Intelligent Design is not creationism

TraderNik wrote:
The whole idea that life on earth is 'designed' is based in religious faith. There is no reason to suspect that life on earth is designed, unless one believes in God, in which case it is a fait accompli.
More...

More baloney. Atheist Richard Dawkins says that “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose”. I think that warrants a mere suspicion that life on earth was designed.
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Why not just take it one step at a time?

Computers can be programmed to "design" things.

Do we really need to know about the programmer, to see that a program is in play?

The reaction to the concept of design by the atheist is funny and predictable, as it is typical of all or nothing.

The very thought of design immediately takes the atheist to a DESIGNER, or God and they freak out.

Why not just leave it at design? Design of nature, design or something else, but design, not chance...

They are terrified of a crack in the wall that they have up of ignorant chance...
More...


yeah, I'm knowledgable enough to understand the basics. You really should read the articles I linked to. Outstanding stuff.

it's funny these "scientific" types outright dismiss any and all possibilities without proof. Ask them: "What came before the Big Bang? If there was a start to the universe, than there must have been a catalyst, could that catalyst been set by an intelligent source? No, where is your proof? "


Here's another question to make their convictions explode:

Should public high school kids be banned from enrolling in advance placement courses at local public univesities?

No, What if the class covers the History of Cosmology, and various Design Theories?

...blah, good luck. I'm done with these jokers.
 
Quote from Teleologist:
Richard Dawkins says that “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose”. I think that warrants a mere suspicion that life on earth was designed.
More...

??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Wait... let me get this straight....

You are citing Dawkins' statement as evidence for ID? You are saying the reason we should suspect that life on earth is designed is that this particular human said it might be so?

I am trying to figure out some other interpretation of this statement but there doesn't seem to be any other.

Honestly, I am totally stunned. I cannot believe what I am reading here.
 
Quote from traderNik:

Honestly, I am totally stunned. I cannot believe what I am reading here.
More...

Don't be stunned. The ignorance which pervades the average person is beyond question. The theist is genetically predispositioned to believe in God. It's evolutionarily selected as a mechanism to maintain order and thereby maintain the species continuum.

This entire thread folds up into two possibilities:

1. Life is a process of matter which occurs under suitable conditions, or:

2. Life is the product of a magic/supernatural act.

There is no other alternative. If life on Earth is designed by an extra terrestrial or interdimentional life form, then the question devolves into where did the designer life from come from? Eventually, you are back to the original two questions again.

So, you can choose to believe that we are all the subjects of a puppet master or that we are the product of a natural consequence of universal chaos.

The theist chooses the road to magic. This means that demons, witches, warlocks, werewolves, demigods, wizards, leprechauns, santa clause, peter pan, dumbo, cinderella, etc. are all equally possible to Jehovah and Jesus, in this universe, dependent upon one's particular belief.

If this is a satisfying experience, then great! Second star to the right and straight on towards morning!!!

Conversely, if you want to actually do the hard work of science, then the road to Oz is out, and you have to look for other explanations.

It doesn't matter how much "science" the ID advocate throws at the problem. In the end, you reach the creator, an infinitely powerful, all knowing being who can create anything by application of will alone.

If true, then why bother with science at all? Better to just put one's head down and pray for rain.

And, you all continue to argue this nonsense for thousands of posts, as if there were actually anything to argue about at all.

One thing's for certain: it's a tribute to Z's incredible sophism that he can drag out this argument ad infinitum.

I salute you, oh king of sophists -- you are verily the greatest who will ever be!.
 
Quote from kjkent1:

One thing's for certain: it's a tribute to Z's incredible sophism that he can drag out this argument ad infinitum.

I salute you, oh king of sophists -- you are verily the greatest who will ever be!.
More...

Oh man, Z... zEvader... LoZZZer...

This is bad news for you. The reappearance of the one guy who has schooled you to the point that all you could do was start bellowing and threatening anal penetration!!

Do you remember, Z? The first evolution/ID thread? There are only a few guys with the breadth of learning and the will to dismantle your idiotic assertions and sophistry point by point. Now 4 of them are in the same thread!! And you have only your 3 aliases.

Bad news for you ZTroll. This might be a good time for you to slink off like you did the last time.

I would suggest you avoid bellowing and threatening anal penetration, as you did the last time. I would also suggest that you avoid pressing your theory that children on pediatric cancer wards are there because of something they did wrong, since 'God does not make mistakes'. That was a bit of a misstep, Zpuke.
 
This is truly the last thing I'm going to post on this. To all of your joy, or complete disinterest, which-ever.

The reason this thread has reached 1100 posts is not due entirely to ZZZZZZZZZ, but credit also has to given to his detractors and their methods as well. For instance, the lastest gives two possiblities:


1. Life is a process of matter which occurs under suitable conditions, or:

OR

2. Life is the product of a magic/supernatural act.

He further clarifies what he regards as a a "magic/supernatural' act.

This means that demons, witches, warlocks, werewolves, demigods, wizards, leprechauns, santa clause, peter pan, dumbo, cinderella, etc. are all equally possible to Jehovah and Jesus, in this universe, dependent upon one's particular belief.

Now if one considers and evaulates the opinions of men with far greater credibility and knowledge on the subject it is difficult not to respond to such non-sense. For instance, Consider the following quote from the Chair of the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics at Cambridge, a post once held by Isaac Newton.


"The early appearance of life on Earth suggests that there's a good chance of the spontaneous generation of life, in suitable conditions. Maybe there was some simpler form of organisation, which built up DNA. Once DNA appeared, it would have been so successful, that it might have completely replaced the earlier forms. We don't know what these earlier forms would have been. One possibility is RNA. This is like DNA, but rather simpler, and without the double helix structure. Short lengths of RNA, could reproduce themselves like DNA, and might eventually build up to DNA. One can not make nucleic acids in the laboratory, from non-living material, let alone RNA. But given 500 million years, and oceans covering most of the Earth, there might be a reasonable probability of RNA, being made by chance. "

http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/lindex.html

He gives chance merely a "reasonable probability".

Case Closed? that's it for me.

Happy Holidays!

http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/lindex.html
 
Quote from neophyte321:

This is truly the last thing I'm going to post on this. To all of your joy, or complete disinterest, which-ever.

The reason this thread has reached 1100 posts is not due entirely to ZZZZZZZZZ, but credit also has to given to his detractors and their methods as well. For instance, the lastest gives two possiblities:


1. Life is a process of matter which occurs under suitable conditions, or:

OR

2. Life is the product of a magic/supernatural act.

He further clarifies what he regards as a a "magic/supernatural' act.

This means that demons, witches, warlocks, werewolves, demigods, wizards, leprechauns, santa clause, peter pan, dumbo, cinderella, etc. are all equally possible to Jehovah and Jesus, in this universe, dependent upon one's particular belief.

Now if one considers and evaulates the opinions of men with far greater credibility and knowledge on the subject it is difficult not to respond to such non-sense. For instance, Consider the following quote from the Chair of the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics at Cambridge, a post once held by Isaac Newton.


"The early appearance of life on Earth suggests that there's a good chance of the spontaneous generation of life, in suitable conditions. Maybe there was some simpler form of organisation, which built up DNA. Once DNA appeared, it would have been so successful, that it might have completely replaced the earlier forms. We don't know what these earlier forms would have been. One possibility is RNA. This is like DNA, but rather simpler, and without the double helix structure. Short lengths of RNA, could reproduce themselves like DNA, and might eventually build up to DNA. One can not make nucleic acids in the laboratory, from non-living material, let alone RNA. But given 500 million years, and oceans covering most of the Earth, there might be a reasonable probability of RNA, being made by chance. "

http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/lindex.html

He gives chance merely a "reasonable probability".

Case Closed? that's it for me.

Happy Holidays!

http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/lindex.html
More...

This is the sort of post I was talking about. Completely absent of any analysis, appealing to authority, misinterpreting another person's opinion so as to make an entirely different point than the original author intended, and non-responsive to the substantive issue.

Neo, if you have a third alternative to the ones I have listed, then state it and defend it. If you don't buy natural process, then you are stuck with magic, because what God does, i.e., create something from nothing "is" magic.

Natural actions in this universe routinely explain change: snowflakes form on their own, and there are mechanical toys which demonstrate how a complex physical object can be formed from disassociated parts, merely by shaking the container that contains the object.

In the end, though, someone like Z, can simply say, that there is no proof that the objects were not designed by a "creator," an all powerful, almighty entity who can manifest change without being detected by application of will alone.

This "logic" is undefeatable sophism. It is also the literal definition of magic. If that's what you want to believe, then do so. But, no amount of scientific evidence can ever breach the wall between magic and science. There is no verifiable experiment which will explain God, because God can escape verification. God can eschew logic. So, searching for God via the scientific method will reveal nothing. It's a waste of time.

In this universe there is only science to study. There is God to believe in, but never the twain shall meet.

Believe what you will, but once you open up the magic box, all of the demons of your imagination spew forth, because they are all equally likely possibilities, since none of them requires anything more than God's application of will.

Vampires should be found on every street corner, because there's nothing to prevent their existence, as Satan is fallen and in the world.

But, they do not. Why is that? Where is the Shire and the Dark Lord, and why are they any less likely than a burning bush or a pillar of fire in the desert?
 
TraderNik wrote:
Wait... let me get this straight....You are citing Dawkins' statement as evidence for ID? You are saying the reason we should suspect that life on earth is designed is that this particular human said it might be so?
More...

That's not what I'm saying at all. I suspect ID because I observe complex things in nature that look to me like they were designed for a purpose. You are claiming that they only look this way to persons that believe in God. But atheist Richard Dawkins says there are complicated things in nature that look to him like they were designed for a purpose. This completely refutes your assertion.
 
What is your definition of magic. I think of magic as the production of illusions, like making big rigs disappear with mirrors.

but I suppose you could be saying that anything created by the supernatural is by your definition magic.

Is the universe a result of a "natural process" or was it created?

if you do not know now, how do you propose we learn?
 
Quote from jem:

What is your definition of magic. I think of magic as the production of illusions, like making big rigs disappear with mirrors.

but I suppose you could be saying that anything created by the supernatural is by your definition magic.

Is the universe a result of a "natural process" or was it created?

if you do not know now, how do you propose we learn?
More...

Here's a bit of magic: I close my eyes, and concentrate. Two numbers appear before me -- a gift from my personal deity, the Oracle at Delphi. The Oracle tells me that only you will know the meaning of these two numbers, so I will present them to you now:

154852
24025

Am I possessed of the spirit of an ancient greek demigod -- or was this merely the result of a well-considered scientific experiment?

I leave it for you to decide.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top