"The argument from the basis of design, through trite, has never been refuted adequately refuted, on the contrary: as we learn more about our world, the probability of its having resulted by chance process becomes more and more remote so that few indeed are the scientific men of today who will defend an atheistic attitude." - Arthur Comton 1935
Checkmate
Attachments
Yes
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
The statement that I had lunch on the moon with Elvis has never been 'refuted' either. Doesn't mean it is worth a hill of beans though.
And its Compton (like Compton scattering) not Cromton.
fixed still hasn't been refuted though.. interesting that you say this cause I thought people said it has been refuted... thanks now I know they are lying.
"fixed still hasn't been refuted though"
Right. And it never will be. Just like all the other shitty arguments out there. You will never prove any of them true or false because they are sufficiently vague.
Many claims by I.D.lots are easily refuted. The Genome Project refutes most.
How so?
Age of the earth, descent from common ancestor. It depends on the individual claim. However, if you want to agree with scientific findings and insert the claim that there is an intelligent designer then you have a problem. The claim that there is a designer is not falsifiable. What cannot be tested for falsehood can be dismissed without further consideration. Unless you know a way the claim that god is the designer could possibly be proven false?
And you still have Compton's name wrong!
I can fix the one in the description not in the heading....
Can you provide the math that proves the the probability of our existence via chance is becoming more and more remote? I'd also really like to see the math that indicates that the probability of our existence is because of a creator.
Scientist won't bother to refute a design myth because that would be backwards. It isn't the onus of people to refute the idea of design. It is the duty for those who proport the design idea to prove it. So your OP is moot and worthless.
"The argument from the basis of design, through trite, has never been refuted adequately refuted."
So why does my mobile phone, designed by Samsung, have better eyes than I, who was supposedly designed by a some divine intelligent designer?
Your phone does not have an eye
It has a device for capturing and focusing light and transmitting it to a processor and storage as electrical signals. How does an eye differ from that? The materials are different but the function is identical.
Then perhaps you should use your phone as your eye, pluck that wee thing out and get something better in there? Absurd isn`t it, just like your semantics.
"pluck that wee thing out and get something better in there"
It's already happening. Soon people with divinely designed non-functional eyes will be able to get implants (designed intelligently by humans) to restore their vision. Artificial lenses are already commonplace for cataract surgergy.
The point I was trying to make was that if someone was going to design an eye from scratch, why would they make it out of jelly and make it so vulnerable to damage, defects, and aging? Even the light from the intelligently designed sun damages our intelligently designed eyes.
What do you mean "semantics"? Do you even know what that means?
We have the eyes we do as we are related to lancet worms. Our retinas are facing away from the light source.
@ Don Logan
Why do you think God gave some other species better eyes, while making some weird design mistakes on the human eyes?
Of course, this video has to be posted again when talking about this...
The Eye of the Python - NonStampCollector
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7yAEh-PU4M
@ towerpiller
Your argumentations is on the same level as this...
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
Cute! And ever so true!
Towerpiller,
I don't see any checkmate. Are you sure that you are playing by the rules of chess?
Hume destroyed the theoretical foundation of the design argument long ago, and Darwin put the practical nails in the coffin of living design. As for the universe, it proceeds naturally from the Big Bang! The Big Bang didn't have much in the way of design, but operating within nature's laws over time the design was forthcoming. God is left unemployed! I would say that the design argument has been refuted on several levels.
In citing chance you have overlooked the input of natural laws! Makes a huge difference! By the way, at the elite end most scientists are atheists. A lot has happened since 1935! Hit the books!
I'm entirely not sure how to respond...You realize scientists are primarily atheist right? Ninety three percent of the Members of the National Academy of Sciences are atheist...this is not 1935. The world is far less indoctrinated these days thankfully. I'd feel so alone if I'd thought this way in the past.
What evidence did Compton provide for his argument from design?
Yes yes... what chimp3 said... and what was it designed for?
So Compton made a quote. HE believes in God . Doesn't prove anything.
Authority is meaningless when faced with facts. You need priests to interpret the bible. We don't need authority to tell us what we need to or don't need to believe. Provide sufficient proof. Until then if you believe unicorns jumped into the flood then good for you. IT DOESNT PROVE ANYTHING
So, I'm not hearing a substantive "checkmate" from towerpiller but have heard a lot of microphones dropping.
I guess when towerpillar called "Checkmate" and we said "No, it is not. See!" he knocked the pieces over and left the room. I will feel bad if he got sick or something.