Shiny,
Yes, intelligent design is a valid theory, but 'Intelligent Design' is not. You know the difference, right?
So far, the only evidence I've ever seen or heard about of 'intelligent design' in biology is in the manipulated biology we humans have designed.
Intelligent design applies to anything WE design, it is not inherent to either chemistry or astrophysics themselves, nor is it a term used in either field.
No, it's not possible to completely DISPROVE the hypothesis, but you must look for it through religion colored glasses to see even the most tenuous evidence of it, without that filter, it's not visible anywhere. It's also not possible for you to prove that golden monkeys don't fly from my anus when you aren't looking, but masquerade perfectly as turds when looked at directly, but you would not believe me if I said that's what happens, even if I had a book that said so, right?
The laws of physics are not "finely tuned" (already implying an 'unseen hand') to allow for life, it's more like life evolved to exist in the conditions present. There's no 'fine tuning' going on, life that couldn't exist in the conditions found doesn't exist, life that could may or may not.

Because you start from a point of "god exists and designed all" and search for things that even loosely fit that hypothesis by looking through religion tinted glasses, you find it. Because I don't have that filter to see the universe through, and do not accept 'unknown mystery' or coincidence as proof of 'god' and/or his hand, they will always be invisible and indeed un-necessary and so not believed in by me, just like my brothers invisible friend.


As I've said many a time, if god exists, he's certainly going to amazingly great lengths to remain unknown, unseen, unfelt, unheard, and un-needed by me and billions of others, and misunderstood by even more.

Because unbelievable hypothesis require indisputable proof, you must know it's impossible for YOU to convince me. Even if 'god' popped into my living room and took me on a sightseeing tour of the universe, I would still say "he" could be an advanced alien, not a deity, and require proof of divinity rather than technology or simple advanced knowledge or ability. If "He" is omnipotent, he knows that, understands that, and only 'he' is capable of proving that, or even knowing how it might be proven....but has failed to do so to date one tiny whit. I'll wait for him to pop in and prove it to me. Until then, thanks kindly for your 'soul saving' effort just the same, but it's never going to succeed. I do appreciate it's done with good intentions...but you do know what they say about good intentions, don't you?

Not all dogs are poodles...
Just because all dreams are in your head does not mean every thought is a dream, and even if that were true (it's not) you don't live in your head, you live in the real world. That we live in a dream is ridiculous and plain wrong, IMO.
I will admit I never liked Chopra or his ideas. He always seems to misstate facts at the beginning of his hypothesis, then builds on that mistake.

Your entire theory of the universe is speculation....including your theory on what I'm OK with. Certainly your theory on deities and the after life...complete and total speculation based on belief, not fact.
I find this video's hypothesis terrible. Because a measured physical property is near what they say they expect it might be if we artificially created the universe implies they know what the constraints of a mythical artificial simulated universe are (that's impossible, if it's an artificial creation, there are no constraints other than those programmed in, and they could be ANYTHING if the programmer is writing the laws of the universe/physics).

Therefore, I am NOT OK with the HYPOTHESIS that the universe is a computer program or designed by a designer (other than the 'designer' that is the laws of physics). I find it a silly blind guess about something we can't possibly know about without creating one ourselves, and even then we'll only know about the one way we did it, not the possible ways it could happen.

A programmer would certainly not be a god to me, but I'm not prone to deifying that which I don't understand. It MAY be a mysterious being (or not), that doesn't make it god anymore than I'm god to my dog. Because some dogs are gullible enough to believe their master might be a god does not make him/her one. The same goes for unknown properties of the universe. Some people may believe the unknown is somehow proof of the divine, that simply does not make it true, or even reasonable.

Ok, now you're just being willfully stupid.

Yes, life in the Universe is possible, but that doesn't mean your favored theory about how life arrived in the Universe is possible.
What favoured theory? I have no idea how life arrived in the universe. I suspect we never will. Even if we reproduce the exact conditions that gave rise to life and see single celled life created that doesn't mean that's how it started however many billions of years ago. I never claimed to know these things. Claiming to know things you can't possibly know is religions act, not sciences.

The probability has been calculated, more often than not, at many, many times greater than the number of atoms in the Universe.
Citation needed.

There has been no scientific proof provided showing that abiogenesis is possible.
Already admitted. But there is a sound theoretical basis behind.

To rule out at the least a possible designer is simply personal bias

Did you somehow miss the part THAT YOU QUOTED where I said I can't prove god doesn't exist. I simply stated that it's incredibly improbable.

There is plenty of positive evidence for Gods existence
Really? Please point me to the peer reviewed scientific paper that shows this. Otherwise, all you have are anecdotes.

faith in abiogenesis is simply blind faith

If I had "faith" in abiogenesis, that would be correct. But once again, I ask you do you understand the difference between what I think is probable based on observed facts and "taking something on faith"? I don't "believe" in abiogenesis. It seems like a reasonable explanation for the origin of life (certainly better than "magic beard in the sky did it"), but right now, it's just a hypothesis. Not even a theory. If we obtain some evidence one way or the other, I will switch my position. You're locked into yours regardless of the facts.

A God existing does not violate anything we know about the Universe.Thermodynamics would like a word with you.

Just because we understand the mechanics of something does not rule out an agency behind it. It would be like taking apart a car and then saying that because we understand how the car is put together that gasoline does not exist.
Jesus, that is so stupid I don't even know where to start. Do you actually read what you've written? Do you understand what the word "agency" means? Gasoline is the not the agency of a car, the driver is. A car without a driver does nothing (until google get their way anyway). And we can clearly see all the parts of a cars design where input is required from the driver and energy provided by the gasoline.

If you can show me a magical ghost car that drives without a driver or fuel source, I will believe in god. Meanwhile, we live in a universe that functions just fine without the requirement for any supernatural agency.

The bible says that everyone is provided evidence of Gods existence
The bible is a bad story book written by tribal idiots who didn't have a clue about their world. I don't give a shit what it says. Call me when you have actual evidence.

photons are massless, its invariant mass..you will have to google that,,,,.neutrinos DO NOT travel faster than light.

The universe is the totality of existance and contains all there is..

The universe has no edge ....that would violate every accepted model of the universe...the universe is homogeneous and isotropic..

parts of the universe beyond our vision are not older than our part..we are the same age...

There is ZERO evidence to support any claim of any other universes..NONE..

You can hypothesis we live in a giants ass if you want,,,but there is no evidence to support that...the claim there are other universes,and the claim we exist in a giants ass, have the same amount of evidence..

We don't change the definition to fit the hypothesis, we change definitions as new information or previously unthought of scenarios emerge.

This is the realm of theoretical physics. Some things are very difficult to test, but it doesn't mean we can't hypothesise about them.

By the way, 2+2 can equal 5, for very large values of 2

You can't change the definition of things just to fit your hypothesis,,,I could say 2+2=5 ,if I change the definition of 5

The narrator proposes three hypotheses that would explain the "finely tuned" appearance of the universe. He analyzes the first hypothesis and decides it's impossible. He then analyzes the second hypothesis and decides it's impossible. Then he DOES NOT ANALYZE the third hypothesis, but just shows some beautiful photos of the universe and gives some quotes agreeing with the "design" hypothesis. He then decides it is true, even though the exact same analysis that he did for the "chance" hypothesis would eliminate the "design" hypothesis as well.

The narrator himself established one definition of implausibility: "There's no scientific evidence for X: it cannot be detected, observed, measured or proved and it requires fine tuning." That same test can be applied to the "design" hypothesis to determine by the same logic that it too is false. Any other argument is special pleading. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading

scientism is really like truthieness. It's a made up word, with a made up definition, that has no bearing on, or connection to reality.
Science is not about belief.
If data 'proves' that science can't ever answer any question about reality (not about human insanity, although it already goes a long way towards explaining that too), scientists would concede instantly. If it were a belief, they could never change it based on evidence, but science does change.

No one is asking you to 'bow' to any 'theory'. They are simply the 'rules' that 'science' has produced to explain how the world/universe works. They work just fine without your 'belief' in them or knowledge of them. That's just one thing they have over the supernatural.

Please give an example or two of scientific 'truths' that were half baked ideas. I think if you look throughout history, carefully, you will see the scientific method was developed mostly around the 12th century as explained here:

Amongst the array of great scholars, al-Haytham is regarded as the architect of the scientific method. His scientific method involved the following stages:1.Observation of the natural world
2.Stating a definite problem
3.Formulating a robust hypothesis
4.Test the hypothesis through experimentation
5.Assess and analyze the results
6.Interpret the data and draw conclusions
7.Publish the findings

but it's widely held that it was not solidified to the modern scientific method (eliminating guessing and 'induction' and requiring repeatable experimentation) until Newton. That means any example you might give should come after 1660 or so at the earliest, or you aren't talking about the same "science" that the rest of us are.

I think most scientist would say it is 'possible' that supernatural events happen, but incredibly unlikely, and constantly less so the more we know about the world and it's rules. It's just as likely that if I only eat the right color yellow foods I'll eventually 'magically' crap gold. I can't prove it won't happen (because I'll never know if I ate the 'right' color foods, if I ever tried), but I can use science to show it's absolutely unlikely to a NEAR certainty (no matter how one misunderstands quantum physics).
The supernatural is right there with my golden poops....and I can't tell which smells worse.

Another problem with NDTs words in this video, he tells us that 50% of scientists believe in god/are religious, and this is somehow proof there is no contradiction, or that science does not lead to non-belief. But this is a laughable failure of statistical analysis by NDT. I think the 50% number seems quite high, like he has been using a really bad sift on who qualifies as scientist (is it anyone with a science degree on any level?) But fine, lets make it 50% of scientists in the US. The takeaway from that is that the number of religous is MUCH LOWER than in the general population.
T
he general population is like 85% religious. That means that if 100 people go get a science degree, 85 will be religious, and 35 of them will lose their faith on the way to becoming a scientist. That means that if you study science, and you are religious, theres a 40%
chance youll lose your faith along the way. (This doesnt take into account that many of the 15% non-religious are probably already scientists, so the general population number is probably even higher.)

If you make it all the way to the National Academy of Sciences, a whooping 78 out of the 85 will have lost their faith. Thats about as damning for the no-contradiction/conflict-hypothesis as you can get.

Its like arguing that most drunk drivers never actually crash, therefore alcohol-intake does not influence your driving skills.

You forgot one....
'The Church says that the Earth is flat, but I know that it is round. For I have seen the shadow of the earth on the moon and I have more faith in the Shadow than in the Church.'-Ferdinand Magellan

I would say that many of these people in your linked list were not actually 'creation scientists', most were from before the invention of the scientific method, and many others were heretics that may not have stood in public opposition to 'creation science', but didn't believe it. At the time, stating something against the church's doctrine might get you tortured to death.
That's not why we call scientific 'laws' laws. It has NOTHING to do with church or god.
Not a single hypothesis in 'young earth' "theory" (a complete misuse of the word 'theory') is testable, because they're just plain wrong and based on a single person's terribly bad math based on the bible and the length of each generation listed within it. It was NEVER scientific in any way. Sorry.
Not a single hypothesis in creation "theory" (there's that misuse of the word again, it's not a 'theory') is testable either. Not one. If it were, you would have scientific proof of god, and you simply don't. Please don't lie about science.
Macroevolution has been seen in the lab, in fruit flies and bacteria amongst others. It has been observed and repeated with empirical testing. IT is a THEORY, not an inference based on an unprovable hypothesis (like creation science and young earth both are).

First, I thought you gave up.
Second, the ten year period you mention APPEARED to show a slowdown in the rate of rise expected, because most models did not account for the rise in deep water oceans, nor did they account for 'global dimming', which is the sun's radiation being deflected by particulates in the upper atmosphere (and it's more of a data skewer than one might think, in 2001 it was estimated that it was causing up to 3 degree C COOLING globally, and China at least is producing WAY more particulates today than they did then...which could explain most if not all of the 'missing' heat, but I never hear it mentioned).
I would say that what it means is the models are not useful for short term (ie 10 year) samples, they are intended for longer time frames. In the short term, one expects the model to not follow the prediction exactly, but in the long term it will. As I read it, that's what they said too.
If stating that scientists often simplify and omit functions they either think are unrelated or simply don't know about is 'spreading doubt about the science', se-la-vie. I think it's explaining the science and the reasons it's imperfect while at the same time supporting it. Because I think, based on past and current models and data, that it's likely important things have been missed does not mean I disagree with them in a meaningful way, only in degree and time frame.
I began watching this issue in the late 80's, and at that time, ALL public models were predicting less warming than we were seeing. I fear, and assume, that they have continued that trend for the reasons I've stated above. (I know, you'll say it just said there was a decade where it was below predictions...but they don't include deep ocean temps or global dimming in that data (or do they? I didn't go through it all, admittedly, so I admit I may be wrong), so it's wrong).
To me, that's only logical to think that until proven wrong, and I've yet to see all inclusive data that proves my hypothesis (that we're going to see more warming faster than predicted) wrong, but have seen many trends that support it. When I see a study that includes air, surface, sub surface, ice melt/flow, and ALL water temps (including but not limited to surface ocean, mid ocean, deep ocean, lakes, rivers, and aquifers), mentions global dimming's effects, volcanos, planes trains and automobiles, factories, deforestation, phytoplankton, reefs, diatoms, algae, cows and other methane producers, other random 'minor' greenhouse gasses, etc. I'll pay closer attention to what they say, but without including all the data (at least all we have) any model is going to be 'light' in it's predictions in my opinion. There's a hell of a lot of factors that go into 'climate', more than any simple model can account for. That's why I say they're nearly all technically wrong, but are on the right track. That does not mean I don't support the science/scientists. It means I wish they were more thorough and less swayed by finance or politics.

You gave a few examples, I did not ever disagree that it happens, I disagreed that it's happening today in Africa (or worldwide) at a level that's worse than the lack of water on a global scale. I will concede that, in certain areas, it is, but worldwide, even continent wide, it's less of an issue than useable water by far.
You give up pretty easily.
Historically, there have not been 'men with guns'. Guns are a fairly new construct. If it were historical fact that men with 'overwhelming force' (so forget the guns quip) drive farmers out of farming, why are we still here farming?

Yes, the two statements about technology are not mutually exclusive...your point? You 'give up' a lot.

Yes, and I clearly stated I believe they ignored some factors to get their numbers, as most 'predictions' I've seen in the last 20 years have done. I also clearly stated that even their lower range numbers were disastrous and unsurvivable and their high numbers even more so, I just went on to say my educated guess is that they are likely also on the low side because they don't account for everything AND they assume we'll stop rushing to make things worse at some point. I just think that's wishful thinking, based on my estimations of human behavior.

I do listen to fact, reason, data, hypothesis, innuendo, lies, insanity, and more (proven by the fact that I'm still here discussing this, and it's funny that you now wish to no longer 'listen' to facts or reason yourself because you 'give up'), then do my best with my degree in science and scientific mind to work out what hypothesis is closest to the data, and see if I can determine where it's imperfect and why. You can call it 'personal belief', I call it educated guess work, because I've paid attention and most models were on the low side of reality because they don't include all factors (they can't, we don't know all factors involved yet to program them into the models) and because they all expect humans to stop adding to the problem at some point in their equations, which I say from experience is wishful thinking and bad science/math, and I think it's nearly always added to actual science lately for political reasons on one side or the other.
EDIT: For instance, I've never seen a model that includes 'global dimming', but it's a factor that has kept up to 3 degrees C of warming from happening. it happens when particulates in the upper atmosphere deflect sunlight, stopping it from entering the system as light or heat. It has also added to a decline in global food production, but I've yet to see a climate study that includes it in their model. If we shut down all coal plants and combustion engines tomorrow, we would see a rapid spike in temperature as a result, another thing no one ever mentions.

I note you aren't defending your 'facts' about Texas producing more food than California, were you as certain of that as you are about these 'facts'? If so, perhaps more research could be warranted?

Oh, never mind, I forgot you decided to stop listening to facts and hypothesis and give up. I think your children would be disappointed you care so little about their future....I have none, so I have no dog in the fight. Nothing done today will effect things either way in my lifetime. As I see it, that means I'm one of the few with no agenda either way, I'm only interested in reality, and the data I have seen has consistently been worse than the worst predictions when everything is considered in totality (not cherry picked).

Yeah, as Payback noted, it's a different thing. A Joust is a rather long thing while a sword is much shorter and harder to fight across the hose with. That said my hypothesis could be very well wrong.

There will continue to be those who either intentionally mislead or actually are incapable of understanding the science that will cherry pick data to make their pre-conceived notions seem correct, and others who look at the totality of data, analyze hypothesis, test them, check others tests, and can come to rational conclusions.
It is GREAT that science is not ONLY about consensus, and is really about repeatable provable theories. It is TERRIBLE that action based on science is nearly all a matter of consensus, and that the uneducated, the disingenuous, and the paid shills have managed to confuse the populace enough to make consensus impossible, or at least intentionally difficult and slow.