Summations Only

Sure, I was trying to keep things simple. But if I exclude hermaphrodites I am committing a false dichotomy, not doublethink; and if I add hermaphrodites to my list of things designtheorist could be, that isn't triplethink, either.

So, there's already more than two ways the Universe could have originated. Three ways now. And we discovered the third way on this thread!. Aren't we clever! I bet you no Physicist or Cosmologist or astro-whatever has ever thought about more than two ways!

No doubt.The kind of people I turn to answers for are people who start by saying: "I'm no scientist, but...."

But, but,...they're so clever (smart in American)...Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Anyway, let’s get back to the OP. This law works against the idea of a creator. Energy and matter can’t be created. Fullstop. No creator could have created energy and matter then. It simply can’t be created.I just hope that designtheorist realizes that the so-called Laws of nature were created by people to describe phenonema we observe and that these laws can be altered or scrapped? I hope he realizes that it has happened in the past when new evidence contradicted some of these laws?Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : Added the word "new".

I guess I need a definition of information. Have you ever seen a forest fire in action? It is very complex. Burned area of forest also is very complex. I would like to know what you are using as your determination of what constitutes complex as opposed to uncomplex.Do you consider a human more complex than a tree?

And I thought we finally had a new creo with some interesting arguments. Turns out all he has is poorly rehashed god of the gaps argument with some nebulous information theory bs.

Hi EWCCC777,About placing quotes in your posts, this is described in the dBCode help, see How to Quote.To everyone,I haven't read to the end of the thread yet, I'm still back at Message 123, but I see this thread picked up around a hundred messages in a single day, so I'd just like to ask everyone to make sure to stay on topic. This is a science thread, and to the extent that God is discussed it must be on the basis of evidence, not belief.Also, about Steven C. Meyer, the argument that his ideas must be taken seriously because he is a scientist is the fallacy of argument from authority. Let's discuss the merits of Meyer's ideas based upon evidence and not upon his standing within the scientific community.Also, concerning definitions, someone who doesn't believe in God is an atheist, not an evolutionist. Many evolutionists believe in God.AbE: I've set this thread to enter summation mode at 300 messages. There will be alerts at 250 and 280 messages.Edited by Admin, : AbE.

What the flying ***censored*** is "design theory"??? There is no such thing as "design theory" because no such thing has ever been offered as an actual theory in the first place. So-called "design theory" falls way way short of what constitutes theory in science.Please try to understand just this one little thing: We are not merely saying "design theory" is wrong; we are saying that it is not even wrong(!). Just about everything is potentially compatible with an unfalsifiable hypothesis. This alone renders the tenets of "design theory" absolutely useless as far as science is concerned.

Not yet, but since in all of history not one single unnatural cause of anything has ever been found, I can say with a very high degree of confidence that when the cause is found it will be a natural cause.

You made a assertion, that there was evidence for a Designer or Creator God.I am simply asking you to present that evidence.I have already told you that I am a Christian and therefore believe in the Super Natural, so once again you simply misrepresent my position.

Well the Young Earth assertion is certainly not a Theory and to try to claim it as a theory is just plain wrong.It is a religious belief that is shown to be false by overwhelming evidence.Christians and others abandoned the Young Earth nonsense because it is false, has been refuted and honesty requires its abandonment.

quote:

---

While the big bang may not be proof of God’s creation or the work of a Designer, the evidence is strong enough to have convinced many astronomers and physicists to change their views. These scientists did not all join some organized religion, but their views about the possible existence of God and the nature of the universe changed because of the big bang. Here are a few high profile examples:

​

Arthur Eddington, one-time atheist, became agnostic.
Paul Davies, one-time atheist, became agnostic.
Allan Sandage, one-time atheist, became a Christian.

---

And you could add:Richard Smalley, Nobel laureate in chemistry, became a Christian
Anthony Flew, noted philosopher, became a theist

A fire is powerful but not very complex. Vast heat is destructive to order and complexity and reduces everything to ashes. While a burned area of a forest will still be complex, it is much less complex than before the fire because life is much more complex than non-life.Regarding which is more complex, the human or the tree - I have never given the matter any thought. I'm not even sure how someone might quantify it. Trees can be quite large and have trillions of more cells and every cell is amazingly complex. On the other hand, humans have abilities trees do not have - locomotion, cognition, will, consciousness. To be honest, the question does not interest me much. But if I had to guess, I would guess humans are more complex because of the higher level of function.

In that case, you have a greater faith than I.