How do you explain design without a designer?

Originally posted by kirksey957
#1, you are getting my point and I'm still waiting for an answer. It is my impression that many people will gladly jump in the "Founding fathers of this country were Christian" thus we should have prayer in school and all that follows with that. But what I'm trying to get at here is that Darfius wants Einstein to lend credence to a Creator but Einstein was not Christian as such. Does this make sense?

If you want me to make sense of Darfius' posts, that is beyond my mere mortal powers. However, the thread title doesn't necessarily say the the "designer" would have to be the Christian God, so I guess using Einstein to give credence to a belief that something intelligent created the universe isn't complety senseless - though it is a logical fallacy i.e. "appeal to authority" (there's a Latin term, but I forgot it).

I've addressed the "the United States was founded on Christian principles" misconception in other threads.

Originally posted by Darfius
What is your point? Once people admit there had to have been a Creator, they are more open to what happens in the Bible, and only the Bible stands up to scrutiny.

Your "expert" witness, Einstein, didn't agree with this conclusion, did he?

Originally posted by Darfius
...and only the Bible stands up to scrutiny.

As we can see, it most certainly does not. Your unsubstantiated
reinterpretation of the word 'Passover' and explanation of Judas's
death demonstrate that, under scrutiny, the Bible does indeed have
errors in matters of fact.

Just because you are willing to jump through mental hoops to hold
onto the claim that the Bible is inerrant (a claim the Bible doesn't
even make), doesn't mean that it holds up to scrutiny. Indeed, it
only means that you are willing to deny reason, which, in turn
diminishes your credibility as a witness to the Truth.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Darfius
He's a GOD. Do we know what that concept is? If He created the freaking universe, that includes space AND time, does it not? Even Einstein admitted past, present, and future are illusions to help us comprehend stuff. Do you really think God needs help comprehending something?

Ok, so tell me more about what things are like outside of time. That's all I was asking for.

Originally posted by frogstomp
you assume it was designed
Show some proof of of the designing process?
not btw the results which are not proof of the process.
Show the process.

You don't need to see the design process in order to figure out that something was designed. If you look at mount rushmore, you can see the faces of the presidents carved on the stones. You did not see when they designed and carved the faces on the stone but you can (hopefully) figure out that it was designed and not the product of millions of years of erosion.

Originally posted by dj2becker
You don't need to see the design process in order to figure out that something was designed. If you look at mount rushmore, you can see the faces of the presidents carved on the stones. You did not see when they designed and carved the faces on the stone but you can (hopefully) figure out that it was designed and not the product of millions of years of erosion.

Man you dodge questions and give meaningless analogies better than any politician I've ever seen.

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
Wow I just can't comprehend the thought process (or lack thereof) behind this post.

Organisms (humans included) are still adapting. Of course most of this takes place over such long timescales it can't be observed. However there are some which can. How about during the Industrial Revolution in England and a certain moth which was white to blend agains ...[text shortened]... t you can barely understand and start trying to think on your own. You make fools of yourself.

Maybe you don't understand the difference between micro evolution and macro evolution. What you are refering to is micro evolution. What I am refering to is macro evolution. In your moth example the moth adapted, but it still remained a moth. I agree that there are variations within a kind. You get big dogs and you get small dogs, but they still remain dogs by the way. And your claims about things adapting over long time periods and not being observed is based on your belief in "evolution". It is not science! Science is based on things that can be observed. Never has it ever been observed that one specie can "evolve" into another specie! It is not science. You have just been brainwashed by the faulty theory of evolution.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Maybe you don't understand the difference between micro evolution and macro evolution. What you are refering to is micro evolution. What I am refering to is macro evolution. In your moth example the moth adapted, but it still remained a moth. I agree that there are variations within a kind. You get big dogs and you get small dogs, but they still remain do ...[text shortened]... her specie! It is not science. You have just been brainwashed by the faulty theory of evolution.

Trust me I know the difference between micro and macro evolution. You said and I quote "Why aren't you still adapting?" My post was pointing out that we are in fact adapting continuously.

Science is only based on things that can be observed? You sure are removing a lot of things from science there. Some things just can't be observed (for reasons of scale or time period or something else) however they can be implied by things that can be observed and evidence left by these things happening in nature (fossils).

Would you care to point out evidence proving evolution is false? Be warned the eye can't evolve won't cut it (mostly because it can).

SCIENCE CANNOT DIRECTLY DEAL WITH THE PAST. Scientists cannot go back in time for a hands-on examination of events of long ago. Scientists are limited to testing and observing things as they exist now -- in the present. We are all impressed with the strides science has made in computer technology, medicine, and space travel. However, we must remember that these are far different subjects than the question of ancient origins. Computer chips and medical inventions exist in the present. Humans can directly observe them. Tests can be confirmed simultaneously in labs throughout the world. However, beliefs about ancient origins are different; they are beyond the reach of finite, mortal humans and therefore involve much hypothesis, assumption and guesswork. This is why you require much more faith to believe in evolution that believing that an inteligent designer designed the universe. As a matter of fact both are a matter of faith. To be honest with you you require more faith to believe that everything came about by random chance than you need to believe that God created everything as it is.

Originally posted by dj2becker
You don't need to see the design process in order to figure out that something was designed. If you look at mount rushmore, you can see the faces of the presidents carved on the stones. You did not see when they designed and carved the f ...[text shortened]... was designed and not the product of millions of years of erosion.

This is because we recognize the faces as human faces and we recognize who they are intended to be. In addition, there's the contrast with the surrounding environment, which is just as clearly not designed.

Except that you seem to think it's just as obvious that every mountain is as designed as Mount Rushmore.

Let me ask you something, dj. Can you describe to me something that isn't obviously designed? Or do you by default assume everything was designed no matter what it looks like?

Now, as I was saying, the faces on Mount Rushmore are images of specific, famous humans, and they are grouped in a way that humans would tend to group them.

How does that analogy work with the universe? What is it an image of? What sort of being already exists without a doubt that makes universes? We know humans make statues and other images of George Washingtion.

This argument of yours is utterly flawed.

Originally posted by dj2becker
SCIENCE CANNOT DIRECTLY DEAL WITH THE PAST. Scientists cannot go back in time for a hands-on examination of events of long ago. Scientists are limited to testing and observing things as they exist now -- in the present. We are all impress ...[text shortened]... ce than you need to believe that God created everything as it is.

Do you believe it's a scientific statement to say that you had an ancestor living somewhere in the world at the time of Jesus? I mean, you can't see this ancestor.

Originally posted by dj2becker
SCIENCE CANNOT DIRECTLY DEAL WITH THE PAST. Scientists cannot go back in time for a hands-on examination of events of long ago. Scientists are limited to testing and observing things as they exist now -- in the present. We are all impressed with the strides science has made in computer technology, medicine, and space travel. However, we must remember that ...[text shortened]... hing came about by random chance than you need to believe that God created everything as it is.

Why is it so unlikely that we exist by chance? Earth is not the only planet in the universe. We may well be a 1 in 100 billion chance but of course if there are more than 100 billion planets then odds on that we would exist.
(Of course that's if you can get past the 'oh look the sky is in fact a dome and the stars are painted on it' view)

what came before the beginning? The bible says God is the alpha, and omega, the beginning and the end. While we have a limited capacity to see the future, I dare anyone to say he recognizes and understands the beginning of time.

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
Why is it so unlikely that we exist by chance? Earth is not the only planet in the universe. We may well be a 1 in 100 billion chance but of course if there are more than 100 billion planets then odds on that we would exist.
(Of course that's if you can get past the 'oh look the sky is in fact a dome and the stars are painted on it' view)

Spontaneous generation is the fanciful idea that living creatures can be produced naturally from non-living substances. It is important to note that science has never observed such an occurrence.

Life only comes from life. During all recorded history, there has never been a substantiated case of a living thing being produced from anything other than another living thing. Life could not have begun from something that was not alive, like water and chemicals. Either life came to this planet from some other planet, or life must have been created by a superior being. Thus both these alternatives are a matter of faith. You don't have to genius to figure out that life could not have started on another planet...

Originally posted by AThousandYoung

Can you describe to me something that isn't obviously designed? Or do you by default assume everything was designed no matter what it looks like?

Simple-celled creatures contain mechanisms which are enormously more complex than any man-made machine.

One need only look carefully at any living creature to gain some concept of their enormous complexity. If you have a pet, consider the complexities that must be involved – enabling that "package of matter" to move about, play, remember, show signs of affection, eat, and reproduce!
If that is not enough to boggle your mind, imagine being given the task of constructing a similar living pet from carbon, calcium, hydrogen, oxygen, etc. – the animal's basic constituent parts.

If you have ever held a beloved pet in your hands, completely limp and dead, you may have some comprehension of the helplessness of even the most intelligent and sophisticated scientist when it comes to the overwhelming problem of trying to create life.

In contrast, the natural world does not have the advantages people bring to the problem. In nature, there are only matter, energy, time, chance and the physical laws – no guiding force, no purpose, and no goal.

Yet, even with all of modern man's accumulated knowledge, advanced tools, and experience, we are still absolutely overwhelmed at the complexities. This is despite the fact that we are certainly not starting from absolute zero in this problem, for there are millions of actual living examples of life to scrutinize.

All living things are extremely complex. Even "the simplest organism capable of independent life, the prokaryote bacterial cell, is a masterpiece of miniaturized complexity which makes a spaceship seem rather low-tech."