Can any materialist refute this evidence of Creation?

1) Law of Parsimony.

2) Your "hypothesis" is a restatement of your "observation." Which makes your "hypothesis," not a hypothesis.

3) And your "observation" is speculation.

EDIT: Yes. It is problematic.

A) Mainly (but not exclusively) because of "3: Research." There is no research supporting what you claim. There are billions of "entities" with the characteristics you describe in your observation for which we can find no designer or manufacturer.

B) And your hypothesis is a proven fact....Yes, yes, entities like you describe can arise from design. We all know this. But it does not follow that because they CAN arise from design, that they ONLY arise from design. (That would be like saying: Humans CAN start fires, therefore, humans start ALL fires.)

The only conceivable way to do this, would be to examine EVERY entity in the universe, and then provide conclusive evidence that shows who/what designed it. (When I see a car, I can PROVE it had a manufacturer...it's stamped right on the thing.....not so for humans, stars, and dust mites.)

C) This is why I listed Law of Parsimony first. In a nutshell, parsimony says: When you are uncertain of the explanation for a phenomenon, then you must use the explanation that requires the least assumption.

Assuming God designed everything is a HUGE assumption.

A carbon molecule is "functional entity" which is "composed of multiple interdependent components" (electrons, protons, neutrons). It can also be claimed that these molecules are "manufactured" (i.e. fusion in stars). However, this is not, in any way, "creation", nor is it evidence for "creation". (One could posit that their god "designed" this system in such a way, yet that would lack in the evidence you call for in your criteria.)

One could say it displays how simple systems have a tendency to move to more complex paradigms. While creation requires the spontaneous appearance of materials, reality shows us that time can produce the materials required for complex systems to emerge.

"3. Research: Every instance of any functional entity or process composed of multiple interdependent components observed to come into existence it has been the product of design and manufacture"

Obviously you have not done your due diligence regarding the "research". xD

"The criteria was an entity or process observed to come into existence."

Well, of course we can't provide such "criteria" - what you are asking for is literally evidence of creation, and since no one can provide the impossible (evidence for creation), you claim that creation must be true!

I don't even know where to begin with this logical fail...the theoretical model known as the Big Bang describes how energy shifted to mass, and how "multiple interdependent components" (such as electrons, protons, neutrons) formed into hydrogen.

But let me guess - you claim "there is no empirical evidence, therefore it is false". Fantastic. So where is your empirical evidence that it was "created"?

Finding one theoretical model "false" does not automatically make your assertions "true". And claiming to find faults, while only stating your biased opinions, does not make it "false". You have done nothing here to provide evidence for anything substantial at all - neither against what you don't believe OR for what you do believe.

All you have done is waste your own time. Good job.

"Seems the problem is not with the hypothesis - no real valid objection.."

Do you even read these answers?

Your hypothesis is absolutely meaningless - that is clear based on the answers. Your refusal to accept such a notion does not, in any way, make your hypothesis valid.

"Lets stipulate that if there was a creator it was a super duper advanced alien in another galaxy and our universe is an experiment by that alien to demonstrate their own theories of how a universe might come into existence.. Does that help any? "

Nope. replacing "God" with a " super duper advanced alien in another galaxy" does not do anything to your assertion EXCEPT make you look like that crazy guy on the history channel:

http://www.evolveinc.com/modules/evolvecms/upload/...

"The heavens and earth"

Show us this "heaven." Until then no point wasting time on the rest of your nonsense.

"But this has only been observed to be a product of design"

That is an awfully big jump from your preceding nonsense. I swear, you Christians really like to change the logic with regards to your deity and no one else.

Show to the world how it must be a product of design. There is a Nobel Prize waiting for you.

"Show an example of a functional (does something) entity or process composed of multiple interdependent components that is OBSERVED to come into existence that is NOT the product of Design."

Don't need to address this one as it already has been by others. Simply put, EVERYTHING. You do not see it because of your mental disorder that is your religion.

Until you can explain to the world why a designer is inherently a necessary product, you have no argument. Do not make assumptions and do not assert; do not be bias on your religion either. Make a direct connection, publish your findings, collect your Nobel Prize.

Until then, don't waste our time with nonsense.

I do not support your claim:

"Every instance of any functional entity or process composed of multiple interdependent components observed to come into existence it has been the product of design and manufacture (creation)."

With your axiom unsupported, the rest of your demonstration fails.

What evidence? For me to refute evidence, you have to provide some, which you have not.

First of all, there is life that arose via evolution. Evolution is a fact, and if you want to dispute it, disprove the mountains of evidence, provide your own evidence, write a thesis and collect your Nobel prize.

But let's say in a purely hypothetical scenario, that evolution was not a proven fact.

Everything requires more than one component to do anything, with the exception of a few elementary particles such as muons, tauons and their respective neutrinos, which will convert into energy on their own.

Most chemical reactions require more than one molecule to react.

Tides require the Moon's influence, and the water on Earth.

Earthquakes require more than one tectonic plate.

I could go on.

Furthermore, human creation is just cause and effect. It's just the result of signals in our brain causing our muscles to move in such a way that parts move together to produce something. It's still the laws of physics doing the work, just on a bigger and more complex scale.

I guess you do not understand science. You do not post a hypothesis and then wait for someone to disprove it. You instead post a hypothesis and test it and find evidence to support it.

In any event I have not seen anything in your writing that shows evidence of a creator. You are just pointing at stuff you think is complicated and guessing something had to create it.

Explain why your " all loving / all knowing / all powerful god allows the following.

5 year old kids suffering a slow & painful death from cancer...

Over one million kids a year under the age of 7 suffer a slow and painful death from starvation.

What kind of being allows a child to die while having the power to save them ?

Over 800 million people in the world live in " absolute poverty ". That means they're lucky to eat once a day.

There is NO evidence of creation. Just endless chatter.

Since you gave no "evidence of creation," there's nothing to refute.

Know what you DID give? A fallacious argument from ignorance and incredulity.

That's not evidence -- fallacies are fallacies because they're faulty "logic," worthless in reaching supportable conclusions.

"I think stuff is amazing, and I can't explain it, so it must be the product of an imaginary god" is not evidence. It's you being ignorant and incredulous.

Please go get some education.

How does that prove creation? Seems to me all it shows is that things that can't work together don't last long.

Every supposed example of "irreducible complexity" has been shot down by biologists who can show you the steps in other living organisms. The problem creationists have is that they assume everything they see today has always been that way. They can't seem to comprehend gradual development or that things might have been different in the distant past.

If you have any interest in evidence at all, you now have to form a hypothesis for how the above correlates with biological evolution, which is also thoroughly supported by evidence.