'Easy to be an atheist if you agnore science' [moved]

[Radrook]

You would have been better off if you had. It would have put you in the company of those who believe that God is creator of the universe, but understand that Intelligent Design is nothing but biblical creationism in a cheap lab coat.
Divine creation is an ancient and respectable assertion, nothing to be ashamed of. Intelligent Design a joke.

So what is the Intelligent Design joke's punch line?

 

[Speedwell]

I don't know what you are talking about.
Einstein, Millikan and Issac Newton all believed in intelligent design of the universe.

So what? All of us who believe that God is the creator believe something like that.

Who Dembski and Behe are is anybody's guess. They sound like characters out of the Walt Disney film Bambi. I'm new to this thread so maybe I missed something having to do with these names?

Michael Behe and William Dembski are creation "scientists" who work for the Discovery Institute, a right-wing think tank in Seattle. They invented Intelligent Design.

 

[Speedwell]

So what is the Intelligent Design joke's punch line?

That it is a shell, a Trojan Horse for sneaking biblical creationism into the science curriculum of the public schools. It all came out in Kitzmiller v. Dover. Read the transcript, easily available on line.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I observe that countless human beings have written about something they call God since the dawn of recorded civilization. How is that not "evidence" of God?

In the same way that it isn't evidence of fairies, trolls, elves, leprechauns, or any other stuff a lot of people have written about.

At best, it is evidence of a human tendency to believe in gods and/or supernatural things.

Compare and contrast that to say any of the four supernatural components of LCDM theory. Can you empirically demonstrate that "space expansion", "inflation", "dark energy" or "dark matter" have any tangible effect on a photon in a lab?

Can you demonstrate the existence of any exotic forms of matter?

Falso comparision.
On the one hand, you have religious beliefs that are imposed and dogmatic, even by threat of torture after death "if you don't believe".

On the other hand, you have intellectually honest hypothesis, which are NOT being sold as dogma and which are NOT being used to impose anything on anyone.

In fact, people are even invited to show how it's wrong - and if one does, that person is celebrated.


Counting down to conspiracy theory in
3..2..1...

You might try QM concepts of "gravity". Can you demonstrate the existence of gravitons, or is that something that simply remains an "act of faith" on the part of the believer?

Same as above...

On the one hand you have a dogmatic religious doctrine, which is by very nature unquestionable and even imposed by threat of nastyness if you don't believe it.

On the other hand, you have a hypothesis that lives at the very frontier of our knowledge and which are not submitted as being "certain" in ANY way - not even if in the future these models turn out to be so well evidenced that denying them would become nothing short of pervers. Even THEN, there is no room for dogma or certainty.

To compare the two, imo, is insulting to both.

 

[bhsmte]

You caint see? Well, if indeed yu caint see the confidence in abiogenesis which your own scientists clearly display, then I am afraid that any sincere effort on my part to help you be able to see it will prove totally in vain since in my experience with others who claim your inability to see is that they still respond with:

"Well, ah still cain't see! So ah dayah!!"

That is what i thought.

 

[Radrook]

That is what i thought.

Thanks for agreeing with me.
God Bless!

 

[Speedwell]

I was going to ask you where you got that list of "qualifying phrases" you assert that scientists never use when discussing abiogenesis--but item 12 gives the game away.

 

[bhsmte]

Thanks for agreeing with me.
God Bless!

LOL

 

[Radrook]

In the same way that it isn't evidence of fairies, trolls, elves, leprechauns, or any other stuff a lot of people have written about.

At best, it is evidence of a human tendency to believe in gods and/or supernatural things.



Falso comparision.
On the one hand, you have religious beliefs that are imposed and dogmatic, even by threat of torture after death "if you don't believe".

On the other hand, you have intellectually honest hypothesis, which are NOT being sold as dogma and which are NOT being used to impose anything on anyone.

In fact, people are even invited to show how it's wrong - and if one does, that person is celebrated.


Counting down to conspiracy theory in
3..2..1...




Same as above...

On the one hand you have a dogmatic religious doctrine, which is by very nature unquestionable and even imposed by threat of nastyness if you don't believe it.

On the other hand, you have a hypothesis that lives at the very frontier of our knowledge and which are not submitted as being "certain" in ANY way - not even if in the future these models turn out to be so well evidenced that denying them would become nothing short of pervers. Even THEN, there is no room for dogma or certainty.

To compare the two, imo, is insulting to both.

Those aren't the reasons why we are told to believe in an intelligent designer of all things.
The Apostle Paul provides the reason why we should believe in the creator and it isn't blind faith nor an inherent need to worship.


Romans 1:20 ►

New International Version
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.


So you are blatantly misrepresenting the REASON why the Bible tells us we should believe, and prefer to join in the "Ï just cain't see nuffin fo day is nuffin ta see!" chanting offered mindlessly for lack of a better response

 

[Speedwell]

I think you are stuck in a metaphysical rut--that a phenomenon can have either a supernatural cause or a divine cause but not both, that if science proclaims a natural cause for some phenomenon it amounts to a de facto denial of a supernatural cause.

 

[Radrook]

So what? All of us who believe that God is the creator believe something like that.

Michael Behe and William Dembski are creation "scientists" who work for the Discovery Institute, a right-wing think tank in Seattle. They invented Intelligent Design.

I never claimed that there is a big conceptual difference between Einstein, Millikan and Newton and the rest of the deists who believe in intelligent design except that their belief is much more impressive because they are renown men of science. Are all believers in ID renown men of science? Hmmmm? So there we go!

That should make it obvious why I mention them.
Thanks for explaining whom those two people are. I could have sworn that I had heard those two names in the Walt Disney Bambie film!

 

[Radrook]

I think you are stuck in a metaphysical rut--that a phenomenon can have either a supernatural cause or a divine cause but not both, that if science proclaims a natural cause for some phenomenon it amounts to a de facto denial of a supernatural cause.

Well, when I discuss intelligent design to me the terms natural or supernatural are totally irrelevant.
Hope that clears up the conundrum.

 

[Speedwell]

I never claimed that there is a difference between Einstein, Millikan and Newton and the rest of the deists who believe in intelligent design except that their belief is much more impressive because they are renown men of science. Are all believers in ID renown men of science?
That should make it obvious why I mention them.
Thanks for explaining whom those two people are.

As a rule, when I write "intelligent design" without caps I mean the general notion that God is responsible for the design of the universe. With caps, "Intelligent Design" refers to the specific proposal of the Discovery Institute.

 

[Speedwell]

Well, when I discuss intelligent design to me the terms natural or supernatural are totally irrelevant.
Hope that clears up the conundrum.

Right, and that is why I find no problem with anything that science may speculate about or even actually discover concerning abiogenesis.

 

[Radrook]

Right, and that is why I find no problem with anything that science may speculate about or even actually discover concerning abiogenesis.

Well, now you are comparing mother hens with father roosters.
Mother hens cackle.
'Father roosters crow.

BTW
Ducks quack.

 

[Speedwell]

Well, now you are comparing mother hens with father roosters.
Mother hens cackle.
'Father roosters crow.

BTW
Ducks quack.

And why I don't think such speculations or (potential) discoveries exclude or deny God's causal involvement.

 

[Radrook]

As a rule, when I write "intelligent design" without caps I mean the general notion that God is responsible for the design of the universe. With caps, "Intelligent Design" refers to the specific proposal of the Discovery Institute.

Well, I am not meticulously fastidious in that fashion.
However, if I inadvertently inflicted any unnecessary psychological distress with my lackadaisical, devil-may-care approach then I profusely apologize. Will try to be more careful next time by trying to follow that rule.

 

[Speedwell]

Well, I am not meticulously fastidious in that fashion.
However, if I inadvertently inflicted any unnecessary psychological distress with my lackadaisical, devil-may-care approach then I profusely apologize. Will try to be more careful next time by trying to follow that rule.

LOL! Maybe I'm just spending too much time with this. In any case, I think that the Dover trial was the high water mark of Intelligent Design (with caps).

 

[Radrook]

And why I don't think such speculations or (potential) discoveries exclude or deny God's causal involvement.

Well, abiogenesis by definition means the generation of life without the help of a living thing. Since God is a living thing, then abiogenesis and God concept are inherently incompatible. Even if god had set in motion the process itself it would still not be abiogenesis because it is traceable to living thing intervention.

Of course you may choose to give abiogenesis your own personal definition but that is mine.


Abiogenesis
Home » Abiogenesis

Abiogenesis

(Science: study) The study of how life originally arose on the planet, encompasses the ancient belief in the spontaneous generation of life from non living matter.

 

[Radrook]

LOL! Maybe I'm just spending too much time with this. In any case, I think that the Dover trial was the high water mark of Intelligent Design (with caps).

Well, if it was a high water mark I couldn't say because I haven't seen it.
Will try to see it on YouTube. Thanks for the reference.