No problem. I've been particularly busy lately so I haven't had the time to respond.
The flaws of arguments from design are well known:
Argument from design - Iron Chariots Wiki
The idea that aspects of nature are too complex to have happened by chance (or more aptly natural processes if we wish to avoid straw men) is a fallacy of argument from ignorance, or even wilful ignorance in the case where the theist also has to reject what we already know about the facts of Darwinian evolution. It is essentially paramount to the statement “I can't think how it could have happened, therefore God done it!”
This has led to the formulation of such theories as Michael Behe's theory of irreducible complexity, which was laughed out of court during the Kitzmiller v. Dover court case, who when presented with counterpoints, "Professor Behe’s only response to these seemingly insurmountable points of disanalogy was that the inference still works in science fiction movies. (23:73 (Behe))”.
You may also want to look into the Argument from Poor Design:
Argument from poor design - Iron Chariots Wiki
Even if we are the ONLY life forms in the entire universe, I don't see how that supports the argument for a intelligent creator being, let alone the god of the bible. perhaps you can connect the dots where no theists has done so before?
We don't know how everything came into existence or whether its always been there. Not knowing does not mean you get to make up any answer to fill in the gaps of knowledge, I.E., God of the gaps argument:
God of the gaps - Iron Chariots Wiki
Theories, including God theories, must stand on their own merit. No theory is
de facto truth because other theories are eliminated or seen as unlikely.
We don't know how the big bang was caused or what caused it or even if discussing causality "before" the Big bang is sensible. We simply don't know at this time. Theoretical Physicists have some great theories that work out mathematically but they are working on supporting them with evidence and experiments to CONFIRM and VERIFY them.
Do you have anything to provide to CONFIRM and VERIFY your God claims?
I'm not very familiar with why scientists believe the earth and universe is as old as it is. its not really a major concern of mine except for the instances it comes up debating religion creation stories. In such cases I often refer to a site that heavily references scientific papers and is often focused on countering Creationist claims. This site is very well known and has been for quite sometime. Its talkorigins.org.
I'm neither an astrophysicist, a physicist, biologists, geologist, astronomer, or the like so I'll have to defer criticism of the details to those with much grater understanding of the subjects.
CH200: Age of the Universe
CH210: Age of the Earth
I'd like you to note that these pages cite their sources.
"NO, I do not consider ANY source to be unbiased because humans tend to be biased – including bible writers, scientists, senators, presidents, etc.
HOWEVER, when information comes from a wide variety of sources representing different viewpoints, the effect of bias is at least somewhat neutralized. For instance, if a physicist or small group of researchers claim to have achieved “cold fusion”, I would reserve judgment (not accept what they say as truthful and accurate without verification) because they could well be biased (or downright dishonest).
However, if a large number of researchers from different organizations – perhaps worldwide (including some who are competitors or doubters) duplicate the experiment and report similar results, I regard that as much more credible and probably worthy of acceptance. "
Once again, I'm not qualified to dispute these issues and I would guess that neither are you.
I can however ask if you believe humans lived alongside dinosaurs. Do you believe what this Ph.D and other creationists do Digsbe? Do you believe man lived with dinosaurs?
Do any of these theories have evidence and support? Have they been peer reviewed and accepted by scientists in their respective fields? have their claims been reproduced and tested by other independently?
The truth has nothing to hide from investigation.
Science is theories that best explain the evidence. When new evidence contradicts or discredits previous theories then those theories must be revised or discarded.
What evidence do we have that is scientific and logical to conclude that there is a higher power ?
"I do NOT accept bible stories as evidence that bible stories are true. I have considered the topic at some length, asked for evidence... invited “gods” to contact me directly – and NOTHING – no evidence, no word from “gods”, no reason to accept the tales as true.
I ask that bible believers show something IN ADDITION to the stories to show that the stories are true.
For instance, a major Christian claim (and foundation of the religion) is that Jesus came back from the dead. I AGREE that there are stories in the bible (religious promotional material) that make that claim. I ASK what evidence (besides the story itself) can be presented to show that the story of “resurrection” is true.
“faith and assumption” is what religion offers as reason to believe its tales and claims. Some may be swayed by the emotionalism and by threats and promises; however, others are not.
If a single source, the bible, reports a “resurrection” and NO other sources can be cited to verify the claim, I reserve judgment and ask for further evidence. When claims have been challenged for a thousand years with no evidence provided, I am inclined to think the source is biased (only reported by religious believers / followers / proponents) and possibly dishonest)."
Science has never supported such a claim. To my knowledge there is no theory that states "everything can be and will be explained by science". Do you know of such a theory?
Once again, you are wrong. Science has not claimed that supernaturalism cannot exist. There simply hasn't been any evidence or support for claims of the supernatural. If you have evidence or ANY means to verify and support supernaturalism then please contact the James Randi foundation and collect your $1,000,000 prize.
Challenge Info
JREF Challenge FAQ
The evidence points to the fact that life evolves through natural processes and that that natural processes continuously work throughout the universe without any divine intervention.
Where "everything" came from "in the beginning" (if there is a beginning) has not yet been resolved by scientists and may never be. Only the religious claim to know such things.
This is backwards. You believe science is wrong because you think science presumes naturalism in order to support evolution and the big bang. In fact its the other way around. The evolution and the big bang are supported by evidence and have natural causes. Thus these theories that are independently confirmed and verified, collectively point toward naturalism. But that doesn't mean science must be naturalistic. it merely means that so far all the theories appear to support naturalism.
Scientists usually state things as fact when their is so much evidence for them it seems highly unlikely that they would be wrong. But scientists have been wrong in the past and probably will be in the future. SCIENCE IS ALWAYS TENTATIVE. A theory is only as strong as the evidence. When new evidence is presented that contradicts or discredits previous theories then they must be discarded or revised.
Of course not. But evidence doesn't lie, or make mistakes, or become delusional. People do.
NO, I do not consider ANY source to be unbiased because humans tend to be biased – including bible writers, scientists, senators, presidents, etc, etc.
HOWEVER, when information comes from a wide variety of sources representing different viewpoints, the effect of bias is at least somewhat neutralized. For instance, if a physicist or small group of researchers claim to have achieved “cold fusion”, I would reserve judgment (not accept what they say as truthful and accurate without verification) because they could well be biased (or downright dishonest).
It is beyond the power of science or philosophy, at this time, to prove with absolute certainty ANYTHING. Science can only SUPPORT theories, it does not PROVE any of them. It is very important to remember this.
If religionists could present evidence or some means of verifying or confirming their claims of a higher power then I would believe it.
However, we have been waiting since the dawn of man for religions to present evidence for their claims. All we get are excuses, hearsay, and unverifiable, unfalsifiable claims. Why do you suppose that is?
