Inteligent Design

[Minimalist]

Your rejection of evolution is based on a childlike understanding of science.

And an equally intense determination to hold on to childhood fairy tales!

[ReneDescartes]

I sugest Arch posts all his contributions regarding intel ligent design in the joke page ...

[ed]

I sugest Arch posts all his contributions regarding intel ligent design in the joke page ...

The difficulty with discussing this topic with scientific illiterates is that the basic role of science gets lost. It is as though one were discussing appendectomy with a patient and they said "What!!! You are going to take a knife and cut me open????". Similarly, the basic strength of science (unlike religious belief) is the ability to adjust based on data. Far from being a liability, that is what makes the scientific method the greatest human intellectual development.

The edifice of "intelligent Design" crumbles when one asks the simple questions "how do you know something is 'intelligently designed?' and then 'now what?'". Point being that the intellectual backwater that ID is would suggest that one stops investigating.

I personally find the idea that God can only create according to rules that ID proponents find understandable to be somewhat blasphemous. It suggests that God has sort of a low level intelligence, no?

[Minimalist]

It suggests that God has sort of a low level intelligence, no?

Judging strictly by the quality of his creation work, I'd say he's fairly inept.

[Guest]

So to summarize then: Your rejection of evolution is based on a childlike understanding of science.

I sugest Arch posts all his contributions regarding intel ligent design in the joke page ...

And an equally intense determination to hold on to childhood fairy tales!

The difficulty with discussing this topic with scientific illiterates is that the basic role of science gets lost. It is as though one were discussing appendectomy with a patient and they said "What!!! You are going to take a knife and cut me open????".

Judging strictly by the quality of his creation work, I'd say he's fairly inept

so far not one intelligent reply in defense of the theory, which is understandable becausee you can't defend it nor prove it true. the weaknessess just stand out too far.

Similarly, the basic strength of science (unlike religious belief) is the ability to adjust based on data. Far from being a liability, that is what makes the scientific method the greatest human intellectual development.

you call that a strength? i call it the desparate need to continue to alter the theory when you find out you were wrong, so you can continue to believe it. yo even have the audacity to call darwin wrong, the originator of the popular theory, because things didn't go as he said. which should tell you something but you won't listen.

when you have the truth, like creationists do, you don't need to continue to alter it. you turn your attention to figure out how everythng works so when someone or something gets sick, you can do what you can to heal them or protect them from any harmful devices.

The edifice of "intelligent Design" crumbles when one asks the simple questions "how do you know something is 'intelligently designed?

very simple, we see that the combination of , for lack of a better word, ingredients cannot be adjusted in any direction without changing the whole design and altering life.

Point being that the intellectual backwater that ID is would suggest that one stops investigating.

for the source, yes because we know the source and we have the answer. we need to continue investigating to find out how it all works and what is harmful to or helpful for the body but we do not need to waste our lives in search of something that has already revealed himself to us.

evolution breaks down because they cannot find the answer nor the proof that shows us that it is even present in this world. it cannot explain how the beginning molecule originated which produced all that fills this world. nor can they explain how the process originated to 'guide' things along.

I personally find the idea that God can only create according to rules that ID proponents find understandable to be somewhat blasphemous. It suggests that God has sort of a low level intelligence, no?

whoever believes that is wrong. God didn't create according to the rules, but created the rules along with everything else so that we would have limits and guidelines to function by.

God could have created the world to run on vodka while breathing carbon monoxide if He wanted to, but he chose this particular set way for reasons known only to Him.

God had innummerable options available to Him but He could only choose one.

[ed]

[he chose this particular set way for reasons known only to Him.

.

So God and his motives are unknowable?

How interesting.

How do you know that anything that you think that you know about him is true? You can't, you just said so. So what exactly are you claiming? That you know god's mind? Oh, maybe in this one case, right? How do you know?

And you want this taught in schools? Pitiful.

[Guest]

So God and his motives are unknowable

i didn't say that. i know why He created the heavens and the earth He is just not open about why He chose this particular format. we could have been given a third arm and hand (much to the chagrine of women) but He does not give the reason why we were given only two.

don't place meanings or words into my mouth...it just makes you a manipulator and a liar.

How do you know that anything that you think that you know about him is true? You can't, you just said so. So what exactly are you claiming? That you know god's mind? Oh, maybe in this one case, right? How do you know?

this is just garbage and has nothing to do with this discussion but that is the typical strategy of an evolutionist. don't debate the issue because their side is so weak and unproveable, create side issues to distract from the whole untruthfulness of the theory (of evolution.)

[ed]

So God and his motives are unknowable

i didn't say that. i know why He created the heavens and the earth He is just not open about why He chose this particular format. we could have been given a third arm and hand (much to the chagrine of women) but He does not give the reason why we were given only two.

don't place meanings or words into my mouth...it just makes you a manipulator and a liar.

How do you know that anything that you think that you know about him is true? You can't, you just said so. So what exactly are you claiming? That you know god's mind? Oh, maybe in this one case, right? How do you know?

this is just garbage and has nothing to do with this discussion but that is the typical strategy of an evolutionist. don't debate the issue because their side is so weak and unproveable, create side issues to distract from the whole untruthfulness of the theory (of evolution.)

Sorry, "you can't know his reasons". That makes for a world where everything is unknowable. Everything.

You, actually, are invoking a supernatural event or set of events. That is extraordinary by any stretch so the burden of proof is on you.

Carry on.

[ReneDescartes]

Look Arch perhaps you could just quit talking of religion in this forum and pretend it is science .You are getting more and more boring and this whole forum is evolving more and more in a debate between 1 ignorant fundamentalist who is hermetically closed to scientific or rational reasoning,unable to understand the very basics of the theories he is attacking (like evolution , of which you know nothing at all ).So I consider you an arrogant pilar-biter unworthy of respect .I have spoken .

[Minimalist]

I have spoken .

So let it be written....so let it be done.

[Guest]

Look Arch perhaps you could just quit talking of religion in this forum and pretend it is science .You are getting more and more boring and this whole forum is evolving more and more in a debate between 1 ignorant fundamentalist who is hermetically closed to scientific or rational reasoning,unable to understand the very basics of the theories he is attacking (like evolution , of which you know nothing at all ).So I consider you an arrogant pilar-biter unworthy of respect

i have a busy day so i will be quick here:

such responses and statements are the norm for evolutionists and this is what they communicate:


1. that they are closed-minded-- only willing to discuss such information that supports their take on the world

2. that they are not objective-- by eliminating dissenting opinions, facts , evidence, etc., they undermine any claim to such lofty standards and show that they are as prejudiced and biased as those they criticize.

3. that they are arrogant-- they can only discuss with those who hold the same viewpoint as them and only those select few are worthy enough to be considered 'qualified'. all others do not understand, do not know scientific thinking and so on.

4. that they have no defense-- they resort to such statements, insults and personal attacks because they know they cannot defend their position or theory beyond the point of conjecture. they can not sustain an argument of defense because their evidence does not allow them that privilage.

5. i ran out of 'that theys'-- they are unwilling to discuss with anyone of a dissenting, logical, intelligent opposition because their theory is what they want to believe and they want to believe it despite the evidence to the contrary.

6. they want the origin of the world to be the way they want it to be and not the way it is.

7. they are unwilling to examine and investigate their theory from all sides thus eliminating them from being qualified as 'scientific' or 'objective'. it is kind of sad to see them claim how scientific or objective they are but when push comes to shove, they manipulate the data just to get their desired results.

8. they feel that they alone have the right to make the rules concerning what is scientific, forgeting the fact that they neither own nor have created science. thus they do not have the authority to state what qualifies as scientific.

9. by eliminating data they have immediately, undermined their own claims of scientific authority because they have drawn conclusions from data that is not complete nor correct. which also undermines their work and any other scientific claim because they refuse to consider data that contradicts their pre-conceived ideas.

10. they are just bigots who think only they have the expertise to decide what is right or wrong and they are wrapped up in their arrogance failing to realize that they really are the 'blind leading the blind.'

this is why i am trying not to get involved in another discussion on evolution and trying to limit my participation tothose topics deemed archaeological. evolutionists want everyone to play by their rules except themselves.

[ed]

Look Arch perhaps you could just quit talking of religion in this forum and pretend it is science .You are getting more and more boring and this whole forum is evolving more and more in a debate between 1 ignorant fundamentalist who is hermetically closed to scientific or rational reasoning,unable to understand the very basics of the theories he is attacking (like evolution , of which you know nothing at all ).So I consider you an arrogant pilar-biter unworthy of respect

i have a busy day so i will be quick here:

such responses and statements are the norm for evolutionists and this is what they communicate:


1. that they are closed-minded-- only willing to discuss such information that supports their take on the world

Nonsense. Information is one thing, wild ass speculation or faith based assertions are something else again.

2. that they are not objective-- by eliminating dissenting opinions, facts , evidence, etc., they undermine any claim to such lofty standards and show that they are as prejudiced and biased as those they criticize.

Dissenting opinions based on evidence are welcome, wild assed assertions based on dogma are not.

3. that they are arrogant-- they can only discuss with those who hold the same viewpoint as them and only those select few are worthy enough to be considered 'qualified'. all others do not understand, do not know scientific thinking and so on.

Rational thought is not the provence of the well educated. Scientific thinking is nothing more or less than saying "show me your evidence". Scientific method is nothing more than the way that that information is gathered. The problem is that one can ask a scientist the question "what will it take to change your mind" and get a direct answer, those that force data to fit their preconceptions will never change.

4. that they have no defense-- they resort to such statements, insults and personal attacks because they know they cannot defend their position or theory beyond the point of conjecture. they can not sustain an argument of defense because their evidence does not allow them that privilage.

If an opponent plays at arguing science when they have not a clue one is justified in being dismissive. Being ignorant and humble is reasonable. Being aggressively ignorant is a crime.

5. i ran out of 'that theys'-- they are unwilling to discuss with anyone of a dissenting, logical, intelligent opposition because their theory is what they want to believe and they want to believe it despite the evidence to the contrary.

Id'd love to hear such a logical opposing view along with evidence. What creationists cannot get is the simple fact that disproving evolution does not advance their cause one jot. It still requires proof which is non-existant.

6. they want the origin of the world to be the way they want it to be and not the way it is.

Points 5 and 6 pretty well sum up the creationist POV. Funny about that.

7. they are unwilling to examine and investigate their theory from all sides thus eliminating them from being qualified as 'scientific' or 'objective'. it is kind of sad to see them claim how scientific or objective they are but when push comes to shove, they manipulate the data just to get their desired results.

Interesting point. I do not know for a fact if that is the case, it seems to me that the evidence is so overwhelming in favor that it would be sorta a waste of time. Tell me, are you well enough versed in the current literature to make that statement? That is a yes/no question.

8. they feel that they alone have the right to make the rules concerning what is scientific, forgeting the fact that they neither own nor have created science. thus they do not have the authority to state what qualifies as scientific.

You make it sound like a Capote Black and White Ball. A statement such as that strongly suggests that you have not a clue as to what science is about.

9. by eliminating data they have immediately, undermined their own claims of scientific authority because they have drawn conclusions from data that is not complete nor correct. which also undermines their work and any other scientific claim because they refuse to consider data that contradicts their pre-conceived ideas.

There is data and there is garbage. I trust that you have specific references?

10. they are just bigots who think only they have the expertise to decide what is right or wrong and they are wrapped up in their arrogance failing to realize that they really are the 'blind leading the blind.'

Hod hominum ergo bullshit.

this is why i am trying not to get involved in another discussion on evolution and trying to limit my participation tothose topics deemed archaeological. evolutionists want everyone to play by their rules except themselves

It is probably better for your cause if you stay away.

[Guest]

It is probably better for your cause if you stay away

typical. isn't that why i posted the 10 points?

Hod hominum ergo bullshit.

just an observation

There is data and there is garbage. I trust that you have specific references?

by eliminating the possibility of of God working in His own creation, yiu have disavowed data. science limitations (focusing soloely on the natural) undermines itself when faced with a problem it can't solve. i.e. the origin of the universe.

it seems to me that the evidence is so overwhelming in favor that it would be sorta a waste of time

this is the problem. evolutionists delude themselves by the continued chanting of this mantra. take a look at what i have posted before you came on board...i won't be repeating myself.

It still requires proof which is non-existant.

again you need to read my posts and you will find that i have posted the evidence of the result of creation.

Being aggressively ignorant is a crime

since i am not ignorant i will ignore this point.

Scientific thinking is nothing more or less than saying "show me your evidence"

not everything leaves evidence and if they do it is not always in the manner inwhich you want.

Nonsense. Information is one thing, wild ass speculation or faith based assertions are something else again

i am not making wild eyed speculations. i have ancient documents, ancient myths, archaeology, the fossils and much, much more on my side which do not require conjecture and wild speculation.

i think, before engaging me in conversation here, you read all my evolutionary posts as i willnot be re-writing any.

[ed]

It is probably better for your cause if you stay away

typical. isn't that why i posted the 10 points?

Hod hominum ergo bullshit.

just an observation

There is data and there is garbage. I trust that you have specific references?

by eliminating the possibility of of God working in His own creation, yiu have disavowed data. science limitations (focusing soloely on the natural) undermines itself when faced with a problem it can't solve. i.e. the origin of the universe.

it seems to me that the evidence is so overwhelming in favor that it would be sorta a waste of time

this is the problem. evolutionists delude themselves by the continued chanting of this mantra. take a look at what i have posted before you came on board...i won't be repeating myself.

It still requires proof which is non-existant.

again you need to read my posts and you will find that i have posted the evidence of the result of creation.

Being aggressively ignorant is a crime

since i am not ignorant i will ignore this point.

Scientific thinking is nothing more or less than saying "show me your evidence"

not everything leaves evidence and if they do it is not always in the manner inwhich you want.

Nonsense. Information is one thing, wild ass speculation or faith based assertions are something else again

i am not making wild eyed speculations. i have ancient documents, ancient myths, archaeology, the fossils and much, much more on my side which do not require conjecture and wild speculation.

i think, before engaging me in conversation here, you read all my evolutionary posts as i willnot be re-writing any.

"Myths" "ancient documents" ... OK

I will accept god as a potential causal agent when you demonstrate his existance.

You apparently cannot post without committing a range of logical errors which are, frankly, breathtaking. Perhaps if you review the most common kinds you can be a bit more coherent, and thus effective, in your posts.

Meanwhile I will examine your ouvre.

[Guest]

I will accept god as a potential causal agent when you demonstrate his existance.

open yor eyes and look around you at the mountains, the trees, the flowersm, the animals, the stars in the sky. then maybe you will be on the right path to finding the existence of God.

You apparently cannot post without committing a range of logical errors which are, frankly, breathtaking. Perhaps if you review the most common kinds you can be a bit more coherent, and thus effective, in your posts.

ho-hum another insult. if i had a dime for every insult hurled at me, i could retire to fiji.