So, is there proof of INTELLIGENT DESIGN?

[Taz]

I've proven it dozens of times. You are the one who can't disprove it.

I can disprove anything you say. I just call lack of proof. Because you only ever have theories or suppositions, not real, hard, scientific facts.

 

[ding]

I've proven it dozens of times. You are the one who can't disprove it.

I can disprove anything you say. I just call lack of proof. Because you only ever have theories or suppositions, not real, hard, scientific facts.

You can disprove the universe popping into existence and producing beings that know and create?

 

[Taz]

I've proven it dozens of times. You are the one who can't disprove it.

I can disprove anything you say. I just call lack of proof. Because you only ever have theories or suppositions, not real, hard, scientific facts.

You can disprove the universe popping into existence and producing beings that know and create?

You can't prove that that was done by your invisible friend.

 

[shockedcanadian]

I know this, all of science says that matter cannot be created nor destroyed. So, where did ANY of it come from? Planets and stars millions of times larger than our entire earth.

It all came from somewhere or someone. Science itself tells us this. What it cannot solve is where it came from. Ultimately, this leads me to believe it came from an Almighty Creator. An intelligent, deliberate creator, one whose powers and methods we could not possibly phathom.

 

[ding]

I've proven it dozens of times. You are the one who can't disprove it.

I can disprove anything you say. I just call lack of proof. Because you only ever have theories or suppositions, not real, hard, scientific facts.

You can disprove the universe popping into existence and producing beings that know and create?

You can't prove that that was done by your invisible friend.

No other option.

 

[Taz]

I've proven it dozens of times. You are the one who can't disprove it.

I can disprove anything you say. I just call lack of proof. Because you only ever have theories or suppositions, not real, hard, scientific facts.

You can disprove the universe popping into existence and producing beings that know and create?

You can't prove that that was done by your invisible friend.

No other option.

That's your proof "no other option"? LOL! Your concession is duly noted.

 

[ding]

I've proven it dozens of times. You are the one who can't disprove it.

I can disprove anything you say. I just call lack of proof. Because you only ever have theories or suppositions, not real, hard, scientific facts.

You can disprove the universe popping into existence and producing beings that know and create?

You can't prove that that was done by your invisible friend.

No other option.

That's your proof "no other option"? LOL! Your concession is duly noted.

No. I already told you the proof. The universe popping into existence and being hardwired to produce intelligence. There's your proof. It is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence.

 

[Taz]

I've proven it dozens of times. You are the one who can't disprove it.

I can disprove anything you say. I just call lack of proof. Because you only ever have theories or suppositions, not real, hard, scientific facts.

You can disprove the universe popping into existence and producing beings that know and create?

You can't prove that that was done by your invisible friend.

No other option.

That's your proof "no other option"? LOL! Your concession is duly noted.

No. I already told you the proof. The universe popping into existence and being hardwired to produce intelligence. There's your proof. It is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence.

Sure, but how does that tie into an invisible guy who cares what we do?

 

[ding]

I've proven it dozens of times. You are the one who can't disprove it.

I can disprove anything you say. I just call lack of proof. Because you only ever have theories or suppositions, not real, hard, scientific facts.

You can disprove the universe popping into existence and producing beings that know and create?

You can't prove that that was done by your invisible friend.

No other option.

That's your proof "no other option"? LOL! Your concession is duly noted.

No. I already told you the proof. The universe popping into existence and being hardwired to produce intelligence. There's your proof. It is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence.

Sure, but how does that tie into an invisible guy who cares what we do?

It's no accident.

 

[Taz]

I've proven it dozens of times. You are the one who can't disprove it.

I can disprove anything you say. I just call lack of proof. Because you only ever have theories or suppositions, not real, hard, scientific facts.

You can disprove the universe popping into existence and producing beings that know and create?

You can't prove that that was done by your invisible friend.

No other option.

That's your proof "no other option"? LOL! Your concession is duly noted.

No. I already told you the proof. The universe popping into existence and being hardwired to produce intelligence. There's your proof. It is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence.

Sure, but how does that tie into an invisible guy who cares what we do?

It's no accident.

That still doesn't tie it to an invisible guy who cares what we do.

 

[ding]

I've proven it dozens of times. You are the one who can't disprove it.

I can disprove anything you say. I just call lack of proof. Because you only ever have theories or suppositions, not real, hard, scientific facts.

You can disprove the universe popping into existence and producing beings that know and create?

You can't prove that that was done by your invisible friend.

No other option.

That's your proof "no other option"? LOL! Your concession is duly noted.

No. I already told you the proof. The universe popping into existence and being hardwired to produce intelligence. There's your proof. It is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence.

Sure, but how does that tie into an invisible guy who cares what we do?

It's no accident.

That still doesn't tie it to an invisible guy who cares what we do.

Sure it does. Existence can’t create itself.

 

[Taz]

I've proven it dozens of times. You are the one who can't disprove it.

I can disprove anything you say. I just call lack of proof. Because you only ever have theories or suppositions, not real, hard, scientific facts.

You can disprove the universe popping into existence and producing beings that know and create?

You can't prove that that was done by your invisible friend.

No other option.

That's your proof "no other option"? LOL! Your concession is duly noted.

No. I already told you the proof. The universe popping into existence and being hardwired to produce intelligence. There's your proof. It is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence.

Sure, but how does that tie into an invisible guy who cares what we do?

It's no accident.

That still doesn't tie it to an invisible guy who cares what we do.

Sure it does. Existence can’t create itself.

So god can't created itself?

And it still doesn't point to your specific invisible guy who cares what we do.

 

[Hawkins]

Scientists actually admitted intelligent design, implicitly though. They are looking for a justification to this "impossible coincidence". This justification is called multiverse however it is just as unfalsifiable as the claim of a God. It is the "God" for science to justify the impossibility.

Moreover, stupid humans are actually fooled by Satan (the fruit which you choose to eat of, the same day you shall surely die. As prophesied).

If one wants to know what you ate on your ever 1st birthday (i.e., when you are exactly 1 year old) then who to ask, science of your mom?
Your mom is the winner. One should ask your mom instead of science in order to get to the fact about what you ate on your 1st birthday. It is so simply because humans get to past facts by testimonies instead of science. They choose a valid and the best eyewitness who happens to be your mom in this case. To science a history is never falsifiable. Scientists can cast a majority vote for a theory such as the BBT, this theory itself however can hardly be falsifiable scientifically (this means it can never be confirmed in a scientific sense), the same as any other histories.

That said. The valid and best eyewitness for human to get to the fact of our universe' origin is thus God (whether you consider He exists or not belongs to another topic though).

 

[ding]

I've proven it dozens of times. You are the one who can't disprove it.

I can disprove anything you say. I just call lack of proof. Because you only ever have theories or suppositions, not real, hard, scientific facts.

You can disprove the universe popping into existence and producing beings that know and create?

You can't prove that that was done by your invisible friend.

No other option.

That's your proof "no other option"? LOL! Your concession is duly noted.

No. I already told you the proof. The universe popping into existence and being hardwired to produce intelligence. There's your proof. It is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence.

Sure, but how does that tie into an invisible guy who cares what we do?

It's no accident.

That still doesn't tie it to an invisible guy who cares what we do.

Sure it does. Existence can’t create itself.

So god can't created itself?

And it still doesn't point to your specific invisible guy who cares what we do.

I think you are too hung up on religion to think clearly.

 

[ding]

Scientists actually admitted intelligent design, implicitly though. They are looking for a justification to this "impossible coincidence". This justification is called multiverse however it is just as unfalsifiable as the claim of a God. It is the "God" for science to justify the impossibility.

Moreover, stupid humans are actually fooled by Satan (the fruit which you choose to eat of, the same day you shall surely die. As prophesied).

If one wants to know what you ate on your ever 1st birthday (i.e., when you are exactly 1 year old) then who to ask, science of your mom?
Your mom is the winner. One should ask your mom instead of science in order to get to the fact about what you ate on your 1st birthday. It is so simply because humans get to past facts by testimonies instead of science. They choose a valid and the best eyewitness who happens to be your mom in this case. To science a history is never falsifiable. Scientists can cast a majority vote for a theory such as the BBT, this theory itself however can hardly be falsifiable scientifically (this means it can never be confirmed in a scientific sense), the same as any other histories.

That said. The valid and best eyewitness for human to get to the fact of our universe' origin is thus God (whether you consider He exists or not belongs to another topic though).

Even multiverses began and can't avoid a creator. What is more telling is the nature of existence. The nature of the natural laws.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Scientists actually admitted intelligent design, implicitly though.

No they didn't.

 

[ding]

Scientists actually admitted intelligent design, implicitly though.

No they didn't.

<ahem>

George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe

 

[ding]

How is it that we have a universe of matter at all?

Our universe is made of four kinds of so-called elementary particles: neutrons, protons, electrons, and photons, which are particles of radiation. (I disregard neutrinos, since they do not interact with other matter; also the host of other particles that appear transiently in the course of high‑energy nuclear interactions.) The only important qualification one need make to such a simple statement is that the first three particles exist also as antiparticles, the particles constituting matter, the anti-particles anti-matter. When matter comes into contact with anti-matter they mutually annihilate each other, and their masses are instantly turned into radiation according to Einstein’s famous equation, E = mc2, in which E is the energy of the radiation, m is the annihilated mass, and c is the speed of light.

The positive and negative electric charges that divide particles from anti-particles are perfectly symmetrical. So the most reasonable expectation is that exactly equal numbers of both particles and anti-particles entered the Big Bang, the cosmic explosion in which our universe is thought to have begun. In that case, however, in the enormous compression of material at the Big Bang, there must have occurred a tremendous storm of mutual annihilation, ending with the conversion of all the particles and anti-particles into radiation. We should have come out of the Big Bang with a universe containing only radiation.

George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe

 

[ding]

It turns out that there are about one billion photons of that radiation for every proton in the universe. Hence it is thought that what went into the Big Bang were not exactly equal numbers of particles and anti-particles, but that for every billion anti-particles there were one billion and one particles, so that when all the mutual annihilation had happened, there remained over that one particle per billion, and that now contitutes all the matter in the universe -- all the galaxies, the stars and planets, and of course all life.

George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe

 

[ding]

Every atom has a nucleus composed of protons and neutrons, except the smallest one, hydrogen, which has only one proton as its nucleus. Electrons orbit these nuclei at distances relatively greater than separate our sun from its planets. Both protons and neutrons have masses almost two thousand times the mass of an electron -- 1840 times when I last looked -- so virtually the whole mass of an atom is in its nucleus. Hence the atom is hardly disturbed at all by the motions of its electrons, and an atom can hold its position in a molecule, and molecules their positions in larger structures. Only that circumstance permits molecules to hold their shapes, and solids to exist.

If on the contrary the protons and neutrons were closer in mass to the electrons, whether light or heavy, then the motions of the electrons would be reflected in reciprocal motions by the others. All structures composed of such atoms would be fluid; in such a universe nothing would stay put. There could not be the fitting together of molecular shapes that permits not only crystals to form, but living organisms.

George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe