Best Argument for Intelligent Designer!

[Ron Dean]

In a debate between atheist and a IDer one of the best argument I have
ever heard was call in to a program in Texas. The IDer took the first
opportunity to voice the ID evidence and his first point was that the
universe which came into existence where there was no matter; no time;
no space; no energy, so  there is a law of cause and effect, so it had
to have a cause and a designer who was outside and transcendent to the
universe. In his turn, the atheist said that since everything must have
a cause, who created the intelligent designer or god: and who created
that entity and who created that creator and on and on and on. The
answer given; the designer was the prime cause and this entity is
eternal. Then why can't the universe be eternal? If the universe is
eternal then no cause, no beginning and no need for a creator.

Conversely, if the universe had a beginning then there must have been a
cause and a need for an intelligent designer.  But, according to
science, the universe had a beginning almost 14 billion years ago called
the big bang. So, the universe had a beginning, according to science,
then there must have been a cause and a need for an intelligent designer
or creator.


--
talk origins

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 13:38:27 -0500, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>:

>
>In a debate between atheist and a IDer

Don't you know <nudge, wink> that ID is not a religious
belief?

And after the IDists say so repeatedly, too; one would
almost think you don't believe them!

> one of the best argument I have
>ever heard was call in to a program in Texas. The IDer took the first
>opportunity to voice the ID evidence and his first point was that the
>universe which came into existence where there was no matter; no time;
>no space; no energy, so  there is a law of cause and effect, so it had
>to have a cause and a designer who was outside and transcendent to the
>universe.

That's known as "assuming the conclusion". HTH.

> In his turn, the atheist said that since everything must have
>a cause, who created the intelligent designer or god: and who created
>that entity and who created that creator and on and on and on. The
>answer given; the designer was the prime cause and this entity is
>eternal. Then why can't the universe be eternal? If the universe is
>eternal then no cause, no beginning and no need for a creator.
>
>Conversely, if the universe had a beginning then there must have been a
>cause and a need for an intelligent designer.  But, according to
>science, the universe had a beginning almost 14 billion years ago called
>the big bang. So, the universe had a beginning, according to science,
>then there must have been a cause and a need for an intelligent designer
>or creator.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[RonO]

Well, if that is the best argument that you have ever heard for IDiocy,
that should tell you something. Ignorance is bliss.

What is weird is that no one really understands what things were like
before the Big Bang. If anyone tells you differently they are lying.
Really, the Big Bang is a singularity that we can't see the other end
of. There have been proposals about what may have existed just before
the Big Bang, but no one can really know at this point. It is the
nature of the event.

The Big Bang did occur, but we don't know much about what existed before
it. You should know where you stand because you don't know that answer
either, so what can you expect? Really, tell us what was present before
the Big Bang. You don't even know that based on your own alternative.

My take is that you understand that intelligent design is just a bogus
scam, and you likely understand that no honest creationist would be
advocating anything about it. Just go back to claiming that God did it
and you will be much better off. Take a clue from ex Senator Santorum.
He had the bait and switch run on him twice (once in Ohio and once in
his home state of PA) and gave up on the ID scam and went back to
supporting plain old creationism. There is no reason to bend over and
take the ID scam from the scam artists. You should know that by now.

Ron Okimoto

[Robert Camp]

On 12/5/20 10:38 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
>
> In a debate between atheist and a IDer one of the best argument I have
> ever heard was call in to a program in Texas. The IDer took the first
> opportunity to voice the ID evidence and his first point was that the
> universe which came into existence where there was no matter; no time;
> no space; no energy, so  there is a law of cause and effect,

Did you mean to say, "...so there is *no* law of cause and effect..."?

I hope so, otherwise the statement is contradictory. A law of cause and
effect would derive from the conditions that pertain in the universe -
i.e., the existence of matter, time, space and energy. There is no law
of cause and effect before there is a universe in which such a law could
occur.

> so it had
> to have a cause and a designer who was outside and transcendent to the
> universe.

As much as you'd like to believe it, this doesn't follow. The fact that
the universe appeared (to our approximation) from "nothing" does not
justify inferring a designer. That inference assumes that which is to be
proven.

> In his turn, the atheist said that since everything must have
> a cause, who created the intelligent designer or god: and who created
> that entity and who created that creator and on and on and on. The
> answer given; the designer was the prime cause and this entity is
> eternal. Then why can't the universe be eternal? If the universe is
> eternal then no cause, no beginning and no need for a creator.

All standard, well-worn and legitimate argumentation.

> Conversely, if the universe had a beginning then there must have been a
> cause and a need for an intelligent designer.  But, according to
> science, the universe had a beginning almost 14 billion years ago called
> the big bang. So, the universe had a beginning, according to science,
> then there must have been a cause and a need for an intelligent designer
> or creator.

And yet you miss the incredibly obvious point here - you insist that a
universe which had a beginning obligates an inference to purposeful
agency, while ignoring the same obligation for your putative designer.

It's fascinating to me that you can lay the arguments right out there in
writing, and still miss the inescapable conclusion.

You really need to spend less time listening to ID arguments and more
time learning how to reason effectively.

[Oxyaena]

On 12/5/2020 1:38 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>
> In a debate between atheist and a IDer one of the best argument I have
> ever heard was call in to a program in Texas. The IDer took the first
> opportunity to voice the ID evidence and his first point was that the
> universe which came into existence where there was no matter; no time;
> no space; no energy, so  there is a law of cause and effect, so it had
> to have a cause and a designer who was outside and transcendent to the
> universe.

Random quantum fluctuations in an inflationary field aren't caused by
anything, so in a sense, while the universe may have come about due to
random quantum fluctuations in an inflationary field, that doesn't mean
that this was intended in any sense. It truly was random.

> In his turn, the atheist said that since everything must have
> a cause, who created the intelligent designer or god: and who created
> that entity and who created that creator and on and on and on. The
> answer given; the designer was the prime cause and this entity is
> eternal.

That seems like special pleading.

> Then why can't the universe be eternal? If the universe is
> eternal then no cause, no beginning and no need for a creator.

We actually do think the universe was eternal, of a sort, it's
complicated, the universe as it exists now hasn't always existed,
obviously, but there are a lot of interesting new realms of knowledge
being explored that show that we don't have to rely on a deity to
explain the existence of the universe.

>

[Öö Tiib]

On Saturday, 5 December 2020 at 20:25:28 UTC+2, Ron Dean wrote:
> In a debate between atheist and a IDer one of the best argument I have
> ever heard was call in to a program in Texas. The IDer took the first
> opportunity to voice the ID evidence and his first point was that the
> universe which came into existence where there was no matter; no time;
> no space; no energy, so there is a law of cause and effect, so it had
> to have a cause and a designer who was outside and transcendent to the
> universe.

So it is again about something that we do not know. It can be that
something beyond/outside of our universe caused our universe.
What is the reason to conclude that the cause was intelligent?

> In his turn, the atheist said that since everything must have
> a cause, who created the intelligent designer or god: and who created
> that entity and who created that creator and on and on and on. The
> answer given; the designer was the prime cause and this entity is
> eternal. Then why can't the universe be eternal? If the universe is
> eternal then no cause, no beginning and no need for a creator.

It is indeed that the logic simplifies nothing as there is some kind
of outside/beyond that is intelligent then what made it? Answer is
that it was eternal? Note how we suddenly claim that whatever
caused our universe is itself eternal? And intelligent? From where
we concluded those two things? May be our universe is caused by
something temporary, like a spark from some larger fire. How to
decide that?

> Conversely, if the universe had a beginning then there must have been a
> cause and a need for an intelligent designer. But, according to
> science, the universe had a beginning almost 14 billion years ago called
> the big bang. So, the universe had a beginning, according to science,
> then there must have been a cause and a need for an intelligent designer
> or creator.

Creationists just assume that everything must have eternal intelligent
cause and so therefore it must have intelligent cause and so that cause
must be is eternal. Sometimes they add also that "because I can't
imagine how else it can be."
Must be indeed so when the only intelligent beings that we know of
are rather short lived, stupid and the destruction, trash and
excrement they cause is nothing creative.

[broger...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, December 5, 2020 at 1:25:28 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:
> In a debate between atheist and a IDer one of the best argument I have
> ever heard was call in to a program in Texas. The IDer took the first
> opportunity to voice the ID evidence and his first point was that the
> universe which came into existence where there was no matter; no time;
> no space; no energy, so there is a law of cause and effect, so it had
> to have a cause and a designer who was outside and transcendent to the
> universe. In his turn, the atheist said that since everything must have
> a cause, who created the intelligent designer or god: and who created
> that entity and who created that creator and on and on and on. The
> answer given; the designer was the prime cause and this entity is
> eternal. Then why can't the universe be eternal? If the universe is
> eternal then no cause, no beginning and no need for a creator.

........................

> Conversely, if the universe had a beginning then there must have been a
> cause and a need for an intelligent designer. But, according to
> science, the universe had a beginning almost 14 billion years ago called
> the big bang. So, the universe had a beginning, according to science,
> then there must have been a cause and a need for an intelligent designer
> or creator.

I'm not sure science says the universe had a beginning in the way you think it does. What "science" says is that if you extrapolate the expansion of the visible universe backwards in time, you end up with a very hot, very dense, very small state. To understand the behavior of a system that is that massive and that small, you need General Relativity (for the massiveness) and quantum mechanics (for the smallness) to work together. But those two theories do not work together; they break down. And when the theories break down, you end up with a singularity of infinite density in zero volume. But physicists recognize that that is a failure of the model, not an actual, physical state of infinite density and zero volume.

Religious folks who here about the infinite density and zero volume, tend to focus on the zero volume and call it "nothing," and then argue that the universe appeared from nothing. That's a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of what the science actually says. What the science says is that about 14 billion years ago, the mass in the currently visible universe was packed into a tiny volume at high density and temperature. The science does not say that the universe appeared from nothing.

>
>
> --
> talk origins

[Ron Dean]

On 12/5/20 3:15 PM, Oxyaena wrote:
> On 12/5/2020 1:38 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>
>> In a debate between atheist and a IDer one of the best argument I
>> have ever heard was call in to a program in Texas. The IDer took the
>> first opportunity to voice the ID evidence and his first point was
>> that the universe which came into existence where there was no
>> matter; no time; no space; no energy, so there is a law of cause and
>> effect, so it had to have a cause and a designer who was outside and
>> transcendent to the universe.
>
> Random quantum fluctuations in an inflationary field aren't caused by
> anything, so in a sense, while the universe may have come about due to
> random quantum fluctuations in an inflationary field, that doesn't
> mean that this was intended in any sense. It truly was random.

Okay, but this is a hypotheses where  there is no proof therefore, there
is no way to _know_.

>
>> In his turn, the atheist said that since everything must have a
>> cause, who created the intelligent designer or god: and who created
>> that entity and who created that creator and on and on and on. The
>> answer given; the designer was the prime cause and this entity is
>> eternal.
>
> That seems like special pleading.
>
>> Then why can't the universe be eternal? If the universe is eternal
>> then no cause, no beginning and no need for a creator.
>
> We actually do think the universe was eternal, of a sort, it's
> complicated, the universe as it exists now hasn't always existed,
> obviously, but there are a lot of interesting new realms of knowledge
> being explored that show that we don't have to rely on a deity to
> explain the existence of the universe.
>

The universe we live in, is the only one we have any knowledge. There
will come a time when the continuous increase in entropy will bring
about heat death - this is the end of the universe. Consequently, this
universe is not eternal.
Is that the purpose for the exploration of knowledge. in this case to
eliminate the need for a deity? I suspect that to some extent this
drives some people to search for alternatives which they think is to be
found in the pursuits of science.

[broger...@gmail.com]

........................................

> Is that the purpose for the exploration of knowledge. in this case to
> eliminate the need for a deity? I suspect that to some extent this
> drives some people to search for alternatives which they think is to be
> found in the pursuits of science.

If you focus on what you imagine the other side's motivations are, rather than on the actual arguments you'll just end up pointing fingers. They'll just say that the purpose of investigating design is simply to reassure your own weak faith in a deity. And all anybody on either side can do is proclaim that their motives are not what the other side says they are. It leads nowhere. You either have to stick to the substance of the argument or give up trying to communicate.

[jillery]

On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 13:38:27 -0500, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>
wrote:

What you describe above is an old Creationist PRATT. You have brought
it up in T.O. before, so I will tell you now what I told you then.

If you *presume* that everything must have a cause, in order to
criticize a scientific claim, then logically you can't in the next
breath turn around and *presume* an uncaused cause like a designer God
in order to support your claim. You're two *presumptions* are
mutually exclusive. If your first presumption is a valid criticism of
a scientific claim, then it's necessarily a valid criticism of your
claim. If you allow an uncaused cause for your claim, then you
necessarily must allow an uncaused cause for a scientific claim. You
can't have it both ways.

It's almost certain that someone from the program in Texas you heard
said the exact same thing I just said above, but you conveniently
forgot about it, just as you conveniently forgot what I said the last
time you raised this point. Either way, as an engineer, you should
recognize that what you heard is illogical.

Also, your description of that scientific claim is a strawman. Science
explicitly says it *does not know* how the universe started or what
existed before it.

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

[Ron Dean]

On 12/5/20 3:06 PM, Robert Camp wrote:
> On 12/5/20 10:38 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>
>> In a debate between atheist and a IDer one of the best argument I
>> have ever heard was call in to a program in Texas. The IDer took the
>> first opportunity to voice the ID evidence and his first point was
>> that the universe which came into existence where there was no
>> matter; no time; no space; no energy, so there is a law of cause and
>> effect,
>
> Did you mean to say, "...so there is *no* law of cause and effect..."?

Nothing was said by either party regarding the absence of the law.

>
> I hope so, otherwise the statement is contradictory. A law of cause
> and effect would derive from the conditions that pertain in the
> universe - i.e., the existence of matter, time, space and energy.
> There is no law of cause and effect before there is a universe in
> which such a law could occur.

The only argument - there was a point where no universe existed then the
only universe we know anything about came to be - a reality! Why and how?

>
>> so it had to have a cause and a designer who was outside and
>> transcendent to the universe.
>
> As much as you'd like to believe it, this doesn't follow. The fact
> that the universe appeared (to our approximation) from "nothing" does
> not justify inferring a designer. That inference assumes that which is
> to be proven.

It isn't a matter of what I would like to believe. There is a saying:
"from nothing, nothing comes". We cannot create anything from nothing.
If we could, why not create energy from nothing.

>
>> In his turn, the atheist said that since everything must have a
>> cause, who created the intelligent designer or god: and who created
>> that entity and who created that creator and on and on and on. The
>> answer given; the designer was the prime cause and this entity is
>> eternal. Then why can't the universe be eternal? If the universe is
>> eternal then no cause, no beginning and no need for a creator.
>
> All standard, well-worn and legitimate argumentation.

I think it isn't, since the only universe we actually know about had a
beginning and will come to an end. This is by definition _not_ eternal!

>
>> Conversely, if the universe had a beginning then there must have been
>> a cause and a need for an intelligent designer.  But, according to
>> science, the universe had a beginning almost 14 billion years ago
>> called the big bang. So, the universe had a beginning, according to
>> science, then there must have been a cause and a need for an
>> intelligent designer or creator.
>
> And yet you miss the incredibly obvious point here - you insist that a
> universe which had a beginning obligates an inference to purposeful
> agency, while ignoring the same obligation for your putative designer.
>

As far as I am concerned design infers a designer and I've seen no
observable evidence to the contrary. It's rare where random events lead
to order. The tornado through a junk yard creates no order, a bomb never
creates order. The _only_ exception to this is random mutations and
natural selection, assuming this is absolute, proven, fact. But in this
universe, we know of no other case where unguided random events lead to
such high degrees of order as found in living organisms.

> It's fascinating to me that you can lay the arguments right out there
> in writing, and still miss the inescapable conclusion.
>
> You really need to spend less time listening to ID arguments and more
> time learning how to reason effectively.
>

--
talk origins

[jillery]

On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 19:20:58 -0500, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Once again, only Creationist trolls say living organisms are a result
of random events. "Unguided" does not mean "random". There's a
difference. Your repetition of stupid strawmen is pointless.

>> It's fascinating to me that you can lay the arguments right out there
>> in writing, and still miss the inescapable conclusion.
>>
>> You really need to spend less time listening to ID arguments and more
>> time learning how to reason effectively.
>>

--

[Ron Dean]

On 12/5/20 2:03 PM, Ron O wrote:
> On 12/5/2020 12:38 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>
>> In a debate between atheist and a IDer one of the best argument I
>> have ever heard was call in to a program in Texas. The IDer took the
>> first opportunity to voice the ID evidence and his first point was
>> that the universe which came into existence where there was no
>> matter; no time; no space; no energy, so there is a law of cause and
>> effect, so it had to have a cause and a designer who was outside and
>> transcendent to the universe. In his turn, the atheist said that
>> since everything must have a cause, who created the intelligent
>> designer or god: and who created that entity and who created that
>> creator and on and on and on. The answer given; the designer was the
>> prime cause and this entity is eternal. Then why can't the universe
>> be eternal? If the universe is eternal then no cause, no beginning
>> and no need for a creator.
>>
>> Conversely, if the universe had a beginning then there must have been
>> a cause and a need for an intelligent designer.  But, according to
>> science, the universe had a beginning almost 14 billion years ago
>> called the big bang. So, the universe had a beginning, according to
>> science, then there must have been a cause and a need for an
>> intelligent designer or creator.
>>
>>
>
> Well, if that is the best argument that you have ever heard for
> IDiocy, that should tell you something.  Ignorance is bliss.

Who's ignorant?

>
> What is weird is that no one really understands what things were like
> before the Big Bang.  If anyone tells you differently they are lying.
> Really, the Big Bang is a singularity that we can't see the other end
> of.  There have been proposals about what may have existed just before
> the Big Bang, but no one can really know at this point.  It is the
> nature of the event.
>
> The Big Bang did occur, but we don't know much about what existed
> before it.  You should know where you stand because you don't know
> that answer either, so what can you expect?  Really, tell us what was
> present before the Big Bang.  You don't even know that based on your
> own alternative.
>
> My take is that you understand that intelligent design is just a bogus
> scam, and you likely understand that no honest creationist would be
> advocating anything about it.  Just go back to claiming that God did
> it and you will be much better off.  Take a clue from ex Senator
> Santorum.  He had the bait and switch run on him twice (once in Ohio
> and once in his home state of PA) and gave up on the ID scam and went
> back to supporting plain old creationism.  There is no reason to bend
> over and take the ID scam from the scam artists.  You should know that
> by now.

One reason, I dislike responding to you is the insults. There's an axiom
that fits, "if you don't like the message, shoot the messenger".
Ignorance scam ID, scam artists. These are the messengers.


> Ron Okimoto
>

--
talk origins

[Ron Dean]

Of course, I didn't say that, Jill. Instead this was meant to serve as a
contrast. I said the only exception to this is random mutations and
natural selection.

> "Unguided" does not mean "random".

Yes, it does! It means erratic, haphazard, indiscriminate, random,
pointless, capricious,  any which way among other descriptive terms.
https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/unguided?s=t

> There's a
> difference. Your repetition of stupid strawmen is pointless.
>
>
>>> It's fascinating to me that you can lay the arguments right out there
>>> in writing, and still miss the inescapable conclusion.
>>>
>>> You really need to spend less time listening to ID arguments and more
>>> time learning how to reason effectively.
>>>

--

talk origins

[Wolffan]

On 05 Dec 2020, Ron Dean wrote
(in article <efQyH.11815$2m6....@fx10.iad>):

The problem for intelligent design is really simple:

if _this_ is the best design their designer could come up with, he’s not
particularly intelligent or competent, ‘cause stuff like knees and spines
and the way that stuff can go down the wrong tube, air to the stomach/food or
liquids to the lungs, and lots more sure looks as though the designer hacked
together something using off-the-shelf components which don’t quite fit
together. Why, it’s almost as if humans were built using parts originally
speced for something quadrupedal... A competent designer would have dne
something about that spine, those knees, all the other junk... And the feet
need a _lot_ of work.

So... are you really saying that your god is an incompetent hack? Really?
‘Cause that sounds like something that might tend to get you into serious
trouble, if your deus is irae. Watch out for inbound lightening bolts,
m’man!

[jillery]

On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 22:16:16 -0500, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>

If you meant it as a contrast, then you contrasted apples and
ostriches. Bombs and tornados are completely orthogonal to the
process of random mutation and natural selection.

>I said the only exception to this is random mutations and
>natural selection.

To say the process of random mutation and natural selection is an
exception to "unguided random events" is analogous to saying winter is
an exception to numbers.

>> "Unguided" does not mean "random".
>Yes, it does!

No, it doesn't! See, I can use exclamation points, too!!!

> It means erratic, haphazard, indiscriminate, random,
>pointless, capricious,  any which way among other descriptive terms.
>https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/unguided?s=t

I acknowledge that "unguided" and "random" have multiple and
overlapping meanings. But in the context of ID they are not synonyms.
Instead, "unguided" means not purposely directed. Your word games are
silly.

>> There's a
>> difference. Your repetition of stupid strawmen is pointless.
>>
>>
>>>> It's fascinating to me that you can lay the arguments right out there
>>>> in writing, and still miss the inescapable conclusion.
>>>>
>>>> You really need to spend less time listening to ID arguments and more
>>>> time learning how to reason effectively.
>>>>

--

[jillery]

On Sun, 06 Dec 2020 00:48:36 -0500, Wolffan <akwo...@zoho.com>
wrote:

Apparently Dean allows his Designer to apply flexible quality
standards. There are things growing on Earth that no competent
engineering committed would have approved.

[RonO]

You obviously are. The Big Bang has been on the Top Six list for IDiocy
for 3 years, and you nor any other IDiot in existence can seem to deal
with the Top Six in an honest and straight forward manner. Sewell is an
ID Perp, and all he did was drop a couple of useless bits out of the Top
Six (he removed irreducible complexity and the Cambrian explosion) and
he rearranged the rest so that IDiots like you could more easily lie to
themselves about what was left.

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/jBa-aaiHl_M/m/xGc4XoeHAwAJ

Really, no IDiot in existence including yourself have been able to deal
with the Top Six as the Top Six for IDiocy for the last 3 years. Just
like you all IDiots want to use the Top Six for is for denial purposes.
Not a single one wants to build their best alternative out of them and
deal with what they come up with. They are only used so that IDiots
like yourself can lie about reality for as long as you can. You have to
forget about the Big Bang as you move to the next one so that you can
lie to yourself some more.

If this is not true you should be able to deal with the Top Six. Ask
for help. No IDiot has helped you out for years.

Just assume that the arguments are valid and that they tell you
something about what your intelligent designer did. Do that for all of
them and see what you end up with. IF you don't end up with something
like Denton or Behe have come up with you need to start over because you
obviously screwed up.

>>
>> What is weird is that no one really understands what things were like
>> before the Big Bang.  If anyone tells you differently they are lying.
>> Really, the Big Bang is a singularity that we can't see the other end
>> of.  There have been proposals about what may have existed just before
>> the Big Bang, but no one can really know at this point.  It is the
>> nature of the event.
>>
>> The Big Bang did occur, but we don't know much about what existed
>> before it.  You should know where you stand because you don't know
>> that answer either, so what can you expect?  Really, tell us what was
>> present before the Big Bang.  You don't even know that based on your
>> own alternative.
>>
>> My take is that you understand that intelligent design is just a bogus
>> scam, and you likely understand that no honest creationist would be
>> advocating anything about it.  Just go back to claiming that God did
>> it and you will be much better off.  Take a clue from ex Senator
>> Santorum.  He had the bait and switch run on him twice (once in Ohio
>> and once in his home state of PA) and gave up on the ID scam and went
>> back to supporting plain old creationism.  There is no reason to bend
>> over and take the ID scam from the scam artists.  You should know that
>> by now.
>
> One reason, I dislike responding to you is the insults. There's an axiom
> that fits, "if you don't like the message, shoot the messenger".
> Ignorance scam ID, scam artists. These are the messengers.

You are likely more than just ignorant at this point, and noting that
you are an IDiot supporter of the bogus intelligent design scam is
likely the best description that you are likely to get. These monikers
are actually a kindness because the reality is likely much worse. Just
deal with what the ID scam is at this time and demonstrate that for
yourself.

Deal with the Top Six. Sewell placed them in order of significance to
IDiocy and he put the Big Bang last. I gave you the link to those
efforts above. Just try to figure out why he did that. The Big Bang is
the best evidence that IDiot/creationists have for a creation event, and
it goes last among the best that the IDiots have. Just try to figure
out why the Big Bang is one of the science topics that the
IDiot/creationists want to drop out of the public school science
standards. They did it in Kansas, and they have tried to do it in
several other states, but sanity prevailed. It is just a fact that the
Big Bang is not the creation event that most IDiot/creationists want to
believe in. You could demonstrate that for yourself, by going through
the Top Six as if they were valid arguments that told you something
about IDiocy/creationism and build your best IDiot alternative out of
the Six. Sewell couldn't do that, he just mixed them up so that IDiots
could more easily lie to themselves about them. The ID Perps told you
that the original Top Six were in their order of occurrence and not
their order of significance to IDiocy, so you can start there. Sewell
claimed to put them in their order of significance so he doesn't agree
that the Big Bang is the best evidence for IDiocy.

It is just a fact that if IDiocy were legitimate science you should be
able to build your best IDiot alternative out of the best evidence that
they have. Sewell even lies and calls these scientific evidence, but he
obviously didn't get the memo on the limits for lying because the ID
perps were careful to never claim that the Top Six was scientific
evidence for IDiocy. They were careful to just claim that they were the
best evidence for IDiocy. Just look it up. The links are in the link
above. Stop being willfully ignorant, and you won't be able to be
called ignorant.

You can demonstrate otherwise, but you won't because you and all the
other IDiots posting to TO have never been able to do something that
honest and straightforward. Really, just ask for assistance with the
Top Six again, and see what you get.

Ron Okimoto

>
>
>> Ron Okimoto
>>
>

[dale]

the last effect is the first cause ...

--
Minister Dale Kelly, Ph.D.
https://www.dalekelly.org/
Board Certified Holistic Health Practitioner
Board Certified Alternative Medical Practitioner

[Robert Camp]

On 12/5/20 4:20 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
> On 12/5/20 3:06 PM, Robert Camp wrote:
>> On 12/5/20 10:38 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>
>>> In a debate between atheist and a IDer one of the best argument I
>>> have ever heard was call in to a program in Texas. The IDer took the
>>> first opportunity to voice the ID evidence and his first point was
>>> that the universe which came into existence where there was no
>>> matter; no time; no space; no energy, so there is a law of cause and
>>> effect,
>>
>> Did you mean to say, "...so there is *no* law of cause and effect..."?
> Nothing was said by either party regarding the absence of the law.

Yes, I know. Hence my question and further elaboration - which you
either missed or didn't understand.

>> I hope so, otherwise the statement is contradictory. A law of cause
>> and effect would derive from the conditions that pertain in the
>> universe - i.e., the existence of matter, time, space and energy.
>> There is no law of cause and effect before there is a universe in
>> which such a law could occur.
> The only argument - there was a point where no universe existed then the
> only universe we know anything about came to be - a reality! Why and how?

No, that wasn't the only argument. You argued (either personally or by
proxy) the further condition that, "...so there is a law of cause and
effect, so it had to have a cause and a designer who was outside and
transcendent to the universe."

Do you acknowledge that further extrapolation from what you said was the
"only argument," and do you understand why it does not follow - based
upon the points I made above?

>>> so it had to have a cause and a designer who was outside and
>>> transcendent to the universe.
>>
>> As much as you'd like to believe it, this doesn't follow. The fact
>> that the universe appeared (to our approximation) from "nothing" does
>> not justify inferring a designer. That inference assumes that which is
>> to be proven.
> It isn't a matter of what I would like to believe. There is a saying:
> "from nothing, nothing comes". We cannot create anything from nothing.
> If we could, why not create energy from nothing.

Philosophical assertions are not scientific axioms. Your "saying"
expresses nothing more than personal expectation. All of which means
this is exactly about what you would like to believe.

That is the point. You're not using logic and evidence. You're just
begging the question.

(And of course this doesn't even consider the point made by myself and
others that the "nothing" you're talking about, really isn't.)

>>> In his turn, the atheist said that since everything must have a
>>> cause, who created the intelligent designer or god: and who created
>>> that entity and who created that creator and on and on and on. The
>>> answer given; the designer was the prime cause and this entity is
>>> eternal. Then why can't the universe be eternal? If the universe is
>>> eternal then no cause, no beginning and no need for a creator.
>>
>> All standard, well-worn and legitimate argumentation.
> I think it isn't, since the only universe we actually know about had a
> beginning and will come to an end. This is by definition _not_ eternal!

You don't understand the physics, so you should definitely not make
assertions about definitions.

>>> Conversely, if the universe had a beginning then there must have been
>>> a cause and a need for an intelligent designer.  But, according to
>>> science, the universe had a beginning almost 14 billion years ago
>>> called the big bang. So, the universe had a beginning, according to
>>> science, then there must have been a cause and a need for an
>>> intelligent designer or creator.
>>
>> And yet you miss the incredibly obvious point here - you insist that a
>> universe which had a beginning obligates an inference to purposeful
>> agency, while ignoring the same obligation for your putative designer.
>>
> As far as I am concerned design infers a designer and I've seen no
> observable evidence to the contrary.

Yet another indication that this is a matter of belief for you. "As far
as I am concerned" signals that you think you know enough. You don't.

> It's rare where random events lead
> to order. The tornado through a junk yard creates no order, a bomb never
> creates order. The _only_ exception to this is random mutations and
> natural selection, assuming this is absolute, proven, fact. But in this
> universe, we know of no other case where unguided random events lead to
> such high degrees of order as found in living organisms.

You don't understand the science - e.g., stream bed sorting, grains of
sand on a beach, the hexagon on Saturn, etc., etc. are among the
multitudinous examples of natural processes leading to order.

You don't understand the language - you use words like "order,"
"nothing," and "design" interchangeably such that you conflate
subject-specific meanings (re: ID) and colloquial usage. Your arguments
are remarkably sloppy, and can be hard to follow for that reason.

You don't understand logic and reason - arguments from incredulity are
fallacies, arguments from ignorance are fallacies, arguments from
assumed conclusions are fallacies.


The broad point here remains: this is all about what you want to believe.

[Ron Dean]

On 12/6/20 11:05 AM, Robert Camp wrote:
> On 12/5/20 4:20 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>> On 12/5/20 3:06 PM, Robert Camp wrote:
>>> On 12/5/20 10:38 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In a debate between atheist and a IDer one of the best argument I
>>>> have ever heard was call in to a program in Texas. The IDer took
>>>> the first opportunity to voice the ID evidence and his first point
>>>> was that the universe which came into existence where there was no
>>>> matter; no time; no space; no energy, so there is a law of cause
>>>> and effect,
>>>
>>> Did you mean to say, "...so there is *no* law of cause and effect..."?
>> Nothing was said by either party regarding the absence of the law.
>
> Yes, I know. Hence my question and further elaboration - which you
> either missed or didn't understand.

Logic tell you there there was nothing, then the universe came into
existence. You can on hypothesize or guess and have faith that science
will find a way somehow without a designer. But there is no way to
absolutely to know!

>
>>> I hope so, otherwise the statement is contradictory. A law of cause
>>> and effect would derive from the conditions that pertain in the
>>> universe - i.e., the existence of matter, time, space and energy.
>>> There is no law of cause and effect before there is a universe in
>>> which such a law could occur.
>> The only argument - there was a point where no universe existed then
>> the only universe we know anything about came to be - a reality! Why
>> and how?
>
> No, that wasn't the only argument. You argued (either personally or by
> proxy) the further condition that, "...so there is a law  of cause and
> effect, so it had to have a cause and a designer who was outside and
> transcendent to the universe."
>
> Do you acknowledge that further extrapolation from what you said was
> the "only argument," and do you understand why it does not follow -
> based upon the points I made above?
>

There definitely was an effect that is, this universe came into
existence from virtually nothing. So, there _must_ have been a cause. We
know this because there was a beginning according to science called the
big bang!

>>>> so it had to have a cause and a designer who was outside and
>>>> transcendent to the universe.
>>>
>>> As much as you'd like to believe it, this doesn't follow. The fact
>>> that the universe appeared (to our approximation) from "nothing"
>>> does not justify inferring a designer. That inference assumes that
>>> which is to be proven.
>> It isn't a matter of what I would like to believe. There is a saying:
>> "from nothing, nothing comes". We cannot create anything from
>> nothing. If we could, why not create energy from nothing.
>
> Philosophical assertions are not scientific axioms. Your "saying"
> expresses nothing more than personal expectation. All of which means
> this is exactly about what you would like to believe.

What energy or matter do you know of, apart from the universe that came
from nothing.

>
> That is the point. You're not using logic and evidence. You're just
> begging the question.
>
> (And of course this doesn't even consider the point made by myself and
> others that the "nothing" you're talking about, really isn't.)
>
>>>> In his turn, the atheist said that since everything must have a
>>>> cause, who created the intelligent designer or god: and who created
>>>> that entity and who created that creator and on and on and on. The
>>>> answer given; the designer was the prime cause and this entity is
>>>> eternal. Then why can't the universe be eternal? If the universe is
>>>> eternal then no cause, no beginning and no need for a creator.
>>>
>>> All standard, well-worn and legitimate argumentation.
>> I think it isn't, since the only universe we actually know about had
>> a beginning and will come to an end. This is by definition _not_
>> eternal!
>
> You don't understand the physics, so you should definitely not make
> assertions about definitions.

I do know something about physics. In time this universe because of
increasing entropy will reach _heat_death_ this is the end of the universe.

I'm convinced you're playing games with me, trying to confuse me. I
realize you are not serious!

>
>>>> Conversely, if the universe had a beginning then there must have
>>>> been a cause and a need for an intelligent designer.  But,
>>>> according to science, the universe had a beginning almost 14
>>>> billion years ago called the big bang. So, the universe had a
>>>> beginning, according to science, then there must have been a cause
>>>> and a need for an intelligent designer or creator.
>>>
>>> And yet you miss the incredibly obvious point here - you insist that
>>> a universe which had a beginning obligates an inference to
>>> purposeful agency, while ignoring the same obligation for your
>>> putative designer.
>>>
>> As far as I am concerned design infers a designer and I've seen no
>> observable evidence to the contrary.
>
> Yet another indication that this is a matter of belief for you. "As
> far as I am concerned" signals that you think you know enough. You don't.
>
>> It's rare where random events lead to order. The tornado through a
>> junk yard creates no order, a bomb never creates order. The _only_
>> exception to this is random mutations and natural selection, assuming
>> this is absolute, proven, fact. But in this universe, we know of no
>> other case where unguided random events lead to such high degrees of
>> order as found in living organisms.
>
> You don't understand the science - e.g., stream bed sorting, grains of
> sand on a beach, the hexagon on Saturn, etc., etc. are among the
> multitudinous examples of natural processes leading to order.

>

Here you totally missed the point. The examples you mentioned does _not_
come anywhere close to the high degrees of order as that found in living
organism. Further the first levels you mentioned have no chance of
increasing ever higher degrees of order as did the levels of order from
non living matter to the cells in your body.

>
> You don't understand the language - you use words like "order,"
> "nothing," and "design" interchangeably such that you conflate
> subject-specific meanings (re: ID) and colloquial usage. Your
> arguments are remarkably sloppy, and can be hard to follow for that
> reason.
>
> You don't understand logic and reason - arguments from incredulity are
> fallacies, arguments from ignorance are fallacies, arguments from
> assumed conclusions are fallacies.
>
>
> The broad point here remains: this is all about what you want to believe.
>

That apparently somehow satisfies you.


--
talk origins

[Ron Dean]

Here you go again just shooting the messenger!
>>
>>
>>> Ron Okimoto
>>>
>>
>

--
talk origins

[Ron Dean]

On 12/6/20 10:06 AM, dale wrote:
> On 12/5/2020 1:38 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>
>> In a debate between atheist and a IDer one of the best argument I
>> have ever heard was call in to a program in Texas. The IDer took the
>> first opportunity to voice the ID evidence and his first point was
>> that the universe which came into existence where there was no
>> matter; no time; no space; no energy, so there is a law of cause and
>> effect, so it had to have a cause and a designer who was outside and
>> transcendent to the universe. In his turn, the atheist said that
>> since everything must have a cause, who created the intelligent
>> designer or god: and who created that entity and who created that
>> creator and on and on and on. The answer given; the designer was the
>> prime cause and this entity is eternal. Then why can't the universe
>> be eternal? If the universe is eternal then no cause, no beginning
>> and no need for a creator.
>>
>> Conversely, if the universe had a beginning then there must have been
>> a cause and a need for an intelligent designer.  But, according to
>> science, the universe had a beginning almost 14 billion years ago
>> called the big bang. So, the universe had a beginning, according to
>> science, then there must have been a cause and a need for an
>> intelligent designer or creator.
>>
>>
>
> the last effect is the first cause ...
>

Does this mean the universe created itself? If not - what does it mean:
if it did, how?
--
talk origins

[Oxyaena]

On 12/5/2020 6:27 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
> On 12/5/20 3:15 PM, Oxyaena wrote:
>> On 12/5/2020 1:38 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>
>>> In a debate between atheist and a IDer one of the best argument I
>>> have ever heard was call in to a program in Texas. The IDer took the
>>> first opportunity to voice the ID evidence and his first point was
>>> that the universe which came into existence where there was no
>>> matter; no time; no space; no energy, so there is a law of cause and
>>> effect, so it had to have a cause and a designer who was outside and
>>> transcendent to the universe.
>>
>> Random quantum fluctuations in an inflationary field aren't caused by
>> anything, so in a sense, while the universe may have come about due to
>> random quantum fluctuations in an inflationary field, that doesn't
>> mean that this was intended in any sense. It truly was random.
> Okay, but this is a hypotheses where  there is no proof therefore, there
> is no way to _know_.

Well, it shows that one need not invoke a designer when there are other
options that fit the evidence just as well, if not better than the
designer hypothesis.

>>
>>> In his turn, the atheist said that since everything must have a
>>> cause, who created the intelligent designer or god: and who created
>>> that entity and who created that creator and on and on and on. The
>>> answer given; the designer was the prime cause and this entity is
>>> eternal.
>>
>> That seems like special pleading.
>>
>>> Then why can't the universe be eternal? If the universe is eternal
>>> then no cause, no beginning and no need for a creator.
>>
>> We actually do think the universe was eternal, of a sort, it's
>> complicated, the universe as it exists now hasn't always existed,
>> obviously, but there are a lot of interesting new realms of knowledge
>> being explored that show that we don't have to rely on a deity to
>> explain the existence of the universe.
>>
> The universe we live in, is the only one we have any knowledge. There
> will come a time when the continuous increase in entropy will bring
> about heat death - this is the end of the universe. Consequently, this
> universe is not eternal.

In layman's terms, yes, but the reality of the matter is a bit more
complicated. It depends on how you define "eternal."

[snip shit BR already addressed]

[Ron Dean]

Things change. You know this.
>

--
talk origins

[jillery]

On Sun, 6 Dec 2020 14:11:22 -0500, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 12/6/20 11:05 AM, Robert Camp wrote:
>> On 12/5/20 4:20 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>> On 12/5/20 3:06 PM, Robert Camp wrote:
>>>> On 12/5/20 10:38 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> In a debate between atheist and a IDer one of the best argument I
>>>>> have ever heard was call in to a program in Texas. The IDer took
>>>>> the first opportunity to voice the ID evidence and his first point
>>>>> was that the universe which came into existence where there was no
>>>>> matter; no time; no space; no energy, so there is a law of cause
>>>>> and effect,
>>>>
>>>> Did you mean to say, "...so there is *no* law of cause and effect..."?
>>> Nothing was said by either party regarding the absence of the law.
>>
>> Yes, I know. Hence my question and further elaboration - which you
>> either missed or didn't understand.
>Logic tell you there there was nothing, then the universe came into
>existence. You can on hypothesize or guess and have faith that science
>will find a way somehow without a designer. But there is no way to
>absolutely to know!

You can't logic your way into presuming there was nothing. All
logical narratives start with an unproved presumption. All origin
narratives start with an unprovable presumption, including BB and ID.
A difference is, ID's presumption, of an unseen, unknown, undefined
designer, doesn't lead to useful hypotheses. And only the religious
talk about absolute certainty.

>>>> I hope so, otherwise the statement is contradictory. A law of cause
>>>> and effect would derive from the conditions that pertain in the
>>>> universe - i.e., the existence of matter, time, space and energy.
>>>> There is no law of cause and effect before there is a universe in
>>>> which such a law could occur.
>>> The only argument - there was a point where no universe existed then
>>> the only universe we know anything about came to be - a reality! Why
>>> and how?
>>
>> No, that wasn't the only argument. You argued (either personally or by
>> proxy) the further condition that, "...so there is a law  of cause and
>> effect, so it had to have a cause and a designer who was outside and
>> transcendent to the universe."
>>
>> Do you acknowledge that further extrapolation from what you said was
>> the "only argument," and do you understand why it does not follow -
>> based upon the points I made above?
>>
>There definitely was an effect that is, this universe came into
>existence from virtually nothing. So, there _must_ have been a cause. We
>know this because there was a beginning according to science called the
>big bang!

Once again, your comment describes a strawman. Even if it was an
accurate paraphrase, the relevant argument is not that there was a
cause, but instead what was the cause. There's a difference.

>>>>> so it had to have a cause and a designer who was outside and
>>>>> transcendent to the universe.
>>>>
>>>> As much as you'd like to believe it, this doesn't follow. The fact
>>>> that the universe appeared (to our approximation) from "nothing"
>>>> does not justify inferring a designer. That inference assumes that
>>>> which is to be proven.
>>> It isn't a matter of what I would like to believe. There is a saying:
>>> "from nothing, nothing comes". We cannot create anything from
>>> nothing. If we could, why not create energy from nothing.
>>
>> Philosophical assertions are not scientific axioms. Your "saying"
>> expresses nothing more than personal expectation. All of which means
>> this is exactly about what you would like to believe.
>What energy or matter do you know of, apart from the universe that came
>from nothing.

Once again, your comment describes a strawman.

>> That is the point. You're not using logic and evidence. You're just
>> begging the question.
>>
>> (And of course this doesn't even consider the point made by myself and
>> others that the "nothing" you're talking about, really isn't.)
>>
>>>>> In his turn, the atheist said that since everything must have a
>>>>> cause, who created the intelligent designer or god: and who created
>>>>> that entity and who created that creator and on and on and on. The
>>>>> answer given; the designer was the prime cause and this entity is
>>>>> eternal. Then why can't the universe be eternal? If the universe is
>>>>> eternal then no cause, no beginning and no need for a creator.
>>>>
>>>> All standard, well-worn and legitimate argumentation.
>>> I think it isn't, since the only universe we actually know about had
>>> a beginning and will come to an end. This is by definition _not_
>>> eternal!
>>
>> You don't understand the physics, so you should definitely not make
>> assertions about definitions.
>
>I do know something about physics. In time this universe because of
>increasing entropy will reach _heat_death_ this is the end of the universe.
>
>I'm convinced you're playing games with me, trying to confuse me. I
>realize you are not serious!

You do yourself no good to assume other people's motives.

Once again, you totally missed the point. The examples you mentioned,
bombs and tornadoes, don't selectively reproduce themselves. That's
why they have no chance of increasing ever higher degrees of order.

>> You don't understand the language - you use words like "order,"
>> "nothing," and "design" interchangeably such that you conflate
>> subject-specific meanings (re: ID) and colloquial usage. Your
>> arguments are remarkably sloppy, and can be hard to follow for that
>> reason.
>>
>> You don't understand logic and reason - arguments from incredulity are
>> fallacies, arguments from ignorance are fallacies, arguments from
>> assumed conclusions are fallacies.
>>
>>
>> The broad point here remains: this is all about what you want to believe.
>>
>That apparently somehow satisfies you.

Pot, kettle, black.

[jillery]

On Sun, 6 Dec 2020 14:36:51 -0500, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>
wrote:

That's true. What I don't know is what you think that has to do with
any of the comments above.

[dale]

the universe has always existed in some form?

a cycle of cause and effect?

the last effect is the first cause?

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

It means that you don't understand what you're talking about. In this
case, however, you're in good company as no one else understands it
fully either. However, that doesn't mean that Goddidit.


--
Athel -- British, living in France for 34 years

[RonO]

Why not do something honest and straightforward? What is your excuse
not to do what you should have done years ago? If you want to support
the ID creationists scam as it exists today, why not deal with the Top
Six in an honest and straightforward manner. You can obviously put them
up one at a time (The Big Bang is #1 of the original Top Six). Running
and then coming back with another of the Top Six hasn't done you any
good for years. Really, just treat them as if they were valid evidence
for IDiocy and build your best IDiot alternative out of them. Denial
isn't building anything. Build a positive construct that tells you
something about IDiocy.

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/jBa-aaiHl_M/m/xGc4XoeHAwAJ

Ron Okimoto



>>>
>>>
>>>> Ron Okimoto
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

[Wolffan]

On 06 Dec 2020, jillery wrote
(in article<r0fqsfdfk0a04l0pm...@4ax.com>):

It has absolutely nothing to do with my point about the incompetent
designer... except to reinforce it. His designer is so incompetent that the
design breaks, and breaks spectacularly. We’re talking worse than Ford
Pinto level incompetence here, folks, and over a period of billions of years,
so not only is his designer woefully incompetent, but said designer won’t
or can’t learn from previous errors and keeps on turning out shoddy work.

M’man Dean had best watch out for lightening bolts. Of course, his designer
might be as bad at aiming as he is at designing, so innocent bystanders may
be the ones at risk.

[Mark Isaak]

On 12/6/20 7:06 AM, dale wrote:
> On 12/5/2020 1:38 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>
>> In a debate between atheist and a IDer one of the best argument I have
>> ever heard was call in to a program in Texas. The IDer took the first
>> opportunity to voice the ID evidence and his first point was that the
>> universe which came into existence where there was no matter; no time;
>> no space; no energy, so  there is a law of cause and effect, so it had
>> to have a cause and a designer who was outside and transcendent to the
>> universe. In his turn, the atheist said that since everything must
>> have a cause, who created the intelligent designer or god: and who
>> created that entity and who created that creator and on and on and on.
>> The answer given; the designer was the prime cause and this entity is
>> eternal. Then why can't the universe be eternal? If the universe is
>> eternal then no cause, no beginning and no need for a creator.
>>
>> Conversely, if the universe had a beginning then there must have been
>> a cause and a need for an intelligent designer.  But, according to
>> science, the universe had a beginning almost 14 billion years ago
>> called the big bang. So, the universe had a beginning, according to
>> science, then there must have been a cause and a need for an
>> intelligent designer or creator.
>
> the last effect is the first cause ...

"You must lie upon the daisies
And discourse in novel phrases
Of your complicated state of mind --
The meaning doesn't matter
If it's only idle chatter
Of a transcendental kind."

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"If one day, my words are against science, choose science."
- Mustafa Kemal Ataturk

[Mark Isaak]

On 12/6/20 11:11 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
> [...]

> Logic tell you there there was nothing, then the universe came into
> existence.

No, that's what intuition tells you. Logic tells you that time is part
of the universe, so if there is no universe, there is no reason to
expect time to exist. Which means the term "then" cannot be used as you
used it above.

> You can on hypothesize or guess and have faith that science
> will find a way somehow without a designer. But there is no way to
> absolutely to know!

Yawn. That's been known for millennia. What you miss is that if you
*do* ascribe creation to a designer, then it is certain that you will
never know (unless you later learn from someone who did not make such a
rash assumption and kept looking).

> There definitely was an effect that is, this universe came into
> existence from virtually nothing. So, there _must_ have been a cause. We
> know this because there was a beginning according to science called the
> big bang!

You are assuming that laws of this universe apply where this universe is
absent. That's like going fishing in a high-altitude cloud.

> [...]

> I do know something about physics. In time this universe because of
> increasing entropy will reach _heat_death_ this is the end of the universe.

I think heat death refers to the end of anything interesting happening;
it might better be called an *effective* end of the universe. Space and
matter, at least in classical theories, would continue to exist. (Dark
energy might change this.)

>> [...]

>> You don't understand the science - e.g., stream bed sorting, grains of
>> sand on a beach, the hexagon on Saturn, etc., etc. are among the
>> multitudinous examples of natural processes leading to order.
>
> Here you totally missed the point. The examples you mentioned does _not_
> come anywhere close to the high degrees of order as that found in living
> organism. Further the first levels you mentioned have no chance of
> increasing ever higher degrees of order as did the levels of order from
> non living matter to the cells in your body.

In other words, where there *is* the chance of increasing order, such as
where there is replication (as in life), very high degrees of order
should be the rule.

[dale]

I'm all for nature

[jillery]

On Sun, 06 Dec 2020 17:26:35 -0500, Wolffan <akwo...@zoho.com>

>> > > engineering committe[e] would have approved.

>> > Things change. You know this.
>>
>> That's true. What I don't know is what you think that has to do with
>> any of the comments above.
>
>It has absolutely nothing to do with my point about the incompetent
>designer... except to reinforce it. His designer is so incompetent that the
>design breaks, and breaks spectacularly. We’re talking worse than Ford
>Pinto level incompetence here, folks, and over a period of billions of years,
>so not only is his designer woefully incompetent, but said designer won’t
>or can’t learn from previous errors and keeps on turning out shoddy work.
>
>M’man Dean had best watch out for lightening bolts. Of course, his designer
>might be as bad at aiming as he is at designing, so innocent bystanders may
>be the ones at risk.

Consider that almost all species that ever lived are now extinct.

Consider that life has suffered countless minor mass extinctions, at
least five major mass extinctions, and is almost certainly going
through another major mass extinction at this very moment.

Dean's Designer might not be incompetent, but apparently it has a lot
of trouble making up its mind. Perhaps that's what Dean meant by
"things change".

[Wolffan]

On 07 Dec 2020, jillery wrote
(in article<p0jrsfhuen1mvdvci...@4ax.com>):

Poor design work. The designer’s stuff doesn’t stand the test of time.

>
>
> Consider that life has suffered countless minor mass extinctions, at
> least five major mass extinctions, and is almost certainly going
> through another major mass extinction at this very moment.

More poor design work. The designer lacked forethought, and failed utterly to
design in the ability to adapt properly to changing conditions. As the
designer is supposed to be able to see those changing conditions before they
happen, this is further evidence of gross incompetence.

>
>
> Dean's Designer might not be incompetent, but apparently it has a lot
> of trouble making up its mind. Perhaps that's what Dean meant by
> "things change".

More likely m’man Dean couldn’t think of a coherent reply. All those
lightening bolts landing so closely must be disrupting his chain of thought.

[jillery]

On Sun, 6 Dec 2020 14:11:22 -0500, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Perhaps this will satisfy you, or at least reduce your confusion:

<https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/ask-ethan-how-did-the-entire-universe-come-from-nothing-28fc06bd75d8>

<https://tinyurl.com/y5lgbo83>

*******************************
As I wrote back in 2018, there are four scientific definitions of
nothing, and they’re all valid, depending on your context:

1) A time when your “thing” of interest didn’t exist,

2) Empty, physical space,

3) Empty spacetime in the lowest-energy state possible, and

4) Whatever you’re left with when you take away the entire Universe
and the laws governing it.

We can definitely say we obtained “a Universe from nothing” if we use
the first two definitions; we cannot if we use the third; and quite
unfortunately, we don’t know enough to say what happens if we use the
fourth. Without a physical theory to describe what happens outside of
the Universe and beyond the realm physical laws, the concept of true
nothingness is physically ill-defined.
***********************************

[Ron Dean]

I had other problems to attend. This NG takes a very distant place in
all my occupations. I just buried a family member today she died this
past Friday, she was 46 years old.

But to the point. I personally believe the designer became involved
three (3) times over a period of billions of  years: 1) the design and
programed beginning of the universe starting with the big bang almost 14
billion years ago and with energy and the laws of physics to "evolve"
the stars, galaxies and planets preparations for the design of  life . -
2) the design of life at the beginning (creation) of life (biogenesis)
implanting information IE the universal DNA/RNA at 3.8 to 4 KK years ago
- and 3) The designed programing of complex life with the design of the
unified and universal homeobox genes which contain the information for
animal shapes, body organs, parts animal life on the planet earth.


T

--
talk origins

[jillery]

On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 00:57:07 -0500, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>

What you describe above are legitimate priorities. You are right not
to let T.O. distract you from real-life.

Having said that, you say real-life is distracting you from posting
what you really mean. Only you can decide to continue here.

>But to the point. I personally believe

You're entitled to your opinion. Everybody has one.

>the designer became involved
>three (3) times over a period of billions of  years: 1) the design and
>programed beginning of the universe starting with the big bang almost 14
>billion years ago and with energy and the laws of physics to "evolve"
>the stars, galaxies and planets preparations for the design of  life . -
>2) the design of life at the beginning (creation) of life (biogenesis)
>implanting information IE the universal DNA/RNA at 3.8 to 4 KK years ago
>- and 3) The designed programing of complex life with the design of the
>unified and universal homeobox genes which contain the information for
>animal shapes, body organs, parts animal life on the planet earth.

[Ron Dean]

Even so Jill, It is yet to be proven that living organisms came into
existence through natural processes. Furthermore, there is empirical
evidence through observation that life comes only from preexisting life,
(the law of biogenesis). And no one can point to a single case or a
single observation where life arose independently of a preexisting live
organism. This strongly infers intelligent planning behind the scene.
Where abiogenesis is accepted as a reality, it is supported only through
faith ~ not through knowledge!

>
>
>> the designer became involved
>> three (3) times over a period of billions of  years: 1) the design and
>> programed beginning of the universe starting with the big bang almost 14
>> billion years ago and with energy and the laws of physics to "evolve"
>> the stars, galaxies and planets preparations for the design of  life . -
>> 2) the design of life at the beginning (creation) of life (biogenesis)
>> implanting information IE the universal DNA/RNA at 3.8 to 4 KK years ago
>> - and 3) The designed programing of complex life with the design of the
>> unified and universal homeobox genes which contain the information for
>> animal shapes, body organs, parts animal life on the planet earth.


--

talk origins

[Burkhard]

Sure, as soon as you can provide an observation of a single agent
designing life intentionally. As far as I can see, you don't have any
more observations on that side than the one you reject

[jillery]

On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 12:00:14 -0500, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>

So you think your arguments are more than your personal beliefs after
all. Then let me comment on your facts:

>It is yet to be proven that living organisms came into
>existence through natural processes.

It is yet to be prove that living organism were created by an unseen,
unknown, undefined Designer. You can't claim victory when you haven't
even scored a goal.

>Furthermore, there is empirical
>evidence through observation that life comes only from preexisting life,
>(the law of biogenesis).

Futhermore, there is empirical evidence through observation that life
didn't always exist on Earth. That first life came from non-life is
not in question. Instead it is how first life came from non-life.

>And no one can point to a single case or a
>single observation where life arose independently of a preexisting live
>organism.


And no one can point to a single case or a single observation where

life arose from an unseen, unknown, undefined Designer.

>This strongly infers intelligent planning behind the scene.

This strongly infers intelligent planning only to the choir.

>Where abiogenesis is accepted as a reality, it is supported only through
>faith ~ not through knowledge!

Still waiting for you to specify *any* knowledge that is positive
evidence for ID.

>>> the designer became involved
>>> three (3) times over a period of billions of  years: 1) the design and
>>> programed beginning of the universe starting with the big bang almost 14
>>> billion years ago and with energy and the laws of physics to "evolve"
>>> the stars, galaxies and planets preparations for the design of  life . -
>>> 2) the design of life at the beginning (creation) of life (biogenesis)
>>> implanting information IE the universal DNA/RNA at 3.8 to 4 KK years ago
>>> - and 3) The designed programing of complex life with the design of the
>>> unified and universal homeobox genes which contain the information for
>>> animal shapes, body organs, parts animal life on the planet earth.

--

[Ron Dean]

And your evidence for this?

--
talk origins

[Ron Dean]

Today there are thousands of heritable diseases, disorders and
abnormalities affecting the human race, most of the more severe die off
(survival of the fittest) according to Darwin. Also there's a myriad of
mildly defective or copying mistakes (mutations) that do not die off,
but survive and pass on these defects to their offspring. This accounts
for huge numbers of heritable diseases, defects and disorders
transmitted to their offspring. There are a few mutations that tend to
improve the chances of survival and passing these "good" genes on to
their offspring. These genetic disorders are observed and noted. But
regarding the beneficial mutations: the thinking is we see the
consequences of beneficial mutations.  But the rare beneficial mutations
are seldom if ever actually observed. The homeo sapien sapien as a
species is  a young species between 200,000 and 250,000 years old. These
thousands of heritable genetic appeared at different times during the
tenure of our species on earth. Furthermore, new heritable diseases
continue and will continue. These heritable conditions are a product of
various causes radiation, environmental alterations and bad nutrition
etc etc. These defects, diseases etc were not designed into the species,
but are the result of time change and often bad decisions on our part.

>>>
>>> Consider that life has suffered countless minor mass extinctions, at
>>> least five major mass extinctions, and is almost certainly going
>>> through another major mass extinction at this very moment.
More poor design work. The designer lacked forethought, and failed
utterly to
>> design in the ability to adapt properly to changing conditions. As the
>> designer is supposed to be able to see those changing conditions
>> before they
>> happen, this is further evidence of gross incompetence.

An engineer does his work,  it's out the door,  it's passed on, and out
of the hands of the designer. It was initially  well designed, but
corrosion, atrophy, aging, degeneration, decay and rot takes place over
time.
<snip>

[Ron Dean]

On 12/6/20 2:13 PM, Oxyaena wrote:
> On 12/5/2020 6:27 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>> On 12/5/20 3:15 PM, Oxyaena wrote:
>>> On 12/5/2020 1:38 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In a debate between atheist and a IDer one of the best argument I
>>>> have ever heard was call in to a program in Texas. The IDer took
>>>> the first opportunity to voice the ID evidence and his first point
>>>> was that the universe which came into existence where there was no
>>>> matter; no time; no space; no energy, so there is a law of cause
>>>> and effect, so it had to have a cause and a designer who was
>>>> outside and transcendent to the universe.
>>>
>>> Random quantum fluctuations in an inflationary field aren't caused
>>> by anything, so in a sense, while the universe may have come about
>>> due to random quantum fluctuations in an inflationary field, that
>>> doesn't mean that this was intended in any sense. It truly was random.
>> Okay, but this is a hypotheses where  there is no proof therefore,
>> there is no way to _know_.
>
> Well, it shows that one need not invoke a designer when there are
> other options that fit the evidence just as well, if not better than
> the designer hypothesis.
>

Ok! what are these other options and how many and what is your argument
supporting each of these many options.

>>>
>>>> In his turn, the atheist said that since everything must have a
>>>> cause, who created the intelligent designer or god: and who created
>>>> that entity and who created that creator and on and on and on. The
>>>> answer given; the designer was the prime cause and this entity is
>>>> eternal.
>>>
>>> That seems like special pleading.
>>>
>>>> Then why can't the universe be eternal? If the universe is eternal
>>>> then no cause, no beginning and no need for a creator.
>>>
>>> We actually do think the universe was eternal, of a sort, it's
>>> complicated, the universe as it exists now hasn't always existed,
>>> obviously, but there are a lot of interesting new realms of
>>> knowledge being explored that show that we don't have to rely on a
>>> deity to explain the existence of the universe.
>>>
>> The universe we live in, is the only one we have any knowledge. There
>> will come a time when the continuous increase in entropy will bring
>> about heat death - this is the end of the universe. Consequently,
>> this universe is not eternal.
>
> In layman's terms, yes, but the reality of the matter is a bit more
> complicated. It depends on how you define "eternal."

Really, how much more complicated and your arguments supporting this
increased complication? I use the dictionary definition of eternal. What
is your definition of eternal and how do you justify your peculiar
definition?

>
> [snip shit BR already addressed]
>

--
talk origins

[Ron Dean]

On 12/5/20 3:15 PM, Oxyaena wrote:
> On 12/5/2020 1:38 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>
>> In a debate between atheist and a IDer one of the best argument I
>> have ever heard was call in to a program in Texas. The IDer took the
>> first opportunity to voice the ID evidence and his first point was
>> that the universe which came into existence where there was no
>> matter; no time; no space; no energy, so there is a law of cause and
>> effect, so it had to have a cause and a designer who was outside and
>> transcendent to the universe.
>
> Random quantum fluctuations in an inflationary field aren't caused by
> anything, so in a sense, while the universe may have come about due to
> random quantum fluctuations in an inflationary field, that doesn't
> mean that this was intended in any sense. It truly was random.

Okay, "may have come about...". This obviously implies the absence of
any empirical evidence.

>
>> In his turn, the atheist said that since everything must have a
>> cause, who created the intelligent designer or god: and who created
>> that entity and who created that creator and on and on and on. The
>> answer given; the designer was the prime cause and this entity is
>> eternal.
>
> That seems like special pleading.

Perhaps, but there was a period when there was no universe, time or
space, then a point where the universe began. Something must have
existed to bring about the big bang, the beginning of the universe.

>
>> Then why can't the universe be eternal? If the universe is eternal
>> then no cause, no beginning and no need for a creator.

We _know_ the universe had a beginning (called the big bang) and will in
time come to an end when the energy is used up.

> We actually do think the universe was eternal, of a sort, it's
> complicated, the universe as it exists now hasn't always existed,
> obviously, but there are a lot of interesting new realms of knowledge
> being explored that show that we don't have to rely on a deity to
> explain the existence of the universe.
>

I believe that what we know based upon the evidence, makes the role of a
intelligent designer the most logical and rational response to these
issues.  Not that I'm accusing you of doing so, but I don't spend time
searching for alternative possibilities, since I don't have a problem
with the idea of an intelligent designer.


--
talk origins

[jillery]

On Fri, 25 Dec 2020 13:02:34 -0500, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Less that 24 hours ago, you posted "I had no intentions of engaging in
TO ever again". What changed your mind?

[Ron Dean]

On 12/5/20 3:06 PM, Robert Camp wrote:

> On 12/5/20 10:38 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>
>> In a debate between atheist and a IDer one of the best argument I
>> have ever heard was call in to a program in Texas. The IDer took the
>> first opportunity to voice the ID evidence and his first point was
>> that the universe which came into existence where there was no
>> matter; no time; no space; no energy, so there is a law of cause and
>> effect,
>

> Did you mean to say, "...so there is *no* law of cause and effect..."?

I don't know the answer to this, but what we can be reasonably certain,
based upon the evidence; there was a beginning of the universe signaled
by the big bang.

>
> I hope so, otherwise the statement is contradictory. A law of cause
> and effect would derive from the conditions that pertain in the
> universe - i.e., the existence of matter, time, space and energy.
> There is no law of cause and effect before there is a universe in
> which such a law could occur.

This points to something or someone eternal pre-existant to the big
bang. If no eternal entity, why the big bang? By following where this
path of logic, it takes us ~ there was no big bang, hence no universe
and no us.

>
>> so it had to have a cause and a designer who was outside and
>> transcendent to the universe.
>

> As much as you'd like to believe it, this doesn't follow. The fact
> that the universe appeared (to our approximation) from "nothing" does
> not justify inferring a designer. That inference assumes that which is
> to be proven.

I think this is where my argument above answers this. Unless we are
existing in an illusion. But I reject this. We do exist! Therefore, the
universe exist, it had a beginning so, a designer must have pre-existed
the beginning of the universe

>> In his turn, the atheist said that since everything must have a
>> cause, who created the intelligent designer or god: and who created
>> that entity and who created that creator and on and on and on. The
>> answer given; the designer was the prime cause and this entity is

>> eternal. Then why can't the universe be eternal? If the universe is

>> eternal then no cause, no beginning and no need for a creator.
>

> All standard, well-worn and legitimate argumentation.

This points to the fact that something must have been eternal: either
the universe or a designer is eternal. There is no other alternative!
So, by the process of elimination which of the two remains?The universe
had a beginning, therefore it cannot be considered eternal by definition.

>
>> Conversely, if the universe had a beginning then there must have been
>> a cause and a need for an intelligent designer.  But, according to
>> science, the universe had a beginning almost 14 billion years ago
>> called the big bang. So, the universe had a beginning, according to
>> science, then there must have been a cause and a need for an
>> intelligent designer or creator.
>

> And yet you miss the incredibly obvious point here - you insist that a
> universe which had a beginning obligates an inference to purposeful
> agency, while ignoring the same obligation for your putative designer.

I hope I answered this to your satisifaction,
<snip>

[Ron Dean]

On 12/5/20 2:03 PM, RonO wrote:

> On 12/5/2020 12:38 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>
>> In a debate between atheist and a IDer one of the best argument I
>> have ever heard was call in to a program in Texas. The IDer took the
>> first opportunity to voice the ID evidence and his first point was
>> that the universe which came into existence where there was no
>> matter; no time; no space; no energy, so there is a law of cause and

>> effect, so it had to have a cause and a designer who was outside and
>> transcendent to the universe. In his turn, the atheist said that

>> since everything must have a cause, who created the intelligent
>> designer or god: and who created that entity and who created that
>> creator and on and on and on. The answer given; the designer was the
>> prime cause and this entity is eternal. Then why can't the universe
>> be eternal? If the universe is eternal then no cause, no beginning
>> and no need for a creator.
>>

>> Conversely, if the universe had a beginning then there must have been
>> a cause and a need for an intelligent designer.  But, according to
>> science, the universe had a beginning almost 14 billion years ago
>> called the big bang. So, the universe had a beginning, according to
>> science, then there must have been a cause and a need for an
>> intelligent designer or creator.
>>
>>
>

> Well, if that is the best argument that you have ever heard for
> IDiocy, that should tell you something.  Ignorance is bliss.

There you go again: slander and personal character assassination. I
don't need this! So, I don't need anything more from you!

>
> What is weird is that no one really understands what things were like
> before the Big Bang.  If anyone tells you differently they are lying.
> Really, the Big Bang is a singularity that we can't see the other end
> of.  There have been proposals about what may have existed just before
> the Big Bang, but no one can really know at this point.  It is the
> nature of the event.
>
> The Big Bang did occur, but we don't know much about what existed
> before it.  You should know where you stand because you don't know
> that answer either, so what can you expect?  Really, tell us what was
> present before the Big Bang.  You don't even know that based on your
> own alternative.
>
> My take is that you understand that intelligent design is just a bogus
> scam, and you likely understand that no honest creationist would be
> advocating anything about it.  Just go back to claiming that God did
> it and you will be much better off.  Take a clue from ex Senator
> Santorum.  He had the bait and switch run on him twice (once in Ohio
> and once in his home state of PA) and gave up on the ID scam and went
> back to supporting plain old creationism.  There is no reason to bend
> over and take the ID scam from the scam artists.  You should know that
> by now.
>

> Ron Okimoto
>

--
talk origins

[Ron Dean]

On 12/5/20 1:53 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 13:38:27 -0500, the following appeared in
> talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>:

>
>> In a debate between atheist and a IDer
>>

>> Don't you know <nudge, wink> that ID is not a religious belief? And after the IDists say so repeatedly, too; one would almost think you don't believe them!

I do my own studying and thinking, rather than appealing to the opinions
of others. Speaking for myself, I read books and articles from both
sides. This I think is absolutely necessary to prevent brainwashing. The
only reason not to look at both sides of an issue is fear. Evidence of a
one-sided appeal is the misrepresenting and distorting, even cartooning
the opposition's opinions which is derived from a one-sided study and
argumentation.

> <snip>

>> opportunity to voice the ID evidence and his first point was that the
>> universe which came into existence where there was no matter; no time;
>> no space; no energy, so  there is a law of cause and effect, so it had
>> to have a cause and a designer who was outside and transcendent to the
>> universe.

> That's known as "assuming the conclusion". HTH.
You failed to justify this.

>> In his turn, the atheist said that since everything must have
>> a cause, who created the intelligent designer or god: and who created
>> that entity and who created that creator and on and on and on. The
>> answer given; the designer was the prime cause and this entity is
>> eternal. Then why can't the universe be eternal? If the universe is
>> eternal then no cause, no beginning and no need for a creator.
>>
>> Conversely, if the universe had a beginning then there must have been a
>> cause and a need for an intelligent designer.  But, according to
>> science, the universe had a beginning almost 14 billion years ago called
>> the big bang. So, the universe had a beginning, according to science,
>> then there must have been a cause and a need for an intelligent designer
>> or creator.

--
talk origins

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

OK

> Therefore, the universe exist,

OK

> it had a beginning

Says who?

> so, a designer must have pre-existed the beginning of the universe

Now you leap into total religious idiocy.

[Burkhard]

Ron Dean wrote:
> On 12/5/20 3:15 PM, Oxyaena wrote:
>> On 12/5/2020 1:38 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>
>>> In a debate between atheist and a IDer one of the best argument I
>>> have ever heard was call in to a program in Texas. The IDer took the
>>> first opportunity to voice the ID evidence and his first point was
>>> that the universe which came into existence where there was no
>>> matter; no time; no space; no energy, so there is a law of cause and
>>> effect, so it had to have a cause and a designer who was outside and
>>> transcendent to the universe.
>>
>> Random quantum fluctuations in an inflationary field aren't caused by
>> anything, so in a sense, while the universe may have come about due to
>> random quantum fluctuations in an inflationary field, that doesn't
>> mean that this was intended in any sense. It truly was random.
> Okay, "may have come about...". This obviously implies the absence of
> any empirical evidence.

Obviously not. It implies the type of empirical evidence that we always
use when reconstructing a past event. If a suspect left DNA on the crime
scene, the victim's blood is found on him, his fingerprint on the
knife, the credit card of the victim is found in his possession, would
you say that we have no empirical evidence to infer that the suspect
may have killed the victim?

>>
>>> In his turn, the atheist said that since everything must have a
>>> cause, who created the intelligent designer or god: and who created
>>> that entity and who created that creator and on and on and on. The
>>> answer given; the designer was the prime cause and this entity is
>>> eternal.
>>
>> That seems like special pleading.
> Perhaps, but there was a period when there was no universe, time or
> space, then a point where the universe began. Something must have
> existed to bring about the big bang, the beginning of the universe.

That assumes causality - which is the very issue under discussion

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2020-12-25 19:24:34 +0000, Ron Dean said:

> On 12/5/20 1:53 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 13:38:27 -0500, the following appeared in
>> talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> In a debate between atheist and a IDer
>>>
>>> Don't you know <nudge, wink> that ID is not a religious belief? And
>>> after the IDists say so repeatedly, too; one would almost think you
>>> don't believe them!
>
> I do my own studying and thinking, rather than appealing to the
> opinions of others. Speaking for myself, I read books and articles from
> both sides. This I think is absolutely necessary to prevent
> brainwashing. The only reason not to look at both sides of an issue is
> fear. Evidence of a one-sided appeal is the misrepresenting and
> distorting, even cartooning the opposition's opinions which is derived
> from a one-sided study and argumentation.
>
>> <snip>
>>> opportunity to voice the ID evidence and his first point was that the
>>> universe which came into existence where there was no matter; no time;
>>> no space; no energy, so  there is a law of cause and effect, so it had
>>> to have a cause and a designer who was outside and transcendent to the
>>> universe.
>> That's known as "assuming the conclusion". HTH.
> You failed to justify this.

Why should he? It was you doing the assuming.

>>> In his turn, the atheist said that since everything must have
>>> a cause, who created the intelligent designer or god: and who created
>>> that entity and who created that creator and on and on and on. The
>>> answer given; the designer was the prime cause and this entity is
>>> eternal. Then why can't the universe be eternal? If the universe is
>>> eternal then no cause, no beginning and no need for a creator.
>>>
>>> Conversely, if the universe had a beginning then there must have been a
>>> cause and a need for an intelligent designer.  But, according to
>>> science, the universe had a beginning almost 14 billion years ago called
>>> the big bang. So, the universe had a beginning, according to science,
>>> then there must have been a cause and a need for an intelligent designer
>>> or creator.


--

[broger...@gmail.com]

Then just ignore his posts. Plenty of people here will engage in non-insulting discussion with you.

[broger...@gmail.com]

On Friday, December 25, 2020 at 1:35:32 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:
> On 12/5/20 3:06 PM, Robert Camp wrote:
> > On 12/5/20 10:38 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
> >>
> >> In a debate between atheist and a IDer one of the best argument I
> >> have ever heard was call in to a program in Texas. The IDer took the
> >> first opportunity to voice the ID evidence and his first point was
> >> that the universe which came into existence where there was no
> >> matter; no time; no space; no energy, so there is a law of cause and
> >> effect,
> >
> > Did you mean to say, "...so there is *no* law of cause and effect..."?
> I don't know the answer to this, but what we can be reasonably certain,
> based upon the evidence; there was a beginning of the universe signaled
> by the big bang.

Why are you willing to conclude that the Big Bang was the beginning?

What we "know" about the Big Bang is that if you model the expansion of the observable universe and run the model backwards, the stuff that is currently in the observable universe gets more and more compact - smaller volume higher density. When it gets compact enough, ie tiny fractions of a second after the Big Bang, then it is dense and massive enough that general relativistic effects are important and tiny enough in volume that quantum mechanical effects are important. But we do not know how to reconcile quantum mechanics and general relativity, so the model (not the universe itself) breaks down. The broken model gives you a singularity of infinite density and zero volume. Regardless of whatever impression you may get from physics popularizers, actual physicists do not think that the observable universe appeared all the sudden out of an infinitely dense spot occupying no volume.

We just don't know how it got started, or what t means to say it "got started" or whether the idea of "before the Big Bang" is meaningful or not.

If you want to call that ignorance "God" or "Intelligent Designer," that's up to you, but it adds nothing to our understanding of what happened.

> >
> > I hope so, otherwise the statement is contradictory. A law of cause
> > and effect would derive from the conditions that pertain in the
> > universe - i.e., the existence of matter, time, space and energy.
> > There is no law of cause and effect before there is a universe in
> > which such a law could occur.
> This points to something or someone eternal pre-existant to the big
> bang. If no eternal entity, why the big bang? By following where this
> path of logic, it takes us ~ there was no big bang, hence no universe
> and no us.

Why couldn't the Big Bang be a local event in a much larger, eternal universe?

> >
> >> so it had to have a cause and a designer who was outside and
> >> transcendent to the universe.
> >
> > As much as you'd like to believe it, this doesn't follow. The fact
> > that the universe appeared (to our approximation) from "nothing" does
> > not justify inferring a designer. That inference assumes that which is
> > to be proven.
> I think this is where my argument above answers this. Unless we are
> existing in an illusion. But I reject this. We do exist! Therefore, the
> universe exist, it had a beginning so, a designer must have pre-existed
> the beginning of the universe

This is why calling our ignorance "designer" accomplishes nothing. If the Big Bang was a local event in a much larger and eternal universe, then all you are doing is labeling everything beyond a certain distance from us in time and space "designer." It adds nothing to our understanding of what happened.

> >> In his turn, the atheist said that since everything must have a
> >> cause, who created the intelligent designer or god: and who created
> >> that entity and who created that creator and on and on and on. The
> >> answer given; the designer was the prime cause and this entity is
> >> eternal. Then why can't the universe be eternal? If the universe is
> >> eternal then no cause, no beginning and no need for a creator.
> >
> > All standard, well-worn and legitimate argumentation.
> This points to the fact that something must have been eternal: either
> the universe or a designer is eternal. There is no other alternative!
> So, by the process of elimination which of the two remains?The universe
> had a beginning, therefore it cannot be considered eternal by definition.

In addition to other possibilities mentioned above, why do you exclude the designer from the universe. If the universe is everything that exists and if the designer exists then the designer is part of the universe. And maybe "designer" is just a loaded word for parts of the universe so distant that they were not involved in the Big Bang.

[jillery]

If R.Dean follows your advice, he should keep in mind the same advice
works for others when he resorts to slander and personal character
assassination.

>> > What is weird is that no one really understands what things were like
>> > before the Big Bang. If anyone tells you differently they are lying.
>> > Really, the Big Bang is a singularity that we can't see the other end
>> > of. There have been proposals about what may have existed just before
>> > the Big Bang, but no one can really know at this point. It is the
>> > nature of the event.
>> >
>> > The Big Bang did occur, but we don't know much about what existed
>> > before it. You should know where you stand because you don't know
>> > that answer either, so what can you expect? Really, tell us what was
>> > present before the Big Bang. You don't even know that based on your
>> > own alternative.
>> >
>> > My take is that you understand that intelligent design is just a bogus
>> > scam, and you likely understand that no honest creationist would be
>> > advocating anything about it. Just go back to claiming that God did
>> > it and you will be much better off. Take a clue from ex Senator
>> > Santorum. He had the bait and switch run on him twice (once in Ohio
>> > and once in his home state of PA) and gave up on the ID scam and went
>> > back to supporting plain old creationism. There is no reason to bend
>> > over and take the ID scam from the scam artists. You should know that
>> > by now.
>> >
>> > Ron Okimoto
>> >
>>
>> --
>> talk origins

[Mark Isaak]

On 12/25/20 10:02 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
> On 12/5/20 3:15 PM, Oxyaena wrote:
>> On 12/5/2020 1:38 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>
>>> In a debate between atheist and a IDer one of the best argument I
>>> have ever heard was call in to a program in Texas. The IDer took the
>>> first opportunity to voice the ID evidence and his first point was
>>> that the universe which came into existence where there was no
>>> matter; no time; no space; no energy, so there is a law of cause and
>>> effect, so it had to have a cause and a designer who was outside and
>>> transcendent to the universe.
>>
>> Random quantum fluctuations in an inflationary field aren't caused by
>> anything, so in a sense, while the universe may have come about due to
>> random quantum fluctuations in an inflationary field, that doesn't
>> mean that this was intended in any sense. It truly was random.

> Okay, "may have come about...". This obviously implies the absence of
> any empirical evidence.

No; it implies a current inadequacy of empirical evidence.

>>> In his turn, the atheist said that since everything must have a
>>> cause, who created the intelligent designer or god: and who created
>>> that entity and who created that creator and on and on and on. The
>>> answer given; the designer was the prime cause and this entity is
>>> eternal.
>>
>> That seems like special pleading.

> Perhaps, but there was a period when there was no universe, time or
> space, then a point where the universe began. Something must have
> existed to bring about the big bang, the beginning of the universe.

"There was a period when there was no time" is a logical contradiction,
like saying, "there was a line which had no points on it."

And we DO NOT KNOW whether or not something must have caused the Big
Bang. We can guess based on current conditions (that's what you are
doing), but current conditions almost certainly did not apply, so such
guesses are worthless. What we can do (and by "we" I mean the very few
people who know a lot about mathematics and fundamental physics, which
does not include me) is hypothesize models of the origin of the
universe, see what those models imply about how the universe some
billions of years later, and check if that fits with what we see.

>>> Then why can't the universe be eternal? If the universe is eternal
>>> then no cause, no beginning and no need for a creator.

> We _know_ the universe had a beginning (called the big bang) and will in
> time come to an end when the energy is used up.

We know with reasonable certainty that there was a big bang. What, if
anything, came before that is uncertain. We do not know how the
universe will end. The "used-up energy" scenario you propose is
plausible, but dark energy might throw a spanner in the works; some have
proposed that space itself will tear apart, and I have no idea what all
that would imply.

If you want to use "know" with emphasis, try: We _know_ that there is a
heck of a lot about the universe that we don't know yet.

>> We actually do think the universe was eternal, of a sort, it's
>> complicated, the universe as it exists now hasn't always existed,
>> obviously, but there are a lot of interesting new realms of knowledge
>> being explored that show that we don't have to rely on a deity to
>> explain the existence of the universe.
>>
> I believe that what we know based upon the evidence, makes the role of a
> intelligent designer the most logical and rational response to these
> issues.  Not that I'm accusing you of doing so, but I don't spend time
> searching for alternative possibilities, since I don't have a problem
> with the idea of an intelligent designer.

As others have already said, calling the unknown "Designer" doesn't tell
you anything at all. It's not an alternative; it's an excuse to use in
lieu of an alternative.

[Ron Dean]

> Says who? No who, but the evidence, IE the big bang evidenced by the
> expanding universe, the microwave backgrown noise and the 2n/nd law of
> thermodynamics.

>
>>  so, a designer must have pre-existed the beginning of the universe
>
> Now you leap into total religious idiocy.

I give my reasons above: to repeat. There are two alternatives: Either
the universe is eternal, or a designer is eternal or maybe a third
alternative, everything is an illusion and you and I are  not real.


--
talk origins

[Ron Dean]

Well the university exist, so something must have caused it, since it's
not eternal.

>>>
>>>> Then why can't the universe be eternal? If the universe is eternal
>>>> then no cause, no beginning and no need for a creator.
>> We _know_ the universe had a beginning (called the big bang) and will
>> in time come to an end when the energy is used up.
>>> We actually do think the universe was eternal, of a sort, it's
>>> complicated, the universe as it exists now hasn't always existed,
>>> obviously, but there are a lot of interesting new realms of
>>> knowledge being explored that show that we don't have to rely on a
>>> deity to explain the existence of the universe.
>>>
>> I believe that what we know based upon the evidence, makes the role
>> of a intelligent designer the most logical and rational response to
>> these issues.  Not that I'm accusing you of doing so, but I don't
>> spend time searching for alternative possibilities, since I don't
>> have a problem with the idea of an intelligent designer.
>>

--
talk origins

[Ron Dean]

Yes, I know, over the years I've had very good enlightening discussions
with many people whop refrain from insults, slander etc.

>>> What is weird is that no one really understands what things were like
>>> before the Big Bang. If anyone tells you differently they are lying.
>>> Really, the Big Bang is a singularity that we can't see the other end
>>> of. There have been proposals about what may have existed just before
>>> the Big Bang, but no one can really know at this point. It is the
>>> nature of the event.
>>>
>>> The Big Bang did occur, but we don't know much about what existed
>>> before it. You should know where you stand because you don't know
>>> that answer either, so what can you expect? Really, tell us what was
>>> present before the Big Bang. You don't even know that based on your
>>> own alternative.
>>>
>>> My take is that you understand that intelligent design is just a bogus
>>> scam, and you likely understand that no honest creationist would be
>>> advocating anything about it. Just go back to claiming that God did
>>> it and you will be much better off. Take a clue from ex Senator
>>> Santorum. He had the bait and switch run on him twice (once in Ohio
>>> and once in his home state of PA) and gave up on the ID scam and went
>>> back to supporting plain old creationism. There is no reason to bend
>>> over and take the ID scam from the scam artists. You should know that
>>> by now.
>>>
>>> Ron Okimoto
>>>
>> --
>> talk origins

--
talk origins

[jillery]

One explanation of what caused the Big Bang:

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJCX2NlhdTc>

"Cosmic Inflation is the "bang" of the Big Bang."

[Burkhard]

That is still begging the question. We found out about causality within
this universe The things we know about it, for instance that a cause
precedes its effect, assume things to exist to make sense (like time).
So there s no guarantee that the talk about causality makes sense when
it comes to things like universes

[broger...@gmail.com]

The first two are not alternatives - they are equivalent. If the universe is everything that exists and if the designer exists, then the designer is included in the universe. If the "designer" is eternal, then at least part of the universe is eternal. Then the only question is how part of the universe (the "designer") causes new stuff to appear in the rest of the universe.
>
> --
> talk origins