Scientific method proves order cannot exist w/o intelligence

[Edwardo Piet]

LOL!!! ... no thatt again... lol.

EvF

[Eilonnwy]

Only intelligent beings, controlling inorganic objects can make these objects arrange into order as the scientific method proves.

You've essentially made a Blind Watchmaker argument. I'm going to be lazy and point to a wiki page that has debunked it already: http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?t...watchmaker

[Edwardo Piet]

Lazy but effective is enough

If he wants the longer story maybe he should just go ahead and read the whole of The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins!

@ Scientist http://lmgtfy.com/?q=The+Blind+Watchmaker

EvF

[LEDO]

You have to forgive us "Scientist" it is just that every well indoctrinated Christian "scientist" comes into this forum and believes they have some kind of logical, scientific argument to "prove" the existence of God, expecting all of us to bend our kneees to Jesus. It NEVER happens that way. And BTW we have seen better arguments.

[Purple Rabbit]

You have to forgive us "Scientist" it is just that every well indoctrinated Christian "scientist" comes into this forum and believes they have some kind of logical, scientific argument to "prove" the existence of God, expecting all of us to bend our kneees to Jesus. It NEVER happens that way. And BTW we have seen better arguments.

Yep, christians do tend to refute their own intelligence-delivers-order mantra with chaotic behaviour on fora.

[fr0d0]

Your dad's bigger than my dad - frankly both sides are equally as bad.

[theVOID]

I've been in major debates against atheists and time and time again, the fundamental flaws of atheism lead to their consistent defeat. This is expected because atheism's flaws are basic, fundamental in nature and cannot stand against good theist attacks.

Red flag #1 Opening with your credentials is a sure sign your argument is worthless, but let's let your reasoning speak for it's self.

One (among many) of their popular tenets is "Order can exist without an intelligence guiding it".

So this is what you hope to disprove then right?

Atheists will resort to giving examples of order in nature (by their subjective definition of order). They would proceed to naming these. Some popular ones include snowflakes (viewed under a microscope), soup (yes, the contents in it as well), super novas, the structure of gems (diamonds, etc.), molecular structures, rainbow, etc.

It's not a subjective definition of order, it is derived from strict mathematics and shows order in that regard, this is the method we use for determining structure and order in nature, not a subjective view on what looks ordered.

The theists and atheists will debate back and forth - one in approval, the other one against it.

A scientist though, can be objective and use the scientific method to see the truth.

First, it is clear that the very notion of order can be subjective in nature. The structure of snowflakes, rainbow, supernova, and all mentioned examples are prone to subjective observation. Hence, the counter-attack by the theist debaters. Their strategy is built on this fact.

Yes Order can be subjective, but when you assess it entirely in mathematical terms the subjectivity falls away.

By the scientific method, a scientist will divide subjects into specific, separate groups for objective observation. Each group will be put into separate rooms and be provided a piano, and a full deck of cards.

Group A consists of rocks - this would represent inorganic objects.

Group B consists of insects, bees for example - this represents the animal kingdom

Group C consists of humans - this represents the human specie, the group w/ the highest intellect.

Umm... YOU MADE THOSE GROUPS UP!

Want to argue about it? Go and find me a single scientific paper in existence that categorizes nature into those over-generalised and not even accurate definitions, until you can prove that this is an accepted categorisation for events and objects in nature then your entire point is invalid, you are arguing a strawman.

They will be observed for a period of time. The results:

Group C was able to achieve a high level of order. The piano was played (recognized as a musical instrument) and a house of cards was built. Intelligence that provided order was displayed of the highest among the three.

Group B displayed some order, though not in the level of Group C. A beehive was made, a structure with geometric design inside. Acceptable as order.

Group A, composed of inorganic objects displayed zero order, no activity or even any movement made.

By the scientific method, we can conclude that inorganic objects are incapable of producing order of any kind without an intellgence/intelligent being guiding them.

No you can't conclude that at all, not even if your premise were true. You have failed entirely to account for the exchange of energy, momentum, heat, composition and the way the laws of nature affects and dictates the outcome. For example the combination of gravity, strong nuclear force and weak nuclear force can lead to the condensation of matter into highly organised and complex stars which can fuse simple Hydrogen atoms into Helium atoms which can fuse into oxygen, lithium, Nitrogen, Carbon, Iron etc each step being more complex than the last, using nothing more than the natural processes dictated by the forces of nature themselves.

The notion that inorganic objects, snowflakes, gems, rainbows, etc. by atheists are somehow capable of producing order by themselves is fundamentally flawed.

They don't produce complexity by themselves - They are the resulting complexity from natural processes.

Only intelligent beings, controlling inorganic objects can make these objects arrange into order as the scientific method proves.

The scientific method proves no such thing, science operated entirely without the assumption of God, treats the universe as if he doesn't exist, and it's been extremely successful.

So far you have done nothing more than make bald-faced assertions supported not by evidence nor logical necessity.

If an inorganic object (rocks in our example) cannot do any movement or order by itself, then all inorganic objects will have to share that characteristic.

Do you understand causality?

Arguing that snowflakes, supernova, etc. are capable of order is a viiolation of the "special exception rule", and definitely goes against the laws of the scientific method.

The special exception rule? That must be the same "special exception rule" you use to first claim that all things that are complex cannot possibly become complex without a designer, and then to exclude god from your own rule as God, being omniscient, would need to be at least as complex as the entire universe in order to know everything about it.

Your argument is one of the weakest i've encountered EVER, you offered not a scrap of evidence, empirical or otherwise... and you call yourself 'Scientist'... You're about as good at science as my last bowel movement.

[Tiberius]

scientist, your argument just got VOIDed.

[Elles]

There are plenty of ways to objectively define order but oddly you never came up with one. One way could be pattern (like the example you gave of bees making hexagonal combs) or symmetry. Snowflakes would fall under symmetry.

Furthermore, the rocks were not a representative sample of all inorganic objects. They only demonstrate that rocks do not create order. However, the laws of nature (being the prime mover of natural selection) can create patterns and symmetry within rocks and minerals (see salt cubes).

Really, the fact that the laws of nature can create order is the key thing, not that inorganic objects can't create order as nature is what exerts forces and not those objects.

P.S. Species is both singular and plural. You made the word "specie" up.

Okay, well technically specie is a word in the Oxford English Dictionary but it's more an adjective in that form, it only lists "species" as a noun. The proper scientific thing to do is use "species".

[tackattack]

scientist, your argument just got VOIDed.

side note love it