I've already addressed this many times before. It astounds me how you conveniently ignored what I already discussed. ID is pseudoscience because it assumes the existence of an incomprehensible force having an unfalsifiable hand in the creation, evolution and survival of living organisms. When you're dealing with incomprehensible and unfalsifiable terms you're dealing with baseless assumptions—the very antithesis of science.
There is no design in the universe. You've got not a slightest clue of what you're talking about. Around 3 billion years from now, earth will be completely uninhabitable when it travels out of the goldilocks zone which will result in conditions that are impossible for life to still thrive. The universe goes through this constant series of formation and destruction of planetary and star systems and galaxies, and evolution and extinction of their living inhabitants, if any. Even the universe will end one day, and the actual amount of time the universe can be able to harbor life is not even greater than 1% of the universe's total lifespan. The universe will be an empty, cold, lifeless place for most of its time. The fate of the universe is too scary and depressing to be designed by an intelligent force. Your improvident creationist views totally lack scientific insight and foresight.
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
Ignore what? Yes, you discussed this again and again according to your own erroneous and superficial terms. Therefore, again and again I will expose your biased assertion. You have the slightest idea of the Intelligent Design Theory. I am not an ID scientist nor an apologetic of that theory. However, you have the slightest idea about its fundamental theoretical claims. You are fond of invoking the pseudo-scholars of Wikipedia particularly treating the IDT.
How do you know that there is no design in the universe? Are you intellectually blind or just dismissive of a competent theory? You dismiss it according not how that theory approach reality scientifically but you mistook at as if it's Creationism as understood by religious fundamentalist point of view. Example, how do you even explain in Darwinist point of view the genetic or molecular structures of even the simplest life form where it takes an immense ordering just for a protein to evolve? What are you going to say about this?Are you to summon Wikipedia and ready to answer like "well IDT is disguised creationist" "the IDT scientists were theists or Christians"? Is this how you are going to scientofically refute a competing theory?This is a vicious circle.
What if the universe will have a heat death? The problem is that you assume that the atheist has the only logical/philosophical, scientific and rational underatanding of reality. What were audience into articulating your poins here? Were the religious fundamentalists or the people of the stone age who were zapped into this era? Going back to the physical state of the universe where it eventually faces heat death, so what? That is scientific yes! However, that hypothesis isnt atheistic. It is only the mind that will assert a physical phenomenon or a logical concepts for a conclusion to reinforce his presupposition as an atheist or theist. We can not find in nature about atheism or theism. It is only the intelligent mind with his philosophical or scientific disposal that will organize the data from the wide range of human experience to reinforce his willed presuppositions of things.