Exploring the Claim for "Intelligent Design"

[POI]

I can't expect unbelievers to follow the data that leads to intelligent design.

irreducible complexity is associated with the concept of ID...and ID is a concept/movement that I'm standing 10 toes down, and two feet in.

(Kitzmiller v. Dover) ruled that it is unconstitutional to teach intelligent design, or I.D., in a "science" class. Okay, I think even Since_1985 might agree here in that I.D. has no place in a 'science' class.

However, while following the data in this trial, the claim to "irreducible complexity" was also challenged. Emphasis/focus was placed upon "bacterial flagellum" by creationists. By using logic, and not the "scientific method", skeptics to I.D., while 'following the data', placed forth a case which basically debunks the notion of "irreducible complexity", while addressing the "bacterial flagellum". In a nutshell, after testimony was placed forth to refute 'irreducible complexity', again sighting the "bacterial flagellum", the I.D. side of the isle had no further pushback or rebuttal. For anyone who is interested in all the specifics, a 2-hour documentary can be found here, as I do not wish to write a text-wall:



For debate: While following the data, "irreducible complexity' may not be a grounded rationale to remain in the I.D. camp. Thus, why still continue, two feet in, on the position of I.D. anyways? Faith, other reason(s)?

[Difflugia]

Just like we "should" all see a smiling face on this car, right?

False equivalency fallacy.

I'm arguing that seeing faces in cars (pareidolia) is equivalent to seeing agency in natural events. Again, you might disagree, but it's not fallacious.

Most of us recognize the similarity to a human face and are amused by it, even talking about it as a face by analogy. Very few people, though, go from there to thinking that there's actually some kind of person behind it.

The problem with that is, we already know that there was a person (intelligence) behind it.

So basically, very few people would NOT conclude that there's some kind of person behind it.

Yeah? Do the cars talk to you, too?

But if the prosecution instead just says that they've no idea how the crime was committed and so it absolutely must be the defendant, I'm sure the defendant hopes the jury isn't made up of Christian apologists.

This is just something to say, when you've got nothing of substance to say.

Since that describes a great deal of Christian apologetics, I'm not sure how that argues against my analogy. Your argument is literally for a god of the gaps. Since you can't imagine how evolution is responsible for biodiversity, it must be your favorite god that did it. In your courtroom analogy, that's exactly equivalent to claiming that since the prosecution can't imagine how anybody else committed the crime, it can only have been committed by their favorite defendant.

At this point, I'd just like to say that simply denying the applicability of the evidence against you doesn't really advance your argument. Bluff and bravado only work if you never have to show your cards.

Since you haven't justified this statement in this post, I can only assume you'll do it in the next one.

It is called "continuing to read in order to find out".

I thought it was called "deflection," but that was before I remembered that you never do that.

That is the point, the Penrose Equation (PE) is based on the precision of the initial conditions of the universe, which means that unless those fine tuned initial condition parameters weren't dialed in as mathematically precise from the universes initial state, then there would be no order, function, or complexity at all.

What you're calling the Penrose Equation (PE) isn't properly an equation (e). What he's saying in his books is that based on our current understanding of physics, time is (or should be) symmetrical. If that's the case, then the odds of the state of the universe having such a low entropy is extraordinarily low. His conclusion is that we've got something wrong about our current physical models. His goal is to find what that is. Your answer, on the other hand, is Jesus.

Penrose has explicitly declared this an "I don't know." You're just filling that gap with Jesus. If you don't understand why this reasoning is insufficient, I'll start a new topic.

Going back to the analogy of the cards (and the card house), in order for those cards to land and their landing formation to be that of a card house, the initial conditions of the deck(s) itself would have to already be dialed in, in a such a way that the cards will land in that specific way.

Except we don't have any evidence that they landed in that specific way. In Penrose's second book, he details a physical model that predicts universes that begin with low-entropy conditions, like a factory that produces perfectly and consistently ordered decks of cards.

Those parameters can't be met by blind and random processes.

You can assert this all you want, but I'm pretty sure that's all you have.

But a intelligent engineer can preset the dials to get the results that he wants.

An "intelligent designer" in the way Christian apologists define one can do anything at all. It's taking "I don't know" and assigning it to a god. Like I said, if you don't understand why that's insufficient, I'll start a new topic.

What order and complexity are you talking about?

The initial conditions. Let me put it to you this way..

Please follow me here.

[...]

Same thing with our universe. If the initial state of the universe wasnt fine tuned first, the life would never have been permitted.

No cake, no life.

You were saying something about false equivalency earlier?

The initial conditions of the universe were a nearly, but not completely, uniform distribution of elementary particles. Your analogy doesn't capture why that might be unexpected or why Jesus should have anything to do with it. You're just claiming that because you have no idea how the initial conditions of the universe came about, it must be Jesus. We're back to the corrected version of your bad courtroom analogy.

What experiments are you talking about? If you're talking about Penrose's books, then it's just a mathematical model without experiments to demonstrate anything. That doesn't mean that he's wrong, but it does mean that you're talking out of your hat.

Um, any experiment you conduct that shows how entropy works.

All experiments conducted within this universe show that the universe started in a low-entropy state and is moving to a high-energy state. Penrose is saying that based on certain theoretical understandings, that shouldn't be true despite the experimental evidence we have, not because of it.

The most basic and fundamental experience is from the card analogy.

If you throw a deck of cards in the air, how many times do you think you'll see before your eyes, a card house beginning to develope?

None.

That is the experiment.

The same logic applies to the universe if you start with a big bang.

If you're talking about Penrose's books, then you don't understand them. I don't think there's much more to prove about that at this point, but one of your many, many misunderstandings is about what the Big Bang is. I assume that you're rocking with Hovind and imagining it as a big explosion, but the universal expansion wasn't (and still isn't) an explosion. The distribution of matter following the expansion follows both from an initial state of the singularity and certain apparently inviolable laws of the universe. Penrose's question wasn't why a low-entropy distribution of matter followed the Big Bang, but why the state of the singularity led to such a Big Bang. Since our current physical theories break down before we reach the singularity, he's trying to work out how to get there.

Your deck of cards analogy is simply not applicable to the early conditions of the universe or Penrose's discussions in his books. If you think it does, you're fundamentally mistaken about something. Probably a great many things.

Saying "I don't know" won't cut it.

That's equally true if you spell it "God."

We are appealing to the best explanation, and if your idea of the best explanation is that of a mindless/blind process that engineered a finely tuned universe and sentient life, then it is clear that is the price of atheism, one that I'm not willing to pay.

Your personal incredulity doesn't get us closer to an explanation, best or otherwise.

You, on the other hand, are seeing the face on the front of the car and telling the rest of us to pray to it, too.

Whether you pray to it is one thing, but denying that the creation of the car was not based on intelligent design, is another.

Does the car talk to you, too?

No. We don't know what sentience it, how that relates to thinking, and how either of them relate to complexity. In order for that statement to be even meaningful, let alone something that I could agree with, we need to be able to quantify all three properties and identify their relationship with each other.

You're stalling, and it is disgustingly evident.

Stalling? What's evident is that you haven't enough scientific education to know why your question's meaningless.

Which entity has more complexity..

1. Michael Jordan (the living, breathing, conscious basketball legend).

2. The statue of Michael Jordan (inanimate object).

Please rationally answer the question.

The rational way to answer the question is that you still haven't sufficiently defined what you mean by complexity, but I can guess that you intend the living, breathing, conscious basketball legend to be more complex by whatever definition you want us to share.

Not interested in biobbable.

And yet you confidently answer questions whose answers require an understanding of biobabble. You were saying something about rationality?

If the opposing scientific concept you have in mind isn't evolution, what is it?

The universe and the human body.

That wasn't apparent before now, but you still claim I'm stalling when I ask you to define ambiguous terms?

[SiNcE_1985]

I'm arguing that seeing faces in cars (pareidolia) is equivalent to seeing agency in natural events. Again, you might disagree, but it's not fallacious.

An alleged smiling car wouldn't be an example of irreducible complexity.

So, like I said, false equivalency.

Yeah? Do the cars talk to you, too?

Red herring question. No basis for it.

Since that describes a great deal of Christian apologetics, I'm not sure how that argues against my analogy. Your argument is literally for a god of the gaps.

No, my argument is literally an appealment (new word) to the best explanation.

Since you can't imagine how evolution is responsible for biodiversity, it must be your favorite god that did it.

I can imagine how evolution did it. Just like I can imagine a 92 year old 110lb Mother Teresa bodied looking woman bench pressing 400lbs.

There is imagination, and there is real-life practibilty.

And in real life, it ain't practical...and there is no wonder you can't go in a lab and get those kinds of results.

Human beings with intelligence can't do it, yet it is to be believed that mindless/blind processes can/could?

Nonsense.

In your courtroom analogy, that's exactly equivalent to claiming that since the prosecution can't imagine how anybody else committed the crime, it can only have been committed by their favorite defendant.

Well, if the prosecution has evidence beyond reasonable doubt that no one else besides the defendant committed the crime, then yeah, it is hard to imagine anyone else committing the crime.

At this point, I'd just like to say that simply denying the applicability of the evidence against you doesn't really advance your argument. Bluff and bravado only work if you never have to show your cards.

Ok, so I'd like you to go in the kitchen and create (cook) a meal large enough to feed 10 people.

But here is the catch. You have to be completely blindfolded.

You have to gather all of the food and ingredients, and cook the entire meal blindfolded.

Id love to see you do it.

Tough task?

Not for Mother Nature...she has no eyes, yet she created an entire digestive system for living organisms to digest food.

She did it, so why can't you?

I thought it was called "deflection," but that was before I remembered that you never do that.

Not me.

What you're calling the Penrose Equation (PE) isn't properly an equation (e).

It is a probability ratio. Close enough.

What he's saying in his books is that based on our current understanding of physics, time is (or should be) symmetrical. If that's the case, then the odds of the state of the universe having such a low entropy is extraordinarily low.

Low based on what? On random chance.

And the low entropy of our universe couldn't be based on necessity...so you are running out of options.

Intelligent Design is the best explanation.

I know it is difficult to accept, but it is what it is.

His conclusion is that we've got something wrong about our current physical models.

Sounds like a personal problem for you guys, not us (believers).

His goal is to find what that is. Your answer, on the other hand, is Jesus.

Correct. Jesus, along with Gen 1:1.

Penrose has explicitly declared this an "I don't know." You're just filling that gap with Jesus.

Penrose supplied the probability, and Jesus does the rest.

If you don't understand why this reasoning is insufficient, I'll start a new topic.

Do what you gotta do.

Except we don't have any evidence that they landed in that specific way. In Penrose's second book, he details a physical model that predicts universes that begin with low-entropy conditions, like a factory that produces perfectly and consistently ordered decks of cards.

Keyword: Begin.

And anything that begins to exists has a cause.

So immediately he is confronted with the Kalam Cosmological Argument...which is a completely different/separate problem for the naturalist.

Second, we do have evidence that they landed in a specific way..because if they landed otherwise, we wouldn't be in here having this conversation.

The laws that govern our universe are very precise, mathematically precise...so precise that if the values were off by even the slightest bit, life would not be permitted.

This is mathematical precision ...cosmic engineering.

You can assert this all you want, but I'm pretty sure that's all you have.

That's all I need.

An "intelligent designer" in the way Christian apologists define one can do anything at all. It's taking "I don't know" and assigning it to a god. Like I said, if you don't understand why that's insufficient, I'll start a new topic.

Um, again, we are appealing to the best explanation, and if that leads us to God, then it is what it is.

We understand that the answer of "Goddidit" doesn't suit your fancy, but that is a personal problem for you.

God provides the explanatory power needed to produce the effect.

1. The mind (engineering mind).
2. The power (to create from nothing).
3. The will (to make the choice to create).

All of which Mother Nature lacks. So again, appealing to the best explanation.

You were saying something about false equivalency earlier?

The initial conditions of the universe were a nearly, but not completely, uniform distribution of elementary particles.

Yeah, and that's where the 1/10^10^123 probability ratio comes from, those initial condtions...in order for anything else to occur in the universe that is worth a damn for life permissiveness, those odds would have to be met.

And, it ain't happening in 1/10^10^123.

But it can happen from a God who declared "Let there be".

Your analogy doesn't capture why that might be unexpected or why Jesus should have anything to do with it. You're just claiming that because you have no idea how the initial conditions of the universe came about, it must be Jesus. We're back to the corrected version of your bad courtroom analogy.

Um, I am ruling out "Nature did it" based on 10^10^123.

So, God is the only game left in town.

Again, I'm not here to suit your fancy..I'm here to follow the evidence where it leads me, and to appeal to the best explanation here, as I do with everything else in life.

All experiments conducted within this universe show that the universe started in a low-entropy state and is moving to a high-energy state. Penrose is saying that based on certain theoretical understandings, that shouldn't be true despite the experimental evidence we have, not because of it.

Um, the low-entropy state of our universe cannot be explained by anything within the universe.

This would be like trying to explain how in a deck of cards, how the cards are in a perfect numerical and suit order from Ace-King, and from Heart-Diamond-Club-Spade.

You cannot explain this precise sequence by positing anything from within the deck itself.

You need an external explanation, such as a card-ordering machine built by intelligent humans..or, intelligent humans tasked with proper hand-ordering of the cards in the deck.

This is not something a random process would do.

If you're talking about Penrose's books, then you don't understand them. I don't think there's much more to prove about that at this point, but one of your many, many misunderstandings is about what the Big Bang is.

There is much to prove, and I'm proving it.

It's obvious that you've got nothing of substance to say against anything I'm saying.

Im no expert when it comes to this stuff, but I'm far from a novice.

I assume that you're rocking with Hovind and imagining it as a big explosion, but the universal expansion wasn't (and still isn't) an explosion.

Whether it is called an expansion or explosion...doesn't matter because the implications are the same.

No matter how you put it.

The distribution of matter following the expansion follows both from an initial state of the singularity and certain apparently inviolable laws of the universe. Penrose's question wasn't why a low-entropy distribution of matter followed the Big Bang, but why the state of the singularity led to such a Big Bang. Since our current physical theories break down before we reach the singularity, he's trying to work out how to get there.

Um, no.

Unlike what was previously thought, which was that there was this random and chaotic expansion of matter and energy...instead, it was discovered that the expansion, from the very moment of expansion, was a astronomically ordered event...which violates everything we know about entropy.

Your deck of cards analogy is simply not applicable to the early conditions of the universe or Penrose's discussions in his books. If you think it does, you're fundamentally mistaken about something. Probably a great many things.

The deck of cards represents the singularity, of which all the cards are compressed into the deck in the same manner that all STEM was compressed into a tiny speck (singularity).

So, it is applicable.

That's equally true if you spell it "God."

"Any answer, no matter how absurd, is still better that the "G" word."

Never fails.

Your personal incredulity doesn't get us closer to an explanation, best or otherwise.

I simply go where the evidence takes me.

Stalling? What's evident is that you haven't enough scientific education to know why your question's meaningless.

Okey dokey.

The rational way to answer the question is that you still haven't sufficiently defined what you mean by complexity, but I can guess that you intend the living, breathing, conscious basketball legend to be more complex by whatever definition you want us to share.

Hmm. So, if I asked you which is more complex..

1. A two-wheeled pedal bicycle.

Or.

2. A space shuttle.

Would you still need me to define complex?

Obviously, we are talking about irreducible complexity and I've yet to see you question the word "complexity" in that context...but now of a sudden you want to play ignorant and act as if you don't know the meaning of the words when it comes to specific physical objects.

Like I said, stalling.

Please answer the question.

I mean geez, even though POI gave a ridiculous answer when I asked him a similar question, at least the question was answered.

That wasn't apparent before now, but you still claim I'm stalling when I ask you to define ambiguous terms?

You are filibustering, amigo.

[Jose Fly]

For debate: While following the data, "irreducible complexity' may not be a grounded rationale to remain in the I.D. camp. Thus, why still continue, two feet in, on the position of I.D. anyways? Faith, other reason(s)?

First, what the bacterial flagella example (FYI, there are several types) shows is that while flagella may be "irreducibly complex" they are also evolvable. So that means the ID creationist argument that "irreducible complexity is evidence of design" has been falsified. Evolutionary mechanisms are entirely capable of producing irreducible complexity.

But bigger picture-wise, it doesn't really matter since ID creationism is effectively dead. Since its relatively recent revival and rebranding in the early 2000's, it hasn't accomplished a single thing scientific. It hasn't explained anything, it hasn't proposed any mechanisms, it hasn't identified any designers, nor has it produced a means to distinguish "designed" things from "undesigned" things. IOW, it remains as it always has....scientifically useless.

Of course ID creationism never was intended to be actual science. It was specifically crafted as a legal strategy to undermine/weaken the teaching of evolution in public schools and get creationist talking points into science classes. The Dover trial ended that.

So ID creationism is effectively dead. It's worthless as a science and it failed as a legal strategy. It now only lives on as an online debate topic, pretty much like flat earthism.

[SiNcE_1985]

What I'm trying to figure out is why you would even respond to a thread which attempts to discuss the very topic in which you state you refuse to discuss? Just don't engage it at all.

Because I thought I was here to discuss ID, in general.

I didn't know that I was gonna be hounded to watch/address a video that I deem irrelevant to my premise that "Intelligent Design is a viable option".

This is exactly what ID-ers state about bacterial flagellum.

Which has nothing to do with me/my case.

And since you are also on board with the given definition of I.C., this means both bacterial flagellum and the human body fail to meet their assertions, based upon logic and reason. If you watched the snippet of the video I provided (minute-64 thru minute-76), you would know why.

That is a big "if".

Post 118 is not arguing for or against any origin(s).

Post 118 of that thread instead provided irrefutable evidence to demonstrate that we share a common ancestry with the chimpanzee. This requires remaining Christians to modify Genesis to taste. You have three options, as far as I'm concerned here:

1) flat out hand-wave it away
2) Accept it and pivot/modify/retain your beliefs in Jesus anyways
3) Denounce Christianity and either become a generic theist, change to deism, or become an atheist.

Option 1) are for people like Mr. Hovind. Where do you land, after watching the 4-munute video here in post 118? (viewtopic.php?t=41715&start=110).

You: We are made in the image of chimpanzees. (X text book, X page)

Me: We are made in the image of God (Gen 1:27).

Choose your books wisely, people.

Apples and oranges buddy. Evolution does not speak about initial origins. That would be abiogenesis. And we already agreed abiogenesis is not an established theoretical science. This sub-topic merely destroys your current understanding of Genesis. Maybe you'll later pivot, and be more like Kennith Miller in the video -- (a believer who accepts evolution)?

Question, you do not believe in Creationism (no cosmic creative agent) correct?

LOL! You speak about the "Great Compromise of 2024." And when I respond, this is a "red herring"? You are too funny....

The only commendable response is "I'll create the KCA thread".

Anything beyond that is horse puckey.

I could agree with everything you propose, and this will only get you so far as to demonstrate unintelligent or convoluted "design". Which then instead is likely NO design, as it would be logically pointless to create things in such a way... The 12 minutes of the video laid out for you explains why.

Still harping away at that video, are we?

[POI]

I didn't know that I was gonna be hounded to watch/address a video that I deem irrelevant

Well, the video is in the OP. Makes sense to address it if you wish to respond...

It's illogical to deem it irrelevant when you have not watched it. (Bacterial flagellum) and the (human body) are basically interchangeable examples, as they are related to the agreed upon definition of I.C. And the video demonstrates how continuing to use such examples are illogical. But I guess spending more time responding here, than to just watch the 12 minutes' worth, is how you wish to roll.

You: We are made in the image of chimpanzees. (X text book, X page)

Me: We are made in the image of God (Gen 1:27).

Choose your books wisely, people.

The provided 4-minute video, which you refuse to address, merely only demonstrates common ancestry between primates and humans. It's clear you won't even touch it with a 10-foot pole. I'm sensing belief preservation here....

Question, you do not believe in Creationism (no cosmic creative agent) correct?

Dunno? But IF there exists 'creationism', it demonstrates to instead be impersonal, random, clumsy, and unintelligent. Which is the position of a 'deist.' (i.e.) -- Some impersonal agency(s) who(m) established the laws of the universe and then left it to run on its own.

The only commendable response is "I'll create the KCA thread". Anything beyond that is horse puckey.

It will go nowhere... KCA does nothing more than to present a case for what I stated above. So, if you want to settle this now, via the 'Great Compromise", I'll roll which 'deism' while you denounce 'Christianity' or adopt a completely different version, based upon the evidence which demonstrates evolution. Deal?

[1213]

I don't know.

Okay, then I guess we are done here. Thanks.

You also don't know?

[SiNcE_1985]

Well, the video is in the OP.

I've noticed.

Makes sense to address it if you wish to respond...

I've got bigger fish to fry.

It's illogical to deem it irrelevant when you have not watched it. (Bacterial flagellum) and the (human body) are basically interchangeable examples, as they are related to the agreed upon definition of I.C.

See,.that's where you are wrong.

They are not interchangeable examples.

And the video demonstrates how continuing to use such examples are illogical. But I guess spending more time responding here, than to just watch the 12 minutes' worth, is how you wish to roll.

I can easily post a video which supports my position as well.

I'm not in the business of just posting videos.

Instead, I educate myself on the subject that I'm defending, and how I fair during a debate/discussion will be based on my own understanding of the subject.

If you can't defend your own position but would rather just post videos, then thats telling me you ain't ready for these kinds of discussions.

The provided 4-minute video, which you refuse to address, merely only demonstrates common ancestry between primates and humans. It's clear you won't even touch it with a 10-foot pole. I'm sensing belief preservation here....

Yeah, and I can post an video where Kent Hovind is basically saying..

"What they claim to be common ancestry, is actually a common designer".

So, I guess we'll play a game of who has, and can post the most videos supporting our positions...and the first person who runs out of videos, loses.

What are we doing here?

Can you defend your position, without appealing to videos? Are you educated enough on your position to not appeal to videos?

For you, the answer is no.

For me, the answer is yes.

Dunno? But IF there exists 'creationism', it demonstrates to instead be impersonal, random, clumsy, and unintelligent. Which is the position of a 'deist.' (i.e.) -- Some impersonal agency(s) who(m) established the laws of the universe and then left it to run on its own.

I forgot where I was going with that question.

It will go nowhere... KCA does nothing more than to present a case for what I stated above. So, if you want to settle this now, via the 'Great Compromise", I'll roll which 'deism' while you denounce 'Christianity' or adopt a completely different version, based upon the evidence which demonstrates evolution. Deal?

That's the problem, even if Deism is true, that doesn't mean that evidence for evolution magically appears.

The evidence for evolution is still lacking.

And also, even if Deism is true, that doesn't mean that the arguments/case made for Jesus' resurrection magically disappears.

So no, no denouncing Christianity and btw, I can totally understand why Deism seems more appealing, at least than Christian theism.

Deist God: I don't care who you have sex with; man, woman, animal. Be free and liberated. I don't care, either way.

Christian God: You should only have sexual relations with your spouse of the opposite sex. No same sex relations allowed.

No one likes to be told who they can/can't sleep with. Deism offers no accountability, no "sky daddy" watching with caring eyes.

Christianity, however, has moral accountability...and ultimately, judgement.

So, it is easy to see why you'll rock with Deism...and that's the reason why Christianity is less appealing than other worldviews.

If Christianity allowed for followers to sleep with whomever they wanted, the religion would probably grow triple times over.

[Difflugia]

An alleged smiling car wouldn't be an example of irreducible complexity.

And alleged irreducible complexity isn't agency.

So, like I said, false equivalency.

You're anthropomorphizing non-human patterns. They're exactly equivalent.

Yeah? Do the cars talk to you, too?

Red herring question. No basis for it.

It's not a red herring. You're trying to pretend that saying that a car was made by people is the same as anthropomorphizing it's features. I was facetiously (but accurately) pointing out the difference.

The pattern that you seem to have fallen into is to claim that questions with unflattering answers are somehow not applicable.

Since that describes a great deal of Christian apologetics, I'm not sure how that argues against my analogy. Your argument is literally for a god of the gaps.

No, my argument is literally an appealment (new word) to the best explanation.

Then it fails right out of the chute. You haven't offered any evidence for why your explanation is even plausible, let alone best. Your claim has been that you don't like or understand the scientific answer, therefore your answer must be true. That's god of the gaps. Lest you still think otherwise, the main problem with god of the gaps is that it offers no way to distinguish your god from any other explanation, like leprechauns or magic.

And in real life, it ain't practical...and there is no wonder you can't go in a lab and get those kinds of results.

Get what results? What results do you imagine are necessary, but that we can't get?

Human beings with intelligence can't do it, yet it is to be believed that mindless/blind processes can/could?

Do what specifically? You're waving your hands a lot here.

Nonsense.

Mostly, but you occasionally surprise me.

In your courtroom analogy, that's exactly equivalent to claiming that since the prosecution can't imagine how anybody else committed the crime, it can only have been committed by their favorite defendant.

Well, if the prosecution has evidence beyond reasonable doubt that no one else besides the defendant committed the crime, then yeah, it is hard to imagine anyone else committing the crime.

If this is an analogy for intelligent design apologetics, then the prosecution has yet to show us this evidence.

At this point, I'd just like to say that simply denying the applicability of the evidence against you doesn't really advance your argument. Bluff and bravado only work if you never have to show your cards.

Ok, so I'd like you to go in the kitchen and create (cook) a meal large enough to feed 10 people.

Changing the subject again? OK.

Not for Mother Nature...she has no eyes, yet she created an entire digestive system for living organisms to digest food.

This is anthropomorphizing emergent natural properties.

She did it, so why can't you?

For roughly the same reason I can't fuse hydrogen into helium like the Sun: scale. The workflow from the digestive system of something like a planarian or sea squirt to one like mine was measured in hundreds of millions of years, billions of generations, and many orders of magnitude more individual acts of reproduction.

Just like how we have caused nuclear fusion on a much smaller scale, we have also achieved experimental evolution on a much smaller scale.

What he's saying in his books is that based on our current understanding of physics, time is (or should be) symmetrical. If that's the case, then the odds of the state of the universe having such a low entropy is extraordinarily low.

Low based on what? On random chance.

Low based on his assumption that the quantum states of universes are evenly distributed. That particular assumption is the one that he challenges in his second book.

I know it is difficult to accept, but it is what it is.

QFT

His conclusion is that we've got something wrong about our current physical models.

Sounds like a personal problem for you guys, not us (believers).

Remember your repeated attempts to call out taxicab fallacies, but you didn't actually do it right? Here's an example where it genuinely applies.

You're trying to ride along in Penrose's taxi while he sets up what he says is a problem with modern cosmology. Then, when Penrose just gets to the point where he starts proposing solutions to the problem that only exists if he's right in the first place, you hop out with your bullhorn and Chick tracts to tell us that instead of Penrose's carefully thought out solution, the answer is really Jesus.

If you don't understand why this reasoning is insufficient, I'll start a new topic.

Do what you gotta do.

There you go.

[POI]

I've got bigger fish to fry.

If the KCA, or other, is what you are referring to, then you should only address that/those topic(s).

See,.that's where you are wrong. They are not interchangeable examples.

Yes they are. If you had watched the video, you would know why.

I can easily post a video which supports my position as well.

You did that, in the 'Evilution' thread. And when I addressed the first point from that video, you completely aborted.

I'm not in the business of just posting videos.

Nor am I. I have stated that I post them to avoid typing text-walls. You are in the business to support Mr. Hovind's outlandish claims but care not to support them. Hence, I'd recommend stop quoting him.

Instead, I educate myself on the subject that I'm defending, and how I fair during a debate/discussion will be based on my own understanding of the subject.

Well, since your education tells you there is little evidence for evolution, I thought I would provide a 4-minute tutorial video to explain the area(s) you either completely missed, or flat out deny, in regard to what evolutionary biology has discovered.

If you can't defend your own position but would rather just post videos, then thats telling me you ain't ready for these kinds of discussions.

Sorry buddy. You might want to re-read my OP. I stated I do not want to type a text wall. Sometimes, it's easier to watch a video, rather than to transcribe a novel.

Yeah, and I can post an video where Kent Hovind is basically saying..

Again, with Kent Hovind.... Anywho...

"What they claim to be common ancestry, is actually a common designer".

Does this mean you agree humans share direct common ancestry with the great apes, yes or no? (Please pick one):

a) If yes, then the "Adam and Eve" story must be spun. (i.e.) Christian apologetics abound...

b) If no, then you have not watched the tutorial video, which would require me to type in a text-wall. Which means it's much easier to post a 4-minute video.

Can you defend your position

Yes. I can. But it is clear you have either: 1) not been exposed to what the 4-minute video provides, or, 2) have been exposed and hand-waved it away. But since you have not watched it, you do not know yet. I do not want to write a novel explaining something you may just very well ignore or other.

That's the problem, even if Deism is true, that doesn't mean that evidence for evolution magically appears.

That's not my position AT ALL. The arguments for KCA and ID and/or IC suggest, at best, an impersonal agency which applies no more or less emphasis on humans, verses any other species or materialism. Such a 'prime mover' apparently applied natural law(s) to allow for things to develop the way they are. Evolutionary biology is merely one of many lines of evidence(s) to demonstrate that "natural processes" rule the roost. And you merely reject the ones which conflict with the Bible. For (Christian theism) to instead be true, requires vast amounts of apologetics. You are required to become the sultan of spin. Sorry. And as soon as we explore the 'human body', you will find that in order to support the notion of "intelligent design", requires the same arguments as the ID-ers in the court case used to argue for bacterial flagellum.

The evidence for evolution is still lacking.

Remember what we discussed prior, about the sciences which are, and are not, theoretical? Well, evolutionary biology is one of them. Abiogenesis is not. I provided a simple 4-minute video, (which means I do not need to type a novel), which clearly explains why evolutionary biology continues to be well supported.

And also, even if Deism is true, that doesn't mean that the arguments/case made for Jesus' resurrection magically disappears.

It kind of does... If deism IS true, then theism is false, which means Jesus is false. This asserted "prime mover" is either (not personal or personal). Which one is it?

Of the two, I'd say it's the former, as FAITH is much required to instead believe the later. And faith can be applied to anything. I merely follow the evidence where-ever it leads me.

So no, no denouncing Christianity and btw,

Looks like you may have broken the provided compromise proposal?

I can totally understand why Deism seems more appealing, at least than Christian theism. Deist God: I don't care who you have sex with; man, woman, animal. Be free and liberated. I don't care, either way. Christian God: You should only have sexual relations with your spouse of the opposite sex. No same sex relations allowed. No one likes to be told who they can/can't sleep with. Deism offers no accountability, no "sky daddy" watching with caring eyes. Christianity, however, has moral accountability...and ultimately, judgement. So, it is easy to see why you'll rock with Deism...and that's the reason why Christianity is less appealing than other worldviews. If Christianity allowed for followers to sleep with whomever they wanted, the religion would probably grow triple times over.

Evidence leads more-so to an impersonal agency, at best. Which means it might as well be non-existent. It has little to do with 'morals', but instead about logic.

[SiNcE_1985]

And alleged irreducible complexity isn't agency.

Empty assertion.

Just something to say.

No substance.

You're anthropomorphizing non-human patterns. They're exactly equivalent.

Appealing to the best explanation.

It's not a red herring. You're trying to pretend that saying that a car was made by people is the same as anthropomorphizing it's features. I was facetiously (but accurately) pointing out the difference.

Never mind a smiling car, the assembling of a car in general, screams intelligent design.

The pattern that you seem to have fallen into is to claim that questions with unflattering answers are somehow not applicable.

Appealing to the best explanation.

Either..

1. God, with sight, vision, and a mind created the universe with all its irreducible complexity, entropy, law, order, functionality, etc.

Or..

2. Mother nature, a blind, mindless process created the universe with those aforementioned features.

I can demonstrate how an entity with those features in #1 can do it.

But what you can't do is demonstrate how #2 could have done it.

Then it fails right out of the chute. You haven't offered any evidence for why your explanation is even plausible, let alone best.

Sure, go with that.

Your claim has been that you don't like or understand the scientific answer, therefore your answer must be true.

Um, no. My claim is that science is incapable of explaining it, so Im rocking with the answer that is capable of explaining it.

Plain and simple.

Has nothing to do with likes/dislikes.

Has everything to do with appealing to the best explanation.

That's god of the gaps.

Um, no.

God of the Gaps is plugging in God based on what you don't know.

But I'm not doing that...I'm plugging in God based on what I do know.

Lest you still think otherwise, the main problem with god of the gaps is that it offers no way to distinguish your god from any other explanation, like leprechauns or magic.

Intelligent Design can be the form of any sentient casual agent.

If you want to call this agent a leprechaun, go for it.

Just don't call it Mother Nature.

Get what results? What results do you imagine are necessary, but that we can't get?

Reading comprehension.

The more I explain, the more you reject.

So if you don't understand what I said, then I can't help you.

Do what specifically? You're waving your hands a lot here.

Nothing.

If this is an analogy for intelligent design apologetics, then the prosecution has yet to show us this evidence.

Then it ain't meant for you to see.

For roughly the same reason I can't fuse hydrogen into helium like the Sun: scale. The workflow from the digestive system of something like a planarian or sea squirt to one like mine was measured in hundreds of millions of years, billions of generations, and many orders of magnitude more individual acts of reproduction.

You can conduct a small scale experiment, a simulation of those conditions to get the same results...or at least articulate how it was done even if you can't necessarily demonstrate it.

It is called doing "science", something that id think naturalists would be glad to do.

But they won't, because they can't.

Just like how we have caused nuclear fusion on a much smaller scale, we have also achieved experimental evolution on a much smaller scale.

Ok.

Low based on his assumption that the quantum states of universes are evenly distributed. That particular assumption is the one that he challenges in his second book.

Um, I had actually provided you the answer.

And it is the probability based on random chance.

That is the answer.

Remember your repeated attempts to call out taxicab fallacies, but you didn't actually do it right? Here's an example where it genuinely applies.

No, I don't remember that.

I remember calling out taxicab fallacies as it rightfully applies, which it rightfully applies to every other post that I respond to.

You're trying to ride along in Penrose's taxi while he sets up what he says is a problem with modern cosmology. Then, when Penrose just gets to the point where he starts proposing solutions to the problem that only exists if he's right in the first place, you hop out with your bullhorn and Chick tracts to tell us that instead of Penrose's carefully thought out solution, the answer is really Jesus.

First of all, I disagree with the notion there is a problem that needs to be solved...at least, for my side of things.

If the implications of 10^10^123 is a problem, it is a problem for the naysayers of intelligent design.

That is you guys problem...so, feel free to posit whatever theory you'd like.

We (believers) are over here chillin.

There you go.

I'll be there.