Here's why Creatards might be right

[jenny1972]

Then those lines of reasoning you offered, Jenny, in support of your position (design/designer) are irrelevant.  The fact that there are many species is explained by evolution, not by a design, not by a designer.  Correct?

the fact that there are different species all on the same planet with different DNA indicates the existence of different biological blueprints . just like a human being has a blueprint that determines its development . ether you believe DNA just created itself and developed through evolution or it was created by an intelligent being and developed through evolution . intelligent design makes more sense to me and we know intelligent beings design things we do it all the time ourselves. an unthinking rock doesnt design anything complex right?

[Hmmm?]

---

The problem is this: you have, literally, no understanding of what the belief system you're "challenging," actually believes, and thus what you're challenging is a belief system that you've made up, are then attributing to us when we do not hold it, and are then completely ignoring every attempt to correct you.

The problem is that you refuse to know what you're talking about.

Big Bang Theory - The Premise

The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment.

According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know.

After its initial appearance, it apparently inflated (the "Big Bang"), expanded and cooled, going from very, very small and very, very hot, to the size and temperature of our current universe. It continues to expand and cool to this day and we are inside of it: incredible creatures living on a unique planet, circling a beautiful star clustered together with several hundred billion other stars in a galaxy soaring through the cosmos, all of which is inside of an expanding universe that began as an infinitesimal singularity which appeared out of nowhere for reasons unknown. This is the Big Bang theory.



... its just a theory far from proven assuming that nothing existed before then and inexplicably came into existence it is science version of creation , it does not prove that there is not an intelligent plan behind it all . intelligent beings create organized and complex inventions we see this proven in human beings who create inventions through intelligence  the complexity of our universe and nature and evolution indicates that it could be a result of an intelligent plan . we are proof that intelligence creates complex organized cooperative manifestations. we have more proof that intelligent beings are responsible for complex designs .

---

[The Inquisition]

... its just a theory far from proven assuming that nothing existed before then and inexplicably came into existence it is science version of creation

Why do you think you can stick a god into that gap? What evidence would there be for that god?

The big bang has some proof - Cosmic Background Radiation

I'm pretty sure god wasn't peeking out from behind a galaxy when they took a look. Maybe you collected some evidence of this god that we have never seen before?

[Anomalocaris]

stap stealing mi thundr u fks

We have the Big Bang, why would we want your thunder?

[jenny1972]

assuming that nothing existed before then and inexplicably came into existence it is science version of creation ,

That may be "just a theory"...but it isn't the Big Bang Theory.  That's Jennys theory.

it does not prove that there is not an intelligent plan behind it all . intelligent beings create organized and complex inventions we see this proven in human beings who create inventions through intelligence  the complexity of our universe and nature and evolution indicates that it could be a result of an intelligent plan . we are proof that intelligence creates complex organized cooperative manifestations.

Okay, so..then, the only possible logical inference here -with regards to the universe- is that human beings designed and created the universe.  That would be quite the feat, don't you think?

well since humans did not exist it was not from our intelligence obviously

[Simon Moon]

Then those lines of reasoning you offered, Jenny, in support of your position (design/designer) are irrelevant.  The fact that there are many species is explained by evolution, not by a design, not by a designer.  Correct?

the fact that there are different species all on the same planet with different DNA indicates the existence of different biological blueprints . just like a human being has a blueprint that determines its development . ether you believe DNA just created itself and developed through evolution or it was created by an intelligent being and developed through evolution . intelligent design makes more sense to me and we know intelligent beings design things we do it all the time ourselves. an unthinking rock doesnt design anything complex right?

Oh, the scientific ignorance is strong with this one.

DNA did not 'just create itself'. RNA came before, and before that enzymes, and before that, some other self replicating molecule.

There are zero places in the development of DNA that requires an intelligence. It is chemistry.

[Thumpalumpacus]

whats wrong with challenging belief systems that claim to have everything all figured out but do not quite add up?

Except the scientific method doesn't claim to have everything figured out.

This is a not-so-subtle God of the Gaps argument.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

It works like this. All chemistry says is "this chemical (DNA, in the modern world, but coming from simpler versions of self-replicators that came before) can self-replicate. Sometimes the replication happens in a way that produces new variants. The environment may treat those variants differently, for better or worse. One example of "better" is a self-replicator that didn't need to be safely harbored in a protective lipid coat, but coded for its own coat. When the code is better, it is going to be favored for reproduction until that becomes a much more common variant. In large populations of self-reproducing DNA critters, some will become so different from one another that they can no longer share DNA, if they are sexually-reproducing creatures. If they are asexual and simply spawn exact copies, then there will still be variation among those copies sufficient that groups will wind up different because of the offspring of the oddballs. By these mechanisms over many generations, you get different species, all from passing the same DNA from parent-to-child, with variation."

The only "blueprint" is that there exists a chemical combination that, once formed, is capable of reproducing itself chemically. As variation continued on this theme, we wound up with billions of different combinations of this self-replicating molecule, which we see as different animal carriers for the molecule. You're confusing the game with the program, in the above metaphor, but in this case the only program is the relatively simple laws of chemistry, based on how atoms work together. If you wish to think that a Designer made the universe in such a way that chemicals could naturally do this, fine... but don't confuse the randomness of evolution with a Grand Plan. Any detailed study of nature shows that it, "red in tooth and claw", is anything but orderly. It is death and competition at every level, and cares nothing for the troubles of the lamb being eaten by the lion, or the protist consuming the bacterium, or the bacteria which die off until some of them randomly stumble upon the "recipe" for digesting nylon.

[Thumpalumpacus]

im not arguing against evolution evolution makes sense and has been proven im arguing against the theory that an unintelligent explosion led to the beginning of evolution

Oh, you're arguing again abiogenesis, then? Well, bring facts.

Fact: We've prompted the creation of precursor molecules in lab settings simulating early Earth conditions.

Fact: We've found those same precursor molecules on comets and other planets.

Fact: We have not seen one iota of evidence for an intelligent creator.

[The Grand Nudger]

the fact that there are different species all on the same planet with different DNA indicates the existence of different biological blueprints . just like a human being has a blueprint that determines its development . ether you believe DNA just created itself and developed through evolution or it was created by an intelligent being and developed through evolution .

DNA isn't a "biological blueprint" in any sense except the poetic.   Neither I, nor "science" believes that DNA "created itself" - as has been so thoroughly explained to you by others.  Nor, is there any compulsion for me to choose "just created itself" over "goddidit".  We have better explanations for this than either of the two options you've presented.  

 intelligent design makes more sense to me and we know intelligent beings design things we do it all the time ourselves. an unthinking rock doesnt design anything complex right?

Here we go again with this..it's already been addressed.  Either your objection leads us to the implication that human beings created and designed the universe or it doesn't lead anywhere at all.  That's the only valid route, do you understand?

well since humans did not exist it was not from our intelligence obviously

Yeah..........and since we've just agreed the case example you offered is irrelevant, than the only possible avenue for inference based upon it is null.

You're skipping step 1.  You need to show us some design, or some designer.....as you did, for example, when you mistakenly referred to our own acts of creation as establishing even the possibility of the penultimate creative act.  

You need to make your case.

Simply repeating that someone else (science, in this case) doesn't know everything doesn't establish that -you- know anything. It's made damned near unsalvageable when it turns out that science -does- know those things to which you object.........