Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I am not questioning your honesty concerning what was said. I am questioning the premise that it represents what ID stands for simply because that individual made that statement which is now being given a meaning way far beyond what he originally intended it to mean.
I agree that there's nothing to contradict the - I guess, pantheist - idea that the relatively simple rules that appear to underlie the development and behaviour of the universe are the result of the ongoing activities of a supernatural entity; but it seems redundant if we can instead accept that these rules are simply determined by the physical nature of the universe.That's what we all see. I would like to point out that none of that denies the existence of God or rules out His creative involvement with the universe. Those who attempt to "see" something different have another agenda, beyond that of asserting a creator god's existence
Is it supposed to?-There's also nothing to contradict the idea that a deity created the whole thing - we don't know how it came about; but it's not an idea that has any utility beyond the psychological...
You tell me - if you're content that it is just a psychological prop, without other relevance or meaning, I'd be rather surprised - but you can believe whatever you like.Is it supposed to?-
Not "just." That demeans it. In Christian theology, God sent Jesus to tell us of our salvation. He could have "saved" us without telling us about it. No, you summed it up quite nicely--the purpose of religion, whether created by God, or created by man--or a bit of both--is to make us feel better about the circumstances in which we find ourselves.You tell me - if you're content that it is just a psychological prop, without other relevance or meaning, I'd be rather surprised - but you can believe whatever you like.
Sorry; is 'no more than' better (because that's what I meant) ?Not "just." That demeans it.
That's fine, as long as it doesn't impinge on the interests of those who don't find it useful that way.In Christian theology, God sent Jesus to tell us of our salvation. He could have "saved" us without telling us about it. No, you summed it up quite nicely--the purpose of religion, whether created by God, or created by man--or a bit of both--is to make us feel better about the circumstances in which we find ourselves.
Of course. The only way to spread the Gospel is to witness. If you like a guy's act well enough to ask him why he's that way then maybe he will have a chance to convert you.Sorry; is 'no more than' better (because that's what I meant) ?
That's fine, as long as it doesn't impinge on the interests of those who don't find it useful that way.
It makes it seem as if that warped interpretation stands for the official ID view.
Still not seeing where we should go to get the "official ID view". Are you saying that the people who made it up were lying about it under oath?Warping the meaning of what was said is the issue.
What is the criteria to determine whether something is designed?It need not be and isn't for those approaching it properly:
I am not questioning your honesty concerning what was said. I am questioning the premise that it represents what ID stands for simply because that individual made that statement which is now being given a meaning way far beyond what he originally intended it to mean.
Intelligent Design and Astrology - Randal Rauser
It makes it seem as if that warped interpretation stands for the official ID view.
In other words the link I provided with the explanation of what what Behe meant you reject as non-evidence.Dude.... what he "intended" to mean, was pretty straightforward.
If ID qualifies as science, then so does astrology.
See, what qualifies as a scientific hypothesis, is subject to pretty strict criteria. For ID to qualify as science, they have to change those criteria.
Under those revised criteria, astrology also qualifies as science.
From the horse's mouth.
You talk about "that individual" as if what Behe says doesn't really matter or something. You appear to not be a aware that ID is his model.
The "arguments" you bring here (argument from complexity, irreducible complexity, specified complexity, etc) are all his arguments.
Sorry but I find your view of the origin of life totally irrational. So I will choose the logical alternative.LOL!
Dude... as I said.... that IS the "official ID view".
Every single argument you have given here, is word-for-word the nonsense that those people have come up with.
You don't seem to understand this.
Behe is to ID what Newton is to the laws of motion.
Behe is to ID what Einstein is to relativity.
Behe is to ID what Darwin is to natural selection.
Behe is to ID what Farraday is to electro-magnetism.
Again, just to be extra clear: every single argument you have given here, is a word-for-word repeat of Behe's ideas. For all intents and purposes, it is his model and his ideas that you keep repeating.
If that isn't the "official ID view", then I don't know what is.
And neither do you, apparantly, since every argument you keep repeating here is a word-for-word repeat of what those people are saying....
In other words the link I provided with the explanation of what what Behe meant you reject as non-evidence.
That is the reason why your repeated requests for evidence are ignored.
Sorry but I find your view of the origin of life totally irrational. So I will choose the logical alternative.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?