Intelligent Design is not creationism

Quote from jem:
I have given you quotes where he did say exactly what i said he said. Read the intro to his book.
Understand science. there is a great deal of debate and work being done trying to explain the fine tuning.
Again I have given quotes.
But I am sure you will put your hands over your ears and say I can't hear you.
Until you are willing to address the science. I will refrain from responding.
for now let it be known that even though I expect you to lie, I will not respond.
More...
...and so as ever you continue with deceit and dishonesty unable to address the mess you made Nothing of what you claim is backed up by any quote you have "given" . You think it is only because you fantasize the quotes say things they don’t.

Before you could start to understand much, you will need to understand that rushing to conclude based on illusions and fantasies as you do, is not science.

Neither is shouting Science, followed by intelligent design, in the sad attempt to make the former give your latter conclusion some credence. It just doesn't work.

All you can do is make claims. You cannot substantiate any of them ,even in the most simple of ways. All you can say is "I gave you a quote" as if doing so gives merit to your ridiculous nonsense . Who you trying to fool. Yourself or the Troll who just swallowed his own bait. yet again
 
no reason to respond to the quotes of hoyle, greenstreet and davies if they conflict with your belief system.


Astronomer Paul Davies has said that the evidence for design is overwhelming.

Astronomer George Greenstein says: AS we survey the evidence, the througt insistently arises that some supernatural ageny or rather Agency, must be involved. Is it possible that sudenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon proof of the existence of a Supreme Being. Was it God who stepped in and so providently create the cosmos for our benefit.

Professor Sir Fred Hoyle says that it looks s if a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics as well as with chemistry and biology.

And after reviewing these quotes in his book Susskind says "Davies and Greenstein are serious scholars, and Hoyle was one fo the grete scientists of the twentieth century. As they point out, the appearance of intelligent desing is undeniable.
 
Quote from jem:

......we have stumbled upon proof of the existence of a Supreme Being.
More...

That's quite a stretch isn't it. Assuming that the univerese was created, big big assumption. Then assuming the creator was a supreme being, the supreme being, God.
Tell me those of you who believe this stuff why don't you believe that there are a bunch of invisible supreme beings out there, how did you come to the belief there is just one desginer?
The correct answer is.....you don't know if there are 0, 1 or millions or billions of supreme beings, because they are invisible.
Think about this, say the univerise is created, But the supreme beings are just powerful not supreme. And all this univerise stuff is just a huge fuck up, this isn't what they were trying to create at all.
 
Quote from bigarrow:

That's quite a stretch isn't it. Assuming that the univerese was created, big big assumption. Then assuming the creator was a supreme being, the supreme being, God.
Tell me those of you who believe this stuff why don't you believe that there are a bunch of invisible supreme beings out there, how did you come to the belief there is just one desginer?
The correct answer is.....you don't know if there are 0, 1 or millions or billions of supreme beings, because they are invisible.
Think about this, say the univerise is created, But the supreme beings are just powerful not supreme. And all this univerise stuff is just a huge fuck up, this isn't what they were trying to create at all.
More...

I have made no claim that I have any basis for claiming we are not the pet experiment of a super being.

That is the problem with the atheists who have been arguing on this thread.
They don't seem to understand the difference between faith and science.

It is one thing to say you believe in the divinity of Jesus. (which I do but I know that belief is a belief)

It is quite another to say that there is a scientific basis for saying there is an appearance of design.

Only idiots of faith (or anti faith) like STU would not research those quotes by davies hoyle and greenstreet and address them. These atheistic fairys have never ever even once addressed the science behind those quotes.

And finally only a true man of faith can say he is sure there is no God.
 
Jem:
>And finally only a true man of faith can say he is sure
>there is no God.

And thus it follows that only a "true man of faith can say he is sure" there is no Gilbert.

JB
 
Quote from jem:

I have made no claim that I have any basis for claiming we are not the pet experiment of a super being.

That is the problem with the atheists who have been arguing on this thread.
They don't seem to understand the difference between faith and science.

It is one thing to say you believe in the divinity of Jesus. (which I do but I know that belief is a belief)

It is quite another to say that there is a scientific basis for saying there is an appearance of design.

Only idiots of faith (or anti faith) like STU would not research those quotes by davies hoyle and greenstreet and address them. These atheistic fairys have never ever even once addressed the science behind those quotes.

And finally only a true man of faith can say he is sure there is no God.
More...

Are you calling me an atheistic fairy, thems fighten words LOL just kidding. It seems like a silly argument about design, then the next question is where did the designer come from and it never stops. I don't know what is so hard about saying we don't know what happened, how everything started or if it did indeed ever start maybe this is it, the atoms have been here forever, who knows and who really cares. It's an interesting argument for about an hour then it's just the same ol thing over and over from both sides. I'll file designer and god and aliens along with big foot and the loch ness monster. Just tall tales until proven otherwise.
 
since the designer or non designer would be "precedent" to "time" - the concept of before the designer may not be accurate. The designer may just "be.

"precedent" to the big bang or outside our time there maybe no "before". Before is a concept within time.
------------------------------------------------
Turok you do get it now. Gilbert could have been the designer. I am not saying who the designer is. If you wish to make a case for gilbert that is fine with me.

We can debate the identity or definition of a designer is in a different thread. I have little stake in that one. For me that is a faith based answer right now.
 
No evidence will convince anyone of what he does not want.

Desire precedes evidence, or lack thereof.

It would be more productive then to ask,

"What do I want...?", regarding this or that.

It is true,just as you fear, that to acknowledge truth is to deny all that you think you know.

But what you think you know was never true. What gain is there in clinging to it, and denying the evidence for truth?

Are you really safer in maintaining the reality of illusions than you would be in joyously accepting the truth for what it is, and giving thanks for it?

How can faith in reality be yours while you are bent on making it unreal?

Nothing about time, space, form, eyeballs, bodies, words, actions are real. But these are things you want with a will that is secondary to your prime will.

Your prime will is the same as our Father's Will. It's only a matter of time before you "own" this reality again. You own it, but are not aware of it while you pretend to be something you are not.

Jesus
 
Quote from I am...:

No evidence will convince anyone of what he does not want.

Desire precedes evidence, or lack thereof.

It would be more productive then to ask,

"What do I want...?", regarding this or that.

It is true,just as you fear, that to acknowledge truth is to deny all that you think you know.

But what you think you know was never true. What gain is there in clinging to it, and denying the evidence for truth?

Are you really safer in maintaining the reality of illusions than you would be in joyously accepting the truth for what it is, and giving thanks for it?

How can faith in reality be yours while you are bent on making it unreal?

Nothing about time, space, form, eyeballs, bodies, words, actions are real. But these are things you want with a will that is secondary to your prime will.

Your prime will is the same as our Father's Will. It's only a matter of time before you "own" this reality again. You own it, but are not aware of it while you pretend to be something you are not.

Jesus
More...

You deny the bible, you deny human experiences. fine.

how do you know what is real or not -

Plato said the true forms are in the cave and we can see the shadows.

You do not see shadows.

if you are keanu reeves character starting to break free - instead of seeing reality - you just go to another place which could be fake. You have no way to tell.

You seem to be stuck in a fake place with no shadows of reality but your own thoughts. Your thoughts can deceive as well as your eyes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top