Creator god or intelligent design, the facts that inform the theory?

We all create, even as infants and we all destroy even as infants... so as adults what is the real difference? The scale or the concern? The trickster(s) somehow seems to keep it all in balance; that old scale tipping from real profit either way one weighs it out.

So of course the fullness or richness is not really the measure nor the point from one side to the other; but the moment one finds oneself in to do or not to do when being is all on has as an awareness of such.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
Please answer this question....

Someday in the future somebody is going to ask me, how in the world could people actually believe that everything just happened by random chance cosmology, abiogenesis, and evolution with no intelligent design.

What will I tell them?

That is one of the thorns in the side of the atheist pro-science people. They cannot properly explain how order emerged from apparent chaos.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Why don't you defend the reverse. Say that the human body is so complicated, with system cooling, digestion, cardio vascular ect, ect has to have certainly been programed by higher power much more intelligent than man.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
Please answer this question....

Someday in the future somebody is going to ask me, how in the world could people actually believe that everything just happened by random chance cosmology, abiogenesis, and evolution with no intelligent design.

What will I tell them?

Simple, just tell the truth that there is not one single piece of verifiable evidence for a creator/intelligent designer.

Or

You can lie.

a reply to: Grimpachi


Bull crap.

a reply to: Logarock

Let me rephrase it with your input.

Just tell the truth that there is not one single piece of verifiable evidence for a creator/intelligent designer.

Or

You can lie/feed them a bunch of "bullcrap".

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Deetermined

Everything from the base nucleic acids to the structure itself can be reproduced in the lab. Life is no miracle. Probably happened thousands of times over. Doing it in the lab is not a big deal.
Fragments are only used for convenience. But everything is totally reproducible in the lab.

It happens in nature, a lab is not required for life processes. It also doesn't require scientists (if it did, there wouldn't be any).

... and true believer evolutionists such as Dick Dawkins would take umbrage at you saying that life began thousands of times over.

Craig Venter is one of the original members of the team that sequenced the first genomes, including the second human genome. He does say that there are probably countless times that life has formed from simple molecules. RNA has been shown to form naturally all the time. It is not considered life, but it does replicate. Viruses aren’t really considered on the same tree as other living organisms, but they can use and share sequences with their host animals, causing cross species sharing of genetic code.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: Deetermined

I'm not busted at all, I'm asking for verifiable evidence to support god claims. Do you have any?

A door is solid right? Or is that your limited perception? Because a door is a lot of empty space and probability patterns.

What does that mean?

I think we all understand that the world of matter is made of electromagnetic fields. So when someone says that a door is solid, it is understood that it is solid compared to the air around it.

That is the definition of solid. You cannot pass through it. Although we know that on a molecular scale, things appear differently. It does not change the definition of the word solid.

There are atomic forces and quantum probability fields too. When you go down really small, the physicality of matter becomes really indistinct.

Be honest, what do you know about atomic forces and quantum probability fields?

Can you name an atomic force without looking it up?

Can you calculate a QPF?

Or have you been watching Bill Nye and heard some cool words he said?

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Deetermined

Everything from the base nucleic acids to the structure itself can be reproduced in the lab. Life is no miracle. Probably happened thousands of times over. Doing it in the lab is not a big deal.
Fragments are only used for convenience. But everything is totally reproducible in the lab.

It happens in nature, a lab is not required for life processes. It also doesn't require scientists (if it did, there wouldn't be any).

... and true believer evolutionists such as Dick Dawkins would take umbrage at you saying that life began thousands of times over.

Craig Venter is one of the original members of the team that sequenced the first genomes, including the second human genome. He does say that there are probably countless times that life has formed from simple molecules. RNA has been shown to form naturally all the time. It is not considered life, but it does replicate. Viruses aren’t really considered on the same tree as other living organisms, but they can use and share sequences with their host animals, causing cross species sharing of genetic code.

I remember the panel where Venter said that life had many starts and described the phylogenetic tree as more like "bushes of life" than a single tree.

In that panel, Dawkins nearly had an apopleptic fit at the suggestion that life had more than one start.

I believe that Venter, the highly accomplished genetic scientist trumps the opinion of Dawkins, the highly published journalist.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Deetermined

Everything from the base nucleic acids to the structure itself can be reproduced in the lab. Life is no miracle. Probably happened thousands of times over. Doing it in the lab is not a big deal.
Fragments are only used for convenience. But everything is totally reproducible in the lab.

It happens in nature, a lab is not required for life processes. It also doesn't require scientists (if it did, there wouldn't be any).

... and true believer evolutionists such as Dick Dawkins would take umbrage at you saying that life began thousands of times over.

you don’t believe in evolution?

a reply to: Grimpachi

But they will ask me why people believed a concept that people didn't fully understand like cosmology from the beginning, and abiogenesis in the middle, and evolution at the end.

Was it because they trusted the scientists of the 20th and 21 century over the bible? Maybe

Was it because they didn't believe in Religion ? Maybe

Was it because they never believed in a creator/God ? Maybe

Was it because they ultimately did not want to be accountable to a higher power, and this gave them a plausible way out ? Maybe

Was it because they wanted to believe a certain narrative? Maybe

But the person will say......
"but these people were highly intelligent educated people with critical thinking skills, how were they so badly duped and fooled?"
My answer, they just wanted to believe it, and that is a very powerful cognitive dissonance.
"But didn't you try to help them see the truth?"
Yes I did,
"and what was the response"
I was laughed at derided for what I new to be true.
"wow that's pretty sad"
Yes it was very sad, but I did my best,
but now people know the absolute truth of the creation account and the debate is 100% over for all time.
"it must have been an interesting time period to live in"
actually it was, but the truth of creation at that time was heavily obscured by theories.

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: Deetermined

I'm not busted at all, I'm asking for verifiable evidence to support god claims. Do you have any?

A door is solid right? Or is that your limited perception? Because a door is a lot of empty space and probability patterns.

What does that mean?

I think we all understand that the world of matter is made of electromagnetic fields. So when someone says that a door is solid, it is understood that it is solid compared to the air around it.

That is the definition of solid. You cannot pass through it. Although we know that on a molecular scale, things appear differently. It does not change the definition of the word solid.

There are atomic forces and quantum probability fields too. When you go down really small, the physicality of matter becomes really indistinct.

Be honest, what do you know about atomic forces and quantum probability fields?

Can you name an atomic force without looking it up?

Can you calculate a QPF?

Or have you been watching Bill Nye and heard some cool words he said?

There are two nuclear forces, the strong nuclear force and the electroweak nuclear force.

In quantum theory, events are not deterministic because we cannot say exactly what all the values of all the parts are. We have to satisfy ourselves with what the values are most likely to be. In this regard, we have to assume probabalistic values. The Schroedinger equation is of most value in determining quantum interractions and relationships, but Feynman diagrams can also be used to approximate the physical proprties involved.

Didn't have to look up any of that but even if I had the need to do so, it wouldn't invalidate my knowledge.

Also, Bill Nye's programs never aired in the antipodes, it is American, so I couldn't possibly have watched his show.

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Deetermined

Everything from the base nucleic acids to the structure itself can be reproduced in the lab. Life is no miracle. Probably happened thousands of times over. Doing it in the lab is not a big deal.
Fragments are only used for convenience. But everything is totally reproducible in the lab.

It happens in nature, a lab is not required for life processes. It also doesn't require scientists (if it did, there wouldn't be any).

... and true believer evolutionists such as Dick Dawkins would take umbrage at you saying that life began thousands of times over.

you don’t believe in evolution?

Actually evolution sounds very reasonable but I temper that with a certain amount of continual critical reevaluation, as I do with ID and creationist theories.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

I am having a hard time following you because you seem kind of...insane.


If I am getting it correct you are alluding to that you will be talking to people in a hundred years or more??????

Unless there has been a scientific breakthrough prolonging ones life that long that I am unaware of then the chances of that happening are less than the chance of the world ending by the time I finish typing this.

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
Ok so we all know the difference
Religious faith theory is different because, blah blah
Evidently creationism has so much solid evidence that it doesn't need any more evidence, no I don't get that either.
What are these facts that inform the theory of a creator god or some other intelligent design?

Some one care to list them...

...oh this thread will be managed in the same style as a similar one asking about evolution, if you have no 'facts' to provide then your opinion will be dismissed.

there are no facts either way, waste your time as much as you like. nothing will change and no one will figure out the "truth", you are all acting dumb. so there

a reply to: Woodcarver

RNA has been shown to form naturally all the time. It is not considered life, but it does replicate.

Yet you have no idea how nature started.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Was it because they ultimately did not want to be accountable to a higher power, and this gave them a plausible way out ?

Bingo! Unfortunately for them, their "plausible way out" is only a self delusion created by their own egos.

a reply to: Grimpachi

I am having a hard time following you because you seem kind of...insane.

You have a hard time following because...

Romans 1:28

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

2 Thessalonians 2:10-12

10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: Woodcarver

RNA has been shown to form naturally all the time. It is not considered life, but it does replicate.

Yet you have no idea how nature started.

Natural chemical reactions

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: Woodcarver

RNA has been shown to form naturally all the time. It is not considered life, but it does replicate.

Yet you have no idea how nature started.

Natural chemical reactions

Yet you have no idea why it's "natural".