Cambrian Explosion - Proof of Intelligent Design

[zecarlo]

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Just make sure it’s actually what I’m talking about, and not just a list of creationist equivocations. It should offer direct positive evidence* for the specified claim. Because why make a claim that can’t be evidenced?

Edit: Note that I’m not asking for proof. I’m asking for the equivalent of Dawkins’ parade of physical and experimental evidence. I’m asking for something that you can show me or prove to me that says, “See, this adds credibility to my otherwise meaningless claim.”[/quote]
To do so would be a sin. It would be heresy. Blasphemy. Asking God for proof He exists would be an incredible act of hubris. Not even Jesus stooped so low to prove he was the son of God. [/quote]

Miraculous acts such as walking on water, turning water into wine and dying and coming back to life would perhaps by used as to prove he was the son of God.
[/quote]
They were perceived and interpreted as being signs that he was indeed the Messiah but Jesus never actually proved he was. In other words, his followers still needed faith.

[zecarlo]

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Just make sure it’s actually what I’m talking about, and not just a list of creationist equivocations. It should offer direct positive evidence* for the specified claim. Because why make a claim that can’t be evidenced?

Edit: Note that I’m not asking for proof. I’m asking for the equivalent of Dawkins’ parade of physical and experimental evidence. I’m asking for something that you can show me or prove to me that says, “See, this adds credibility to my otherwise meaningless claim.”[/quote]
To do so would be a sin. It would be heresy. Blasphemy. Asking God for proof He exists would be an incredible act of hubris. Not even Jesus stooped so low to prove he was the son of God. [/quote]

If this is what you want to go with, then go ahead with it, but whoever takes this route should never again imply that their worldview is a reasoned one, or that it can stand alongside worldviews that follow from evidence.

“I am the truth, but you don’t EVER ask me to prove I’m the truth.” OK, if you say so.[/quote]
Most believers don’t understand that faith cannot exist without doubt, when it does it becomes fundamentalism, and are afraid (or just too ignorant) to accept the irrationality of their choice.

[smh_23]

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

What smh is asking for can be easily found on several creationist websites.
[/quote]

No it can’t.

[/quote]

Yes, it can. (See how I did that?)

But let’s test the theory. Look at what I’m specifically challenging theists to come up with–positive evidence in support of the positive claim, analogous to the evolutionary biologist’s claim of abiogenesis and natural selection, that, and I quote, “the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. The Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there He put the man whom He had formed.”

Now, link me to this specific positive evidence of these specific claims. You don’t have to make the argument yourself–send me to somebody reputable who’s made the argument.[/quote]

Can you do this with the evolution model? If so,

Ready

Set

Go git 'em, tiger.

To use your words, “I’ll wait.”

I take it from this that you admit that what I’m asking can’t be done.

Once that’s settled, I’ll be happy to accept the challenge.

[smh_23]

^Just to recap the series of events here:

SMH: Evidence can’t be offered in support of specific creationist contention Y.

Push: Yes it can.

SMH: Then show it to me.

Push: YOU show ME evidence for this separate evolutionist contention X.

See the problem here? Your response has nothing to do with your claim, which is that you can provide specific evidence of the claim–central to the Judeo-Christian mythology–that “the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. The Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there He put the man whom He had formed.”

So, again, I will allow our conversation to proceed logically–we will settle the first set of claims before me move on to the next, which has to do with evidence of evolution. Now, I will await this specific evidence, or the link to this specific evidence, that you say exists. It should not be difficult for you to offer it.

[smh_23]

[quote]pushharder wrote:

What smh is asking for can be easily found on several creationist websites.
[/quote]

In other words, let’s do this correctly and back up our positive claims in chronological order. Here ^ is where we begin.

Edit: And for some reason I feel persistently compelled to keep explicitly noting that what is under contention here is whether or not specific evidence of the claim that “the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. The Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there He put the man whom He had formed.”

[H_factor]

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

What smh is asking for can be easily found on several creationist websites.
[/quote]

No it can’t.

[/quote]

Yes, it can. (See how I did that?)

But let’s test the theory. Look at what I’m specifically challenging theists to come up with–positive evidence in support of the positive claim, analogous to the evolutionary biologist’s claim of abiogenesis and natural selection, that, and I quote, “the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. The Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there He put the man whom He had formed.”

Now, link me to this specific positive evidence of these specific claims. You don’t have to make the argument yourself–send me to somebody reputable who’s made the argument.[/quote]

Can you do this with the evolution model? If so,

Ready

Set

Go git 'em, tiger.

To use your words, “I’ll wait.”

I take it from this that you admit that what I’m asking can’t be done.

Once that’s settled, I’ll be happy to accept the challenge.[/quote]

Didn’t take long for that burden of proof to get shifted huh? It’s usually the calling card of many a theist. “You prove me wrong and I will accept you’re right.”

It’s even funnier when you asked for proof, but doesn’t take them long to say betcha can’t prove your own view.

Your right…I can’t. And neither can you. Hence my agnosticism. Doesn’t seem that difficult a concept. I readily admit I don’t have all the answers, but again I’m not saying I do.

In fact this thread wasn’t started showing “proof” from agnosticism or atheism, it was proof of intelligent design.

No one will answer your question smh because they don’t have the answer. They will deflect and attempt to run from it…but tackle it? Nah, that would require far too much effort.

[smh_23]

[quote]H factor wrote:

It’s even funnier when you asked for proof, but doesn’t take them long to say betcha can’t prove your own view.

Your right…I can’t. And neither can you. [/quote]

I don’t contend that I can prove my worldview either.

What I do content–because it’s baldly true–is that I can offer specific evidence for many of the claims that I have weighed and, ON THAT EVIDENCE, chosen to accept as the most reasonable and truthful account of the facts of reality. Since we are talking about linking to reputable sources and their evidence here, it will take me all of 4 or 5 minutes to do this.

However, I’m settling this first. I said something can’t be done, Push said it can. Well then, by all means, proceed. I will wait.

[smh_23]

[quote]pushharder wrote:
No one understands this better than my agnostic friend, smh, fwiw.[/quote]

You and I are in perfect agreement here. If I were to decide that the Bible is the most reasonable account of the truth, I would deny evolution.

I want to clarify something, by the way: I am not attacking your worldview here. I actually want to see the evidence. There are few things that interest me more than the present questions.

[pat]

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
pat wrote:

The questions are these:

1. What are the odds that things–the particulars of physical constants and parameters, the happenstances of evolutionary history–turned out so well for us, without “god?”

Most calculations I have seen put the odds at 1 in 4 x 10^17 chance of happening accident.

And they are darts launched by blind men at invisible targets in the pitch dark. The odds that the universe would be as it is are incalculable without our old friends, grossly monumental assumption and groundless guessing.
[/quote]
Sure there are assumptions in place, for instance that there was a pool of ‘material’ to work with in the first place, but I wouldn’t consider it blind guessing. It’s actually a pretty well thought out theory. It considers the amount of variables given the initial conditions of the early universe and calculates the various possible outcomes given the amount of possible variations of those conditions.It’s basal premises are that which science agrees on with regards to the initial conditions of the universe. Sure assumptions are in play, but they are not monumental or made up assumptions. The assumptions on which it’s based are scientific assumptions, but assumptions nonetheless.

2. What are the odds that “god” caused things to turn out so well for us?

Well the fact that you’re dealing with an act of will by a sentient being that either did, or did not create ‘it’, your odds are 50/50. Of course this is holding the variable of God’s existence in the positive.

And holding the variable of God’s existence in the positive is an enormous assumption and thus nullifies the calculation. Given that the goal is to argue that God exists by showing that the physical variables of the universe must have been “set” by God, surely you can identify the logical fallacy in assuming god’s existence as a parameter.

Well your question was asked in such a way that the existence of God was affirmed as true in the question. It wasn’t a question whether God exists, but whether or not He ‘…caused things to turn out so well for us’.
As an aside, God’s existence is not an ‘enormous assumption’. There are still valid arguments for the existence of God which have not been disproven.
That does not mean that objections have not been made, or that everyone holds the arguments in high regard, only that they have not been disproven.

In other words, I’m sure you know that I won’t accept a calculation of probability which assumes God’s existence as evidence that God created the physical variables of the universe. Which renders the probability meaningless, as I said in my first post.

The calculation does not assume God’s existence, agency, or causal input. It only calculates the amount of possible outcomes based on the initial conditions of the universe. At least considering the initial conditions which have thus far been determined as scientifically likely.
It doesn’t consider the cause of it at all.

[quote]

3. Which set of odds is likelier?

Well clearly the latter.

Neither, because neither set of odds is calculable, or even exists at all.[/quote]
Well they calculated it, so I don’t think it’s incalculable. Doesn’t mean they are spot on accurate, necessarily; doesn’t mean more variables cannot be considered in the future as more discoveries are made. But given enough variables and their possible outcomes, calculations can be made and have been. It’s just data, and data can be calculated.

[EDIT: Cleaned up ‘quotes’]

[anon50325502]

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I’m not sure why the idea that a God designed all this… And then set the wheels in motion of evolution to happen is really all that controversial…

Seems just as likely as all the universe just kind of, happening one day long, long ago…

[/quote]

Makes perfect sense to me.

[anon50325502]

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I’m not sure why the idea that a God designed all this… And then set the wheels in motion of evolution to happen is really all that controversial…

Seems just as likely as all the universe just kind of, happening one day long, long ago…

[/quote]
Because the majority of those who believe in creationism lack the education and intellect to understand what evolution actually is. I mean, you have people who believe the Earth is a few thousand years old. Do you think they have the requisite education and even brain wiring to comprehend evolution? [/quote]

The majority?

Lol, okay.

[Sloth]

I have no idea why creationism/evolution is always the target when pondering Genesis. Read the description of the sky and the celestial bodies. Now ask yourself how we landed on the moon instead of crashing into the firmament/dome. A dome that separates the water below (on Earth) from the water…above?! You guys are so fixated on evolution you forget the low-hanging fruit…Every. Single. Time.

Oh, and literal-sola scriptura-agnostics?

[pat]

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Pat,
If I understand things correctly, I see that based on metaphysics you’re able to come to the conclusion that a God must exist, how do you bridge the gap to be able to say the Christian God is the one that exists and not a different one? or is this not what you say/believe?[/quote]

Well to clarify, first, there is no such thing as a ‘Christian God’. There can be the Christian understanding of God, but there is no claim of ownership by one faith over another. There is no Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Christian, etc. God. There is only God. God is not the possession of a faith.
So as far as the metaphysics and the faiths are concerned there is no conflict. Faiths that understand the concept of God as being the agent of creation, or the reason for existence, or in short ‘The Creator’ as does the conclusion of a priori arguments for God’s existence.

What we are concerned with more than just ‘God in name’. We are concerned with the conceptual understanding of God as the creator of what is. Or in the atemporal sense, the reason for being.

So if a faith claims God as “creator” or “reason for being” as object of worship or understanding, then that religion is worshipping the ‘same God’ as God is understood to be by Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc.
If the basis for a religion is something other than ‘The Creator’ then they are not worshiping the same God as the typical monotheistic faiths.

Now none of this speaks to the validity of the faith itself or whether that faith is ‘right’ with regards to it’s methods or theology. But they are all right when it comes to the object of the faith being ‘God the Creator’.

If a faith worships God as the Earth, the Sun, the Universe, a rock, a drawing, a number, or anything save for the Creator of Being, then they are not worshipping the same God as Christians.

[espenl]

I havent seen any evidence of the judeo christian god, but I saw Odin on TV the other day, he looked like the serial killer in “Silence of the lambs”. See you all in Valhalla

[MattyG35]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Pat,
If I understand things correctly, I see that based on metaphysics you’re able to come to the conclusion that a God must exist, how do you bridge the gap to be able to say the Christian God is the one that exists and not a different one? or is this not what you say/believe?[/quote]

Well to clarify, first, there is no such thing as a ‘Christian God’. There can be the Christian understanding of God, but there is no claim of ownership by one faith over another. There is no Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Christian, etc. God. There is only God. God is not the possession of a faith.
So as far as the metaphysics and the faiths are concerned there is no conflict. Faiths that understand the concept of God as being the agent of creation, or the reason for existence, or in short ‘The Creator’ as does the conclusion of a priori arguments for God’s existence.

What we are concerned with more than just ‘God in name’. We are concerned with the conceptual understanding of God as the creator of what is. Or in the atemporal sense, the reason for being.

So if a faith claims God as “creator” or “reason for being” as object of worship or understanding, then that religion is worshipping the ‘same God’ as God is understood to be by Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc.
If the basis for a religion is something other than ‘The Creator’ then they are not worshiping the same God as the typical monotheistic faiths.

Now none of this speaks to the validity of the faith itself or whether that faith is ‘right’ with regards to it’s methods or theology. But they are all right when it comes to the object of the faith being ‘God the Creator’.

If a faith worships God as the Earth, the Sun, the Universe, a rock, a drawing, a number, or anything save for the Creator of Being, then they are not worshipping the same God as Christians.
[/quote]

So would that essentially mean you’re a deist?

[BPCorso]

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I’m not sure why the idea that a God designed all this… And then set the wheels in motion of evolution to happen is really all that controversial…

Seems just as likely as all the universe just kind of, happening one day long, long ago…

[/quote]

It’s controversial because people of highly questionable scientific resumes are using pseudoscience to prove intelligent design as a scientific theory on the same level of credibility as evolution. The same people who are funding this scientific research are in turn funding massive propaganda campaigns with the goal of having ID taught as an accepted scientific theory along side evolution in science classes. When in reality there are very few scientists that espouse ID as credible.

It’s also controversial because ID proponents are purposely making it controversial so the movement gets coverage. ID to this point in time has not been able to stand on its own scientific merit and needs controversy to help it spread.

ID is not even saying God designed all this and set the wheels in motion. It is very different than that.