Design for Living: The Basis for a Design Theory of Origins

Discovery Institute ^ | February 7, 2005 | Michael Behe

[PatrickHenry]

Consider yourself COLD-BUSTED!

Classic response, crater-boy! Now that your evil schemes are exposed, you retreat into "persecution mode." Poor you, a big right-wing conspiracy is out to get you. Yeah, sure.

You're not fooling anyone. There are no rocks in the sky, but there are quite a few rattling around in your head. Craterism is the biggest con-game in the world. And now it's YOU who's been busted!

Enjoy your foul Crater-ite orgies while you still can. We know all about you. Your cult is in our crosshairs. Your dogma will be purged from decent society. Craterism is doomed!

[Elsie]

Ooooooh!

You're good with numbers!


Can you give me a good set to use for a 46 number LOTTO?????

[jennyp]

OMG, PatrickHenry first signed up on 10/28/1999.

1 + 0 = 1.

2 + 8 = 10.

1 + 10 = ELEVEN!

1 + 9 + 9 + 9 = 28. 2 + 8 = 10.

"PatrickHenry" is a one-word handle.

10 + 1 = ELEVEN!

[PatrickHenry]

10 + 1 = ELEVEN!

You have cracked the code.

[jennyp]

"You have cracked the code." has 22 letters. Your response was 2 lines long.

22 / 2 = ELEVEN!

Further proof of anti-craterism's metaphysical Truth. (Or was that proof against anti-craterism? Wait, I'm getting confused...)

[longshadow]

Further proof of anti-craterism's metaphysical Truth. (Or was that proof against anti-craterism? Wait, I'm getting confused...)

It just goes to show that anti-Craterism is a SATANIC PLOT to confused the unwary, making animalistic fornication, sexual deviancy, and corruption of our precious bodly fluids a reality.

[PatrickHenry]

Have you ever stopped to consider the tragic implications of your materialistic Meteor Crator Theory? Think about it, for once in your wretched life!

Craterism is a "theory" that claims large rocks can fall from the sky at any random moment and kill us. What damage can it do to young minds when they are indoctrinated with the "theory" about a purposeless, chaotic, random world -- the "theory" which is promoted by these so-called crater-scientists? How many lives have been destroyed by contemplating the chaos and absurdity of life when there is the constant fear of rocks falling from the sky? Clearly, such a precarious existence is too horrible to contemplate. How many suicides have been caused by the meaningless Crater-ite view of life?

The fruit of this materialistic theory can only be despair and death! Oh, the horror!

[Kurt_D]

From your perspective, if God did create the universe, you could not except it as a fact because it didn't fit into your preconceived idea of what science is?

Let's put it like this. I am still waiting for a good and credible explanation that includes some form of divine power. So far I haven't heard any. But hey, I am alwyas eager for more info.

[Bellflower]

I pray you get your answer. The LORD knows what it is that you need. If you are sincere about wanting the truth seek it with all your heart and you will find it.

[MacDorcha]

"Really? Provide support for your assertion. Document where you've examined every nook and cranny of the planet and examined it with a microscope to conclusively determine the absence of any such activity. Because that's what it would take to actually "prove the negative" of your claim and establish it as an *actual* fact, instead of just your presumption which you want to "call" a fact. "

Let me get this straight: You assert that both a) we don't know everything (I hope you assert that, being human) and b) without searching the entire planet and getting ALL evidence, we can't come to a conclusive end? nice.

You still haven't provided me with abio-genesis.

I can provide you with NOT abio-genesis all day long.

You also still refuse to admit that while I was talking about abio-genesis, you broke in with your rants about evolution. You came into my convo and asserted your point as relevant. This is where I connected the two with you and your dogmatic assertion of both.


Let me finish with this:

You're the one "claiming" to be scientific. This would imply to rational peoples that you would want evidence BEFORE you came to a conclusion. You come to the conclusion that abio-genesis is possible without design, but you have NO EVIDENCE of this "fact"

Your asking me to prove my point would be like my saying "Black isn't white" and then you follow that up with "How do you know? have you seen ALL the black?"

You'd argue with a stop sign, and claim you won.

Now you run along and play. Don't forget you kool-aid break.

[MacDorcha]

I will defend myself here as well.

I never said evolution was impossible.

I am not wow-ed by people who think that using big words makes up for a sound noodle.

I also never said that proving evolution would limit God.

My arguement has nothing to do with evolution but what my fat-butt was drug into by others on this thread.

Intelligent Design is my arguement. That abio-genesis (sans the engineering) is impossible. That something or someone had to start it. That someone is God.

Do not judge me on my faith or what you think I said. I am not ignorant, simply angered by some on this thread.

Thank you.

[stands2reason]

It is less for me to prove ID, more for you to prove a random event can cause life.

I guess it is if you ignore aspect of what made the designer...

[MacDorcha]

"I guess it is if you ignore aspect of what made the designer..."


There is a reason we call Him God, and not Kevin.

We know of an outside source. We know it is not human (and possibly not even biological)

We know it set rules.

We don't know where He (it) came from, or why, but we can observe where God has lead us so far and down what path (Science)

God is what makes this existance have any resemblance to being sane and logical. To say we have no origin is to denounce the human nature of making sense of this world and all around and in it.

Denouncing any and all forms of higher organization is a way of both claiming humanity's attempts at understanding are worthless, and that your own existance is meaningless.

But of course, getting into this just opens you up for attacking yet another aspect of my philosophies and understandings. Go ahead, I've heard worse and watched the idiots spouting it go in a downward spiral in life as they did so.

"There is no God! Why are my grades so poor?"

[Dataman]

I guess it is if you ignore aspect of what made the designer...

1)The physical laws of the universe are the physical laws of the universe. While that may seem obvious, your statement indicates that it is not. Stated another way, the physical laws of the universe are not the physical laws of the non-universe.

2) One of the laws of the physical universe is cause and effect. We know that everything in the created universe has a cause. Materialism contradicts this basic physical law. But even if the law applied to the non-universe, there would ultimately have to be an Uncaused Cause, a Prime Mover. Logic demands it.

3) The universe was created. Even secular cosmologists admit as much. They also contend that "before the BB there was no time," which is rational to a creationist but irrational to a materialist since time is required to exist in order for there to be a "before" time began.

4) A creation requires a Creator. This, too, should be self-evident but in this postmodern age of non-reason, it cannot be taken for granted.

5) A Creator and the creation are exclusive. IOW the Creator cannot be the creation and the creation cannot be the creator. This falls under the dominion of the law of noncontradiction.

6) At some point the Creator existed and the creation did not. There was a point at which the universe did not exist. Therefore the laws of the universe did not exist prior to the existence of the universe.

Conclusion: The question assumes an infinite regression. There must exist an Uncaused Cause if the law of cause-and-effect is universal. If it is not, the Creator cannot be involuntarily subject laws of the created universe.

Conclusion: Materialism is incapable of addressing the ultimate origin of the universe. Materialism, not creationism, employs logical contradictions in order to explain a "natural" origin of the universe.

Conclusion: The question God's origin assumes that the Creator is subject to the physical laws of creation. The Creator's existence is independent of the universe.

There can only be one First Cause.

[MacDorcha]

Well stated. Was that from a website? May I have a look if so?

[Dataman]

Was that from a website? May I have a look if so?

It's my own.

[Ichneumon]

["Really? Provide support for your assertion. Document where you've examined every nook and cranny of the planet and examined it with a microscope to conclusively determine the absence of any such activity. Because that's what it would take to actually "prove the negative" of your claim and establish it as an *actual* fact, instead of just your presumption which you want to "call" a fact. "]

Let me get this straight:

That would be refreshing.

You assert that both a) we don't know everything (I hope you assert that, being human)

Wasn't my assertion, but I'll agree with that.

and b) without searching the entire planet and getting ALL evidence, we can't come to a conclusive end? nice.

Are you having trouble with your reading comprehension? That's not at *all* what I said. Sure, we can "come to a conclusive end", but it's still a *conclusion*.

My point was that you had ludicrously claimed to know something for a *fact*, not as a *conclusion*, when the thing you were claiming to know for a "fact" was the total and complete absence of something happening on Earth. Nice try, but unless you've inspected every nook and cranny on Earth, you quite obviously *can't* know that for a "fact", and therefore -- as I pointed out -- your claim was false and overblown. You made a stupid claim, and I pointed out the stupidity of it.

Are we clear now?

I can provide you with NOT abio-genesis all day long.

That's a remarkably ridiculous and useless remark, thanks for sharing.

You also still refuse to admit that while I was talking about abio-genesis, you broke in with your rants about evolution.

Just how addled are you? I addressed your comments about *abiogenesis* by talking about *abiogenesis* in posts #55, #59, #65 and #68. So why are you babbling about how I haven't, and why are you ranting about how I've somehow "refused to admit" that I "broke in" talking about evolution, as if I hadn't addressed your points about *abiogenesis*?

What's your problem?

You came into my convo and asserted your point as relevant.

My points were relevant.

This is where I connected the two with you and your dogmatic assertion of both.

Attempt to remain coherent.

You're the one "claiming" to be scientific. This would imply to rational peoples that you would want evidence BEFORE you came to a conclusion.

Indeed, which is why I *have* examined the evidence before arriving at a conclusion.

You come to the conclusion that abio-genesis is possible without design, but you have NO EVIDENCE of this "fact"

You're hallucinating, apparently, since you're presuming to "know" that I have "NO EVIDENCE", when in fact I do. Please don't mistake your presumptions for reality again.

Your asking me to prove my point would be like my saying "Black isn't white" and then you follow that up with "How do you know? have you seen ALL the black?"

Oh, puh-lease. You claimed to know for a "fact" that something never happens. No, you don't -- you may *conclude* that it doesn't, but that doesn't make it "fact". Try to learn the difference.

You'd argue with a stop sign, and claim you won.

And you'd argue with a stop sign, and lose.

Now you run along and play. Don't forget you kool-aid break.

Sorry, I outgrew that years ago. You go on without me.

[PatrickHenry]

That's a remarkably ridiculous and useless remark ...

I should program that as a keyboard macro. It would get used quite a bit around here.

[balrog666]

That's a remarkably ridiculous and useless remark, thanks for sharing.

I like it too. Much more polite than 'STFU, you ignorant buffoon' and such.

[MacDorcha]

[MD]"and b) without searching the entire planet and getting ALL evidence, we can't come to a conclusive end? nice."

[Ic]"Are you having trouble with your reading comprehension? That's not at *all* what I said."



"[Ic]Document where you've examined every nook and cranny of the planet and examined it with a microscope to conclusively determine the absence of any such activity."

Every nook.... on the planet... with a microscope? You want me to derive that you wanted a GENERAL idea and work from there? You specifically stated that one had to examine everything before coming to a conclussion.

"Just how addled are you? I addressed your comments about *abiogenesis* by talking about *abiogenesis* in posts #55, #59, #65 and #68. "

[MD]"Evolution happens. On what scale we can debate all day."

Here I concede to the general notion of evolution.

[Ic]"You can, anyway -- those who are familiar with the evidence *know* its scope and scale and history."

Here you attack it. Post 55. The very first one on your list.


You made a claim to "bootstrapping." Do you know where that term is now familiar? And why? Someone sets up threading a bootstrap. This later is used to describe someone setting up the sequence for a machine to accept software.

In both cases, someone is required. A machine does not write it's own initial software. A boot does not put itself on.

If you would like to try to come up with a better analogy, go ahead. But your statement said all I needed to hear.