Atheists, prove to me that intelligent design and vast order is not evidence of a Creator?

Question

Wouldn't it be more logical for atheists to say, "I don't believe in evidence of a creator," instead of "there is no evidence of a creator," as most atheists would say? Simply because there is a possibility (and prove me if I'm wrong) of evidence either being overlooked, denied through either denial, misguided perception, or by ignoring or simply not finding the evidence that is out there?

Source:Gregory explains much of the evidence of the Christian faith here: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=75043

I would refute basically everyone of these answers, but for the simple fact that it would probably be a waste of my time, seeing as none of you will probably refer back to this question, i won't.

Answer 1

I agree, atheists have a problem with overstating their case.

If you look at what we have with this earth in our solar system, you can say, "I believe we are simply lucky," but you can't say, "There is absolutely no evidence of design."
-The right kind of galaxy.
-The right place in the galaxy.
-The right kind of star.
-The right distance from that star.
-The right sized planet.
-The right spin of the planet.
-The proper magnetic field.
-The high composition of carbon.
-The high water content.
-The nitrogen and oxygen atmosphere.
-The size and distance of our moon.
-And on and on. The thing is, any slight variation in any of these would make the earth uninhabitable as we know it.

And what about life? Life is more than just physics and chemistry; life is built on information. Tightly coiled up inside the center of every cell, this information is contained in that molecule of heredity, called “DNA” which has a digital code inscribed alone its spine.

Information is something different from matter and energy. For example, a book contains information, but the paper and ink are not the information—they can only transmit it.

Life is an information-based process in which the DNA contained within each cell is based on a genetic language using four nucleotide bases. It has been estimated that if transcribed into English, the DNA in the human genome would fill a 300-volume set of encyclopedias of approximately 2,000 pages each.

And, of course, an order of letters is meaningless unless there is a language system and a translation system already in place that makes it meaningful. The language system that reads the order of the molecules in the DNA is itself specified by the DNA.

It has also been said that if the amount of information in just a pinhead volume of DNA was written into paperback books, it would make a pile 500 times the distance from here to the moon. The knowledge currently stored in all of the libraries of the world would only take up about 1% of that. Living things have by far the most compact information storage and retrieval system in the known universe.

And we know from experience: If you have a computer program, you need a computer programer. Any time we find information, whether it is in the form of a hieroglyphic inscription or a newspaper article, there was invariably an intelligent agent behind that information.

Evolutionists have not been able to explain the origin of information in cells; information has not been shown to spontaneously arise from matter and energy. The existence of the information can only be explained through a pre-existing intelligence that put it there.

Dr. Werner Gitt (an information scientist who was a director and professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology) said, “A code system is always the result of a mental process (it requires an intelligent origin or inventor) … It should be emphasized that matter as such is unable to generate any code. All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily exercising his own free will, cognition, and creativity, is required ...There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this.”

I think we can therefore deduce that the huge amount of information in living things must have originally come from an intelligence, which had to have been far superior to ours, as scientists are revealing every day.

I don't mind them arguing against this, and not believing in Intelligent Design, but saying, "There is absolutely no evidence of design" is absurd.

Answer 2

Simple. There is no evidence that anything that exists had to have or even was created by an intelligent force. Now, by your self-serving definition, that doesn't mean that it necessarily wasn't. After all, an intelligent force could have set the Big Bang in motion, or have set up evolution further down the road. You start off by assuming that intelligent design exists, however there is nothing to actually support that assumption. It is unfair for you to say that there is intelligent design without pointing to anything that proves or even indicates that there is.

Answer 3

If we were "designed" then our designer would never have invented the quark. Something that has no purpose (other than to provide funding for Swiss scientists) and is so small it can only be detected by the influence it has on other objects. An intelligent designer would have stopped at the smallest, useful part - the electron

Answer 4

That is one absolutely HORRIBLE reference. I found logical fallacies in the first couple sentences. For example, those are not the only two options for the universe's existence. Atheists do not necessarily argue that the universe has always been. In fact, the Big Bang theory would appear to exclude that idea.

I see no reason to read further.

Answer 5

unquestionably, stomatopods (which incorporates the mantis shrimps) are not shrimp. in case you relatively needed surprising valuable aspects touching directly to the mantis shrimp, you're able to've concentrated on its seen gadget. "Crusher" mantis shrimps do hit issues with the heel of their claw with the means which you're saying (however the sound from the cavitation bubble isn't *that* loud...i've got heard it first hand, and that i've got seen what a speedy attack against the glass will do to an aquarium; nor are they that warm; the water in aquariums that they are especially situations cutting-edge in might flash boil). And to be honest, you underestimated the means, because of the fact the bubbles pops with 1500 Newtons of stress. yet, devoid of that means, the way it going to eats its meal? The stomatopods that hunt in this rely have a weight loss plan in general composed of crustaceans, with numerous gastropods thrown in for solid degree. those shells do no longer injury actually. at the same time as maximum animals that in the process many cases hunt this way of prey have sturdy jaws and enamel designed for crushing (e.g., puffers, small eels, triggers, etc.), the mantis shrimps has to deal with breaking their prey externally. lacking the room for sturdy jaw muscle tissue (and numerous the shells to break via are relatively thick), they the two have the stress to break it, or they do no longer. people who did no longer died out. The mechanism in the back of the potential replaced into more desirable than mandatory...in spite of the indisputable fact that it achieved the job. as quickly as the foodstuff could be won, there is no determination stress to alter the mechanism to a minimum of a few thing that does the job with much less excess of stress. ---- in case you relatively desire to apply evolution to instruct a resourceful stress, you relatively desire to p.c.. on some thing that has 0 risk to evolve by risk. i'm no longer able to discover any piece of the stomatopod claw which could no longer have developed by risk. the certainty which you're inspired via it (and that's surprising) does no longer propose that it may no longer have possibly befell devoid of somebody designing some species with extra means than is mandatory.

Answer 6

It isn't the job of an atheist to prove anything to you. If you really want to know these things, go to your local library and read. Take a college level biology class.

However, you won't do any of that. You are happy to read the highly biased *science* books you find in your local christian book store. You wallow in your own ignorance and consider yourself clever. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

Answer 7

I'm sorry but the burden of proof is yours, not mine.

If evidence has been overlooked or hasn't yet been found, there still is no evidence to show me.

If you find a watch in the grass, a fingerprint can tell you who last touched it, but not how it came into being.

Answer 8

1. There is no evidence for intelligent design, either.
2. Fundamentalists are looking for evidence so badly they've resorted to outright lies to back up their "theories". If any real evidence existed, they most certainly would have found it and trumpeted it to the entire world. Repeatedly.

Answer 9

The only things that are intelligently designed exist here on earth and were designed by creatures with brains. Anything outside of that formed spontaneously.

A ball of rock, ice or gas hurtling through space is not evidence of a creator.

It is evidence that balls of rock, ice or gas hurtle through space.

Answer 10

Prove to me "intelligent design and vast order" exist and perhaps I might. Is this the alleged "evidence of a creator" you talk of?


Besides, the burden of proof is not upon the atheist, it is upon the believer.


PROVE TO ME THAT SANTA DOES NOT EXIST! I GET RPESENTS EVERY YEAR, THIS PROVES HIS EXISTENCE!!