Chemical evolution of amino acids and proteins ? Impossible !!

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

as if creation was not a possible option... LOL

Sure, it's a possible option.  I mean, it requires you to argue from ignorance.  Once you've given in to that, ANYthing is 'possible'.

Boru

[LadyForCamus]

*yawn*

How did god do it?

A intelligent designer creates  through power, information input ( words ), wisdom, and will. But how exactly does this work ?


We don't know how exactly a mind might can act in the world to cause change. Your mind, mediated by your brain, sends signals to your arm , hand and fingers,  and writes a text through the keyboard of the computer  I sit here typing. I cannot explain to you how exactly this process functions, but we know, it happens. Consciusness can interact with the physical world and cause change. But how exactly that happens, we don't know. Why then should we expect to know how God created the universe ? The theory of intelligent design proposes a intelligent mental cause as origin of the physical world. Nothing else.

W.L.Craig :
First, in order to recognize an explanation as the best, one needn't have an explanation of the explanation. This is an elementary point concerning inference to the best explanation as practiced in the philosophy of science. If archaeologists digging in the earth were to discover things looking like arrowheads and hatchet heads and pottery shards, they would be justified in inferring that these artifacts are not the chance result of sedimentation and metamorphosis, but products of some unknown group of people, even though they had no explanation of who these people were or where they came from. Similarly, if astronauts were to come upon a pile of machinery on the back side of the moon, they would be justified in inferring that it was the product of intelligent, extra-terrestrial agents, even if they had no idea whatsoever who these extra-terrestrial agents were or how they got there. In order to recognize an explanation as the best, one needn't be able to explain the explanation. In fact, so requiring would lead to an infinite regress of explanations, so that nothing could ever be explained and science would be destroyed. So in the case at hand, in order to recognize that intelligent design is the best explanation of the appearance of design in the universe, one needn't be able to explain the designer.

The best explanation of the origin and life and biodiversity is: intelligence. Conscious activity. The deliberate choice of a rational agent. Indeed, we have abundant experience in the present of intelligent agents generating specified information. Our experience of the causal powers of intelligent agents -- of "conscious activity" as "a cause now in operation"-- provides a basis for making inferences about the best explanation of the origin of biological organisms  in the past. In other words, our experience of the cause-and-effect structure of the world -- specifically the cause known to produce large amounts of specified information in the present -- provides a basis for understanding what likely caused large increases in specified information in living systems in the past. It is precisely my reliance on such experience that makes possible an understanding of the type of causes at work in the history of life.

Bold mine.

Then I suppose, by your own saying so, you don’t need an explanation of the explanation of evolution by natural selection, despite the fact that we actually have one, lol. Right? We even have some decent examples of how abiogenesis might have kicked off thanks to some ‘oopsies’ in the lab involving a forgotten Petrie dish plus time. You’re going to have to do better than regurgitating “It looks designed, therefore design.” Was a snowflake designed? Do you have any idea how many times we’ve refuted this garbage argument? How does an immaterial thing exist, Otangelo? How does a spaceless, timeless being be? How does it act in the absence of time and space? Not only are you burdened with providing those mechanisms of action, you are burdened with the evidence to support them. Otherwise, they’re simply bald assertions. Care to try again?

[Deesse23]

as if creation was not a possible option... LOL

Demonstrate the possibility.

[Duty]

Glad to see the "God of the Gaps" is still kicking. So now he's credited with...what...creating micro-organisms 4 billion years ago which he just so happened to decide to place in the proximity of deep sea hydrothermal vents because...because....anyway, then watch on for the next 3,999,998,000 years of bloody murderous tooth and claw evolutionary carnage, asteroid impacts, mass extinctions, congenital birth defects etc until deciding to EVENTUALLY intervene in the affairs of some wholly unremarkable ground apes in the middle east by having somebody crucified. Makes perfect sense to me.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Glad to see the "God of the Gaps" is still kicking. So now he's credited with...what...creating micro-organisms 4 billion years ago which he just so happened to decide to place in the proximity of deep sea hydrothermal vents because...because....anyway, then watch on for the next 3,999,998,000 years of bloody murderous tooth and claw evolutionary carnage, asteroid impacts, mass extinctions, congenital birth defects etc until deciding to EVENTUALLY intervene in the affairs of some wholly unremarkable ground apes in the middle east by having somebody crucified. Makes perfect sense to me.

All gap, no god.

[The Architect Of Fate]

A intelligent designer creates  through power, information input ( words ), wisdom, and will. But how exactly does this work ?


We don't know how exactly a mind might can act in the world to cause change. Your mind, mediated by your brain, sends signals to your arm , hand and fingers,  and writes a text through the keyboard of the computer  I sit here typing. I cannot explain to you how exactly this process functions, but we know, it happens. Consciusness can interact with the physical world and cause change. But how exactly that happens, we don't know. Why then should we expect to know how God created the universe ? The theory of intelligent design proposes a intelligent mental cause as origin of the physical world. Nothing else.

W.L.Craig :
First, in order to recognize an explanation as the best, one needn't have an explanation of the explanation. This is an elementary point concerning inference to the best explanation as practiced in the philosophy of science. If archaeologists digging in the earth were to discover things looking like arrowheads and hatchet heads and pottery shards, they would be justified in inferring that these artifacts are not the chance result of sedimentation and metamorphosis, but products of some unknown group of people, even though they had no explanation of who these people were or where they came from. Similarly, if astronauts were to come upon a pile of machinery on the back side of the moon, they would be justified in inferring that it was the product of intelligent, extra-terrestrial agents, even if they had no idea whatsoever who these extra-terrestrial agents were or how they got there. In order to recognize an explanation as the best, one needn't be able to explain the explanation. In fact, so requiring would lead to an infinite regress of explanations, so that nothing could ever be explained and science would be destroyed. So in the case at hand, in order to recognize that intelligent design is the best explanation of the appearance of design in the universe, one needn't be able to explain the designer.

The best explanation of the origin and life and biodiversity is: intelligence. Conscious activity. The deliberate choice of a rational agent. Indeed, we have abundant experience in the present of intelligent agents generating specified information. Our experience of the causal powers of intelligent agents -- of "conscious activity" as "a cause now in operation"-- provides a basis for making inferences about the best explanation of the origin of biological organisms  in the past. In other words, our experience of the cause-and-effect structure of the world -- specifically the cause known to produce large amounts of specified information in the present -- provides a basis for understanding what likely caused large increases in specified information in living systems in the past. It is precisely my reliance on such experience that makes possible an understanding of the type of causes at work in the history of life.

Bold mine.

Then I suppose, by your own saying so, you don’t need an explanation of the explanation of evolution by natural selection, despite the fact that we actually have one, lol. Right? We even have some decent examples of how abiogenesis might have kicked off thanks to some ‘oopsies’ in the lab involving a forgotten Petrie dish plus time. You’re going to have to do better than regurgitating “It looks designed, therefore design.” Was a snowflake designed? Do you have any idea how many times we’ve refuted this garbage argument? How does an immaterial thing exist, Otangelo? How does a spaceless, timeless being be? How does it act in the absence of time and space? Not only are you burdened with providing those mechanisms of action, you are burdened with the evidence to support them. Otherwise, they’re simply bald assertions. Care to try again?

Quoting a fraud like WLC

Well that sums him up

[Deesse23]

W.L.Craig :
First, in order to recognize an explanation as the best, one needn't have an explanation of the explanation.

Big bang theory best explains the data we have so far, for the origin of the universe we live in.
How to explain the big bang? So glad i dont have to.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The conceit of some privative meatsacks that they can know everything about the Universe is fun to watch. (General observation, not specific reply/commentary.)

[The Architect Of Fate]

W.L.Craig :
First, in order to recognize an explanation as the best, one needn't have an explanation of the explanation.

Big bang theory best explains the data we have so far, for the origin of the universe we live in.  
How to explain the big bang? So glad i dont have to.

The theist position is heap of 

Personally credulity

Lack of imagination 

Unsupported comparisons based on arbitrary standards  

Arguments from ignorance

[brewer]

The best explanation of the origin and life and biodiversity is: intelligence. Conscious activity. The deliberate choice of a rational agent. 

Please provide me with concrete evidence of this intelligent/conscious/rational agent. Not argument, not "I can't think of anything better", not "because I need there to be" but evidence. 

Until you can do that, go away fantasy boy.