Friday, June 29, 2018

You May As Well Claim That The Containing Vessel of the Miller-Urey Experiment Wasn't Relevant To Their Results You Are Citing As Claiming Intelligent Design Had Nothing To Do With It

You cannot get away from the fact that if scientists, on the basis of their knowledge, their INTELLIGENCE, had not used that intelligence to design experiments, the molecules, the structures they produce in their arguments against intelligent design would not have some-how just come about by random chance.

The product of the atheist-scientists who do experiments for the purpose of dissuading people that intelligent design was the origin of life on Earth is, itself, the product of intelligent design.   All they've done is produce things by intelligent design pretending, against all fact and logic, that those things refute intelligent design.  They confirm THAT IT COULD HAPPEN THROUGH INTELLIGENT DESIGN, not that intelligent design couldn't have been the origin of it.

I would say the exact same thing is involved with atheist-cosmologists who invent jillions of universes for the purpose of getting shut of exactly the same, known stupendous improbabilities of our known universe being able to contain matter, molecules, chemistry, stars, planets, etc.  They want to get rid of that nagging and so inconvenient discovery of modern science that troubles their chosen faith.  They are using their intelligence to create imaginary universes in order to intelligently, or, rather, unintelligently make arguments that our one universe could have been the result of random probabilities when the universes they use to do that may well exist nowhere but in the fevered and desperate imaginations of the scientists who do that.  Their universes, so far as anyone can know, are the result of their own intelligent design, but their ultimate argument has to pretend that intelligent design wasn't involved in what they did.

In order for them to get by the inconvenient facts of intelligent design being part of every single experiment atheist-scientists did to prove intelligent design wasn't part of what they did, they'd have to invent a universe in which the Miller-Urey experiment came about in a containment vessel, with just those concentrations of chemicals contained in it, the liquids and gasses, at just the temperatures they were subjected to and that the electrical apparatus that shot electricity into it, all of that would have had to have come about by random chance action in a ridiculously asserted universe where such things just randomly come about without any intelligence input into the construction.  But such universes are held by some of them to just come about by random chance, they have to because they will be faced with an infinite number of such inconvenient improbabilities in order for their chosen creator-gods random-chance and probability to have created our one and only known universe.  The original mutiverse conjecture, the so-called "many-worlds" conjecture claimed such universes are constantly popping into existence whenever anything happens in our universe and, presumably, in every other universe.  Without any explanation of what powers such an ever increasing order of infinities.  And that has been acceptable to such atheist faith.

If it's fair for them to dream up universes, it's fair for us to point out these kinds of things.  And far more in keeping with things such as the principle of parsimony which they violate in the most intellectually dishonest way that it has ever happened in the history of human intellectual culture.

Well, atheism, the denial of the possibility that such things as the stupendously complex mechanisms as even the simplest of life is a product of the intelligent design of God, that relies on the creations cooked up by the intelligent design of atheist-scientists makes the claims of them by said scientists, atheist-philosophers, loud-mouthed barroom, dorm room and blog atheists the opposite of intelligent.  Their arguments rely on the person they are trying to persuade not noticing that that science, its products, the molecules and structures made in the lab, were the result of intelligent design.  And I blew the lid on that cover-up job.

So what is your intelligence going to cook up now to get past that inconvenient fact?

Explain to me how you can disprove intelligent design by using intelligent design to produce results that are nowhere near as complex as that first organism would have had to be to have lived and reproduced.   For atheist-scientists to take it to the stage where they can even simulate something they can claim is an organism of human construction would take many times more combined minds, combined knowledge, combined intelligence that to do that takes them ever so much farther away from their claims that it would not have taken the Supreme Intelligence to do it in reality at a time they claim there were no minds, there was no intelligence to have done it and continually worked on it in the period before there was any scientific knowledge.   They might as well claim that their experiments don't involve containers, chemicals, energy as claim they don't involve intelligent design which was an essential component of literally everything involved.  And they then give awards to the scientists who come up with it.  I've never known of an atheist-scientist who was unwilling to accept rewards and money because their work was a product of randomly present conditions and nothing to do with their intelligence.

Atheists can be so dim, even as they puff themselves up with pride and conceit at their enlightenment.  They are nothing of the kind. 

No comments:

Post a Comment