Stephen King: Universe 'Suggests Inte...

Stephen King: Universe 'Suggests Intelligent Design'

There are 455 comments on the Breitbart.com story from May 30, 2013, titled Stephen King: Universe 'Suggests Intelligent Design'. In it, Breitbart.com reports that:

Novelist Stephen King went on National Public Radio, of all places, and spoke openly about God and how he believed everything about the universe suggests it is a product of intelligent design.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Breitbart.com.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#344 Jun 13, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>He keeps them in his codpiece, digging for gold while crying, "They're magically delicious!"
Still projecting your own life onto me, how cute, you wish I was you.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#345 Jun 13, 2013
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you are saying that but then non believers aren't always the most rational people in the world.
"There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is there any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this."
Werner Gitt, In the Beginning Was Information, 1997, p. 79
That was fun.
Here is a simple example of a natural process giving rise to information...

Now, information in information theory is described in different ways, but a useful one is "departure from randomness, a more ordered state".

So. Take a lump of undifferentiated ore. Total random placement of all the particles in the mix. Subject it to heat. Not natural? Let the heat be the sun, on the surface of Mercury.

Then let it cool. Let that just be planetary rotation, so that it gets dark and cold.

What was that? An energy flux. Natural energy in, then out.

What was the result? The sorting of the mixed ore into layers of different minerals.

More order, more information.

Thanks for playing. Every physicist knows that entropy can be reduced (information spontaneously increased) in an energy flux.

Total entropy increases over the whole system, but localised entropy is reduced.

Werner is clearly a Gitt.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#346 Jun 13, 2013
GLXGT wrote:
<quoted text>
Show me a bible/book dedicated to leprechauns. Show me where any book or people say that a leprechauns created Earth or Man. Show me anything about leprechauns where anyone thinks they are really real. Show me anything but fiction about leprechauns.
Bingo. That's the point.

The Bible is fiction.

But you say there COULD be a God. In which case there COULD be leprechauns. Because both concepts are every bit as scientifically valid as each other.
downhill246

West Palm Beach, FL

#347 Jun 13, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is a simple example of a natural process giving rise to information...
Now, information in information theory is described in different ways, but a useful one is "departure from randomness, a more ordered state".
So. Take a lump of undifferentiated ore. Total random placement of all the particles in the mix. Subject it to heat. Not natural? Let the heat be the sun, on the surface of Mercury.
Then let it cool. Let that just be planetary rotation, so that it gets dark and cold.
What was that? An energy flux. Natural energy in, then out.
What was the result? The sorting of the mixed ore into layers of different minerals.
More order, more information.
Thanks for playing. Every physicist knows that entropy can be reduced (information spontaneously increased) in an energy flux.
Total entropy increases over the whole system, but localised entropy is reduced.
Werner is clearly a Gitt.


That isn't a code and your attempt to define it as such is a failure.

"There is no trace in physics or chemistry of the control of chemical reactions by a sequence of any sort or of a code between sequences. Thus, when we make the distinction between the origin
of the genetic code and its evolution we find the origin of the genetic code is unknowable."

Nuclear physicist and bioinformatician Dr. Hubert P. Yockey
downhill246

West Palm Beach, FL

#348 Jun 13, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You are correct in that no failed hypothesis of a particular route to life can falsify the idea of natural abiogenesis. Thus abiogenesis is not a hypothesis, its just an idea. So be it.
The conclusion is not authoritatively accepted, except by the dogmatic. Perhaps the massive success in describing the development of the universe (cosmology) and the development of life once in place (evolution), has spurred scientists on...
But the reality is, if no viable pathway can be discovered after several more decades of trying, perhaps some alternative "Goddidit" scenario might be invoked. In the meantime, the research is in its infancy, there is loads to be looked at, and you are in no position to say dogmatically that it will not produce results. Its already producing promising results.
My money is on their eventual success.
I guess promising in is the mind of the beholder.

'The chemical control needed for the formation of a specific sequence in a polymer chain is just not possible in a random process. The synthesis of proteins and DNA in the laboratory requires the chemist to control the reaction conditions, to thoroughly understand the reactivity and selectivity of each component, and to carefully control the order of addition of the components as the chain is building in size. The successful formation of proteins and DNA in some primordial soup would require the same control of the reactivity and selectivity, and that would require the existence of a chemical controller. But chemicals cannot think, plan, or organize themselves to do anything. How can chemicals know what it is they're making? How can a chemical reaction make a protein or DNA, put it in an eye, heart, or brain, and do it without a controlling mechanism that knows what the end product is supposed to look like? This sounds much more like the work of an Omniscient Creator. Evolutionists have always been quick to claim that life came from chemicals, but their theory does not hold up to scientific scrutiny. Evolution claims that random chance natural processes formed life as we know it, but they fail to mention that their theory is anything but random or natural. This is the false logic of evolution. Evolutionists just hope you don't know chemistry!

*Dr. Charles McCombs is a Ph.D. organic chemist trained in the methods of scientific investigation, and a scientist who has 20 chemical patents.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#349 Jun 13, 2013
GLXGT wrote:
<quoted text>
Show me a bible/book dedicated to leprechauns. Show me where any book or people say that a leprechauns created Earth or Man. Show me anything about leprechauns where anyone thinks they are really real. Show me anything but fiction about leprechauns.
Consensus "proves" the Bible is inerrant and an accurate depiction of reality? How many Americans do you think believe that George really did chop down the cherry tree and that the Pilgrims actually ate turkey at the thanksgiving feast?
Your "logic" is a fiction.

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#350 Jun 13, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually they are. If you notice, castles are made of hard substances ultimately derived from rocks.
<quoted text>
No, but if there's beer around here then it's quite likely they used the hops in the nearby field to make it. Unless there is evidence the beer was imported.
<quoted text>
Nor do we claim it stands on its own. Abiogenesis is not a theory, it's a hypothesis. But it's testable and currently being researched. So like your analogies here we observe that chemistry creates life all over the planet, every single day. We hypothesize that chemistry could have created the first life when that was formed. Just like the rocks and the nearby hops there is a potential viable connection. You don't HAVE a scientific objection. You don't even have an education. Your ONLY objection is that you don't like that idea because it goes against what your mommy said - Goddidit with magic cuz the Bible iz troo cuz teh Bible sez so.
Your mommy was wrong.(shrug)
Sorry if you don't like it.
You are still lying
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#352 Jun 13, 2013
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess promising in is the mind of the beholder.
'The chemical control needed for the formation of a specific sequence in a polymer chain is just not possible in a random process. The synthesis of proteins and DNA in the laboratory requires the chemist to control the reaction conditions, to thoroughly understand the reactivity and selectivity of each component, and to carefully control the order of addition of the components as the chain is building in size. The successful formation of proteins and DNA in some primordial soup would require the same control of the reactivity and selectivity, and that would require the existence of a chemical controller. But chemicals cannot think, plan, or organize themselves to do anything. How can chemicals know what it is they're making? How can a chemical reaction make a protein or DNA, put it in an eye, heart, or brain, and do it without a controlling mechanism that knows what the end product is supposed to look like? This sounds much more like the work of an Omniscient Creator. Evolutionists have always been quick to claim that life came from chemicals, but their theory does not hold up to scientific scrutiny. Evolution claims that random chance natural processes formed life as we know it, but they fail to mention that their theory is anything but random or natural. This is the false logic of evolution. Evolutionists just hope you don't know chemistry!
*Dr. Charles McCombs is a Ph.D. organic chemist trained in the methods of scientific investigation, and a scientist who has 20 chemical patents.
For a guy who knows something about chemistry he's good at repeating argument from incredulity and fundie caricatures of abiogenesis and evolution.

I guess you just accidently missed out the part where he happens to be a Christian apologist.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#353 Jun 13, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
You are still lying
In that case you should have no problem in presenting a systematic scientific rebuttal then. Until then we can assume you're simply projecting as usual.(shrug)

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#354 Jun 13, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
For a guy who knows something about chemistry he's good at repeating argument from incredulity and fundie caricatures of abiogenesis and evolution.
I guess you just accidently missed out the part where he happens to be a Christian apologist.(shrug)
Ha,Ha,Ha, is this what you call a systematic scientific rebuttal?

you are a joke.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#355 Jun 14, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Ha,Ha,Ha, is this what you call a systematic scientific rebuttal?
you are a joke.
Actually yes. Because just like all you fundies he's knocking down a caricature of the concept instead of the actual concept, for instance chemistry requiring "planning". I'm pretty sure that no supernatural leprechauns are required for water to condense on my window-sill in the morning. His statement is loaded, plus add to the fact it's from reality-denying Young Earth liars for Jesus sources whose "scientific alternative" is invisible Jewmagic, that alone precludes ANY argument he makes being valid because evidence is completely superfluous to that position.

If you notice you guys are repeating the same BS and we knock it down every single time. And as usual you're not capable of rebuttals because you aren't even educated enough to discuss the subject. This forces you to appeal to the authority of individuals offerring their philosophical opinions or pure religious apologetics.

Creationism has been a joke for thousands of years. And here you are, a 21st century boy who still groks it.(shrug)

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#356 Jun 14, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually yes. Because just like all you fundies he's knocking down a caricature of the concept instead of the actual concept, for instance chemistry requiring "planning". I'm pretty sure that no supernatural leprechauns are required for water to condense on my window-sill in the morning. His statement is loaded, plus add to the fact it's from reality-denying Young Earth liars for Jesus sources whose "scientific alternative" is invisible Jewmagic, that alone precludes ANY argument he makes being valid because evidence is completely superfluous to that position.
If you notice you guys are repeating the same BS and we knock it down every single time. And as usual you're not capable of rebuttals because you aren't even educated enough to discuss the subject. This forces you to appeal to the authority of individuals offerring their philosophical opinions or pure religious apologetics.
Creationism has been a joke for thousands of years. And here you are, a 21st century boy who still groks it.(shrug)
Looking,looking , looking, still no systematic scientific rebuttal. You are really dumb, comparing water condensation to chemicals starting life. Go away now , your idiocy and lying are confirmed.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#357 Jun 14, 2013
bohart wrote:
Looking,looking , looking, still no systematic scientific rebuttal.
Then you haven't looked very hard.
bohart wrote:
You are really dumb, comparing water condensation to chemicals starting life.
How so? Chemistry is not random. Your chemist claimed chemistry was random and required intelligence. In short he put forth the typical fundamentalist creationist caricature and pretended he was making a scientific argument. You are still under the mistaken assumption that life is not chemistry. That is why you fail. That is why creationists fail.
bohart wrote:
Go away now , your idiocy and lying are confirmed.
No, that is merely your opinion. On the other hand you HAVE been caught lying in the past, never address what we actually post, and only offer ad-hom, insults and straw-men to counter them.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#358 Jun 14, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
... You are really dumb, comparing water condensation to chemicals starting life....
Why? Why couldn't life be the result of natural forces in the same way?
downhill246

Pompano Beach, FL

#359 Jun 15, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
For a guy who knows something about chemistry he's good at repeating argument from incredulity and fundie caricatures of abiogenesis and evolution.
I guess you just accidently missed out the part where he happens to be a Christian apologist.(shrug)
Sounds good to me.
So was Copernicus, Mendel, Galileo, Newton and Lemaitre.
downhill246

Pompano Beach, FL

#360 Jun 15, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually yes. Because just like all you fundies he's knocking down a caricature of the concept instead of the actual concept, for instance chemistry requiring "planning". I'm pretty sure that no supernatural leprechauns are required for water to condense on my window-sill in the morning. His statement is loaded, plus add to the fact it's from reality-denying Young Earth liars for Jesus sources whose "scientific alternative" is invisible Jewmagic, that alone precludes ANY argument he makes being valid because evidence is completely superfluous to that position.
If you notice you guys are repeating the same BS and we knock it down every single time. And as usual you're not capable of rebuttals because you aren't even educated enough to discuss the subject. This forces you to appeal to the authority of individuals offerring their philosophical opinions or pure religious apologetics.
Creationism has been a joke for thousands of years. And here you are, a 21st century boy who still groks it.(shrug)
Ninety percent of Americans are creationists so the joke is on you.
""I'm a theistic evolutionist. I take the view that God, in His wisdom, used evolution as His creative scheme. I don't see why that's such a bad idea. That's pretty amazingly creative on His part. And what is wrong with that as a way of putting together in a synthetic way the view of God who is interested in creating a group of individuals that He can have fellowship with -- us? Why is evolution not an appropriate way to get to that goal? I don't see a problem with that."
ex-atheist Dr Francis Collins, Director of the National Institutes of Health.
downhill246

Pompano Beach, FL

#361 Jun 15, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually yes. Because just like all you fundies he's knocking down a caricature of the concept instead of the actual concept, for instance chemistry requiring "planning". I'm pretty sure that no supernatural leprechauns are required for water to condense on my window-sill in the morning. His statement is loaded, plus add to the fact it's from reality-denying Young Earth liars for Jesus sources whose "scientific alternative" is invisible Jewmagic, that alone precludes ANY argument he makes being valid because evidence is completely superfluous to that position.
If you notice you guys are repeating the same BS and we knock it down every single time. And as usual you're not capable of rebuttals because you aren't even educated enough to discuss the subject. This forces you to appeal to the authority of individuals offerring their philosophical opinions or pure religious apologetics.
Creationism has been a joke for thousands of years. And here you are, a 21st century boy who still groks it.(shrug)
You don't knock down our arguments. You resort to character assassination and mediocre rebuttals which often are just opinion and think you are scoring points.

"The creation of information is habitually associated with conscious activity."
Information theorist Henry Quastler
downhill246

Pompano Beach, FL

#362 Jun 15, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
For a guy who knows something about chemistry he's good at repeating argument from incredulity and fundie caricatures of abiogenesis and evolution.
I guess you just accidently missed out the part where he happens to be a Christian apologist.(shrug)
Here is another christian apologist who use to be in your camp.

"When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics."

Frank Tipler, mathematical physicist and cosmologist, holding a joint appointment in the Departments of Mathematics and Physics at Tulane University

Of course we can't forget Mr Flew

"A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature"
Philosopher Anthony Flew who was considered one of the foremost advocates for atheism.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#363 Jun 15, 2013
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ninety percent of Americans are creationists so the joke is on you.
""I'm a theistic evolutionist. I take the view that God, in His wisdom, used evolution as His creative scheme. I don't see why that's such a bad idea. That's pretty amazingly creative on His part. And what is wrong with that as a way of putting together in a synthetic way the view of God who is interested in creating a group of individuals that He can have fellowship with -- us? Why is evolution not an appropriate way to get to that goal? I don't see a problem with that."
ex-atheist Dr Francis Collins, Director of the National Institutes of Health.
No, theistic evolutionists are not creationists. They believe, like regular evolutionists, that we share a common ancestor with the other apes. Only 46% of the U.S. are creationists, that is half of what you claim:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/05/amer...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#364 Jun 15, 2013
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is another christian apologist who use to be in your camp.
"When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics."
Frank Tipler, mathematical physicist and cosmologist, holding a joint appointment in the Departments of Mathematics and Physics at Tulane University
Of course we can't forget Mr Flew
"A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature"
Philosopher Anthony Flew who was considered one of the foremost advocates for atheism.
Again, he still believes the theory of evolution so I don't see how he is in the idiot camp. He believes the core parts of Christianity. Creationism is not a core part of Christianity.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 24 min Truth is might 197,270
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr ChristineM 13,226
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Brian_G 31,163
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 2 hr Chimney1 150,930
News RANT: Is "global warming" today's version of th... Wed bearings 2
Another "gap" gets closed Tue MIDutch 1
Christianity and why its wrong + evolution debates May 21 Zog Has-fallen 15
More from around the web