Mantis/ThylacosmilusDarwin loves you.

Hi IchiBan,I'm responding now in my official capacity as moderator. Please stop posting off-topic to this thread.Feel perfectly free to cut-n-paste your post into a thread where it would be on-topic, or use it to propose a new topic over at [forum=-25], or you can raise discussion problems/issues over at Report discussion problems here: No.2, but please stop posting off-topic to this thread. Thanks.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Life can only be defined as a complete system. If your endowed with the minimum level of parts to achieved a automated self-replicating system then you can qualify to be labelled by man as a "living system"."Life" is now quite vague today. Calling a machine alive or not alive is mixing mythical ignorance with modern biology. If you guys would just put down your "life is some kind of black magic" religious Mythical ideas you would see the true reality of this thing we call existence.Complete automated systems (Life) can not arise from non-atomically, non-complex, non-complete systems. That video is crap mythical ignorance.

I assume that you have physical evidence to back this assertion up, distinct from the evidence that suggests it can?

Tony, I think your digressions have gone on long enough. Responding to complaints that you're not addressing the topic is only drawing you even further off-topic.This thread is about the physical evidence for the designer. You should only be posting to this thread if you have something to say about the topic.--Percy

Yet all humans, and virtually all multicellular life, are endowed with surplus parts from repeated snippets of viral DNA in the genome to entire structures, such as the Appendix or the Plantaris muscle. Does this mean according to your definition that humans are non-life, or would that be super-life? If designed, it is obviously by an incompetent designer at best. As opposed to simple, such as life is the blood? Perhaps you should ask a tree. And your evidence, beyond unsupported declarative phrases, is exactly what?Edited by anglagard, : last sentence, first paragraph, added to keep on topic.

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

Alright, that's your Premise A... now what's the substantiating evidence? Alright, another Premise A... now what's the substantiating evidence? Alright another Premise A... now what's the substantiating evidence?