A Designer Consistent with the Physical Evidence

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.

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.

And the evidence for this claim is?Perhaps you might start with the evidence for the "designer," as that is the topic of the thread and after many posts we have yet to see any evidence.

---

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

You might consider the points made in the following lecture (on line video). It suggests that the mathematical models that "prove" evolution is impossible may be flawed.I have used this analogy before: With 25 dice, your task is to come up with all sixes. Now, you can roll all 25 time and time again looking for all sixes, and you'll die of old age before you likely get your desired result. Or, you can roll the dice and keep the sixes, rolling just the others again. You'll be done in a couple of minutes.Evolution works more like the latter method than the former. The mathematicians who come up with the huge odds against evolution are ignorant of biology, and use the former method.But see this lecture for more details:

Making Genetic Networks Operate Robustly: Unintelligent Non-design Suffices

​

Online lecture by Professor Garrett Odell

​

Researchchannel.org

​

Description: Mathematical computer models of two ancient and famous genetic networks act early in embryos of many different species to determine the body plan. Models revealed these networks to be astonishingly robust, despite their 'unintelligent design.' This examines the use of mathematical models to shed light on how biological, pattern-forming gene networks operate and how thoughtless, haphazard, non-design produces networks whose robustness seems inspired, begging the question what else unintelligent non-design might be capable of.

​

---

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

Photos?We got photos too, Tony! And there are a lot more where this came from.Fossil: KNM-ER 3733 -- Homo ergaster[/b]

---

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

Tony, where do you guys come up with this nonsense?And then creationists complain when they are called anti-science.

---

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

So that comparison between a chemical circuit and an electrical circuit is designed to "prove" the Christian deity is as described in the bible, and is creator of all things?That is your "physical evidence?"You have got to be kidding!

---

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

Where did you ever get the strange idea that evolution has a direction? That's absolutely wrong!Evolution is a series of tiny responses to local stimuli. There is no goal, no direction--just response to stimuli. Natural selection is the way those responses, in their aggregate, are judged. This "downhill" idea has its origins in the religious belief of "the fall." It has nothing to do with science or the real world. It also seems to be preventing you from grasping how evolution really works.In the real world, the way evolution works is through adding one kludge on top of another and weeding out the failures. There is no planning, just mutations, drift, and selection. If things work, fine. If not organisms or even whole species die out.But there is no direction, up or down, no goal, and no level of complexity which is ideal, and from which progress can be measured in any specific direction. Again, it seems like religious beliefs are getting in your way of understanding how evolution works.

---

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

Please address this question.Is your insistence on "lost information" and "no new information" based on your belief in "the fall?" Or upon something in science?

---

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

I would suggest that it is because they are creationists in disguise, and they are adhering to the belief that creation was perfect and the fall/sin caused devolution. The only way things can evolve is downward, the only change in information is loss of information.It is a religious belief, not a scientific finding.

---

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