Can Intelligent Design be a Logical & Rational Answer?

[pitabread]

For one, i read the book. Have you?

That doesn't answer his question. The question is: how do you know what Meyer is telling you is valid?

(I'd also like to know what is so special about Signature in the Cell compared to any other published ID literature.)

 

[Speedwell]

Bio can be broadly defined as life from life. It prevents life from exclusive nonlife no matter the source. It can't happen absent a living source. It is blind faith. Akin to asserting the Earth was flat and somehow became a sphere. There is no evidence, no precedent. Not one thing in the present to retrodict to the past.

You have not yet defined life.

 

[pitabread]

I was Googling some feedback on Signature in the Cell to see if it would be worth perusing, and came across this rather hilarious error: Signature in the Cell: Chapter 3. Apparently Meyer mixes up referencing a "virus" when he should have written "bacteria". Whoops.

The author of the blog chalks up Meyer not catching this error to Meyer being a layperson when it comes to biology. The blog author further points out some other biology-related errors in the book in subsequent posts.

Now if this book was supposedly "peer reviewed" as per dmmesdale's claim, then any such errors in the book are doubly egregious. If one cannot get basic biology correct, then how can they be trusted to get the more complex items right?

It only reinforces why getting a book published by HarperCollins does not entitle one to change a school curriculum.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You win TGM,

For those who are a little slow to catch on.. you win, I have no answer for you.

I know you don't.

I know ID nonsense hasn't contributed anything to scientific advancement.
I know it has no practical application.
I know there is nothing even remotely scientific about it.

In summary, I know it's just a priori religious nonsense.

 

[Allandavid]

1. How much more complex is a human compared to an earthworm?

A little more, apparently. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, earthworms have 18. So what!

2. What would I think of someone if they firmly believed that the Space Shuttle, the supercomputer and the most advanced robotic system was the result of random mindless chance rather than an intelligent designer?

Check them for drugs...?

You ask strange questions...

 

[quatona]

Which is more complex: the worlds fastest supercomputer, the worlds most advanced robotic system, the Space Shuttle, or, an earthworm?

Answer: The earthworm. Nobody knows how to make an earthworm. The DNA and its reproductive system is beyond anything ever created by man.

1. How much more complex is a human compared to an earthworm?

2. What would I think of someone if they firmly believed that the Space Shuttle, the supercomputer and the most advanced robotic system was the result of random mindless chance rather than an intelligent designer?

People don´t seem to have problems believing in an undesigned designer of ALL of these things, even thought this designer would have to be the most comlex of all these things. So your argument doesn´t lead anywhere without running into inconsisteny.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I know you don't.


I know ID nonsense hasn't contributed anything to scientific advancement.
I know it has no practical application.
I know there is nothing even remotely scientific about it.

In summary, I know it's just a priori religious nonsense.

Yet, in general, Atheists show up on a Christian board often, and unlike most people who feel something is nonsense, they fight it tooth and nail, as if they are afraid of it, as if it threatens them somehow. Then I wonder, how can something that they claim doesn't exist, be so threatening to people?

I know, they know, there is a God, and he's not going away in spite of all the whining.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yet you show up on a Christian board often, and unlike most people who feel something is nonsense, you fight it tooth and nail, as if you are afraid of it, as if it threatens you somehow. Then I wonder, how can something that they claim doesn't exist be so threatening to people?

I know, you know, there is a God, and he's not going away in spite of all the whining.

None of this is relevant to the subject at hand and in fact, it's nothing but an ad hominim combined with a red herring.

In case you forgot, the topic is ID and how rational/logical it is. Not what my personal motivations are to discuss said topic.

 

[Kenny'sID]

None of this is relevant to the subject at hand and in fact, it's nothing but an ad hominim combined with a red herring.

In case you forgot, the topic is ID and how rational/logical it is. Not what my personal motivations are to discuss said topic.

Ah, the ol' "you're off topic" defense. I think we are all guilty of that, so I'd recommend you stop clutching.

As to it being personal, thank you for the heads up...I fixed it, now it's in general.

 

[quatona]

Then I wonder, how can something that they claim doesn't exist, be so threatening to people?

Like..."white supremacy" doesn´t exist, and yet we find those who advocate it scary? You don´t understand how mere ideas can be threatening even though we think they are false?

 

[pitabread]

Then I wonder, how can something that they claim doesn't exist, be so threatening to people?

That's not the issue. The issue is that there are a bunch of people that believe certain things, but then engage in behaviors based on those beliefs; this can be anything from trying to enact public policies or laws, or in extreme cases acts of outward violence.

That's where most of the conflict tends to arise.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Like..."white supremacy" doesn´t exist, and yet we find those who advocate it scary? You don´t understand how mere ideas can be threatening even though we think they are false?

I don't think this idea/fact whatever you choose to call it is threatening. as I see it, Biblical ideals can only make the world better. There was a time when people though the bible was full of good things for anyone.

 

[Kenny'sID]

That's not the issue. The issue is that there are a bunch of people that believe certain things, but then engage in behaviors based on those beliefs; this can be anything from trying to enact public policies or laws, or in extreme cases acts of outward violence.

That's where most of the conflict tends to arise.

But in fact, if you really wan to get down to it, that isn't the issue. People will do what they will with the best of things, and I can't help what nut jobs do or if they do it in the name of Buddha, Bozo, or God.

Is Ford responsible if get in my F-250 and run a bunch of little ol' ladies over?

 

[bhsmte]

Yet, in general, Atheists show up on a Christian board often, and unlike most people who feel something is nonsense, they fight it tooth and nail, as if they are afraid of it, as if it threatens them somehow. Then I wonder, how can something that they claim doesn't exist, be so threatening to people?

I know, they know, there is a God, and he's not going away in spite of all the whining.

Major league projection.

 

[quatona]

I don't think this idea/fact whatever you choose to call it is threatening. as I see it, Biblical ideals can only make the world better. There was a time when people though the bible was full of good things for anyone.

I was just responding to your general confusion as to why people can feel threatened by ideas they don´t believe in.

 

[pitabread]

But in fact, if you really wan to get down to it, that isn't the issue. People will do what they will with the best of things, and I can't help what not jobs do or if they do it in the name of Buddha, Bozo, or God.

Oh sure, people will do whatever they want for whatever reasons they want. But that wasn't really my point. My point was simply to shed some light on why atheists will find themselves on religious web sites butting heads with religious folks.

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh sure, people will do whatever they want for whatever reasons they want. But that wasn't really my point. My point was simply to shed some light on why atheists will find themselves on religious web sites butting heads with religious folks.

They say for everything God has, Satan has a cheap imitation (diabolical mimicry).

We have the Great Commission ... and they have theirs.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't think this idea/fact whatever you choose to call it is threatening. as I see it, Biblical ideals can only make the world better

Obviously. It would be kind of strange if you, as a bible believer, would think it would make the world worse, right?

ISIS also believes the world would be better off if all was under shariah rule.

There was a time when people though the bible was full of good things for anyone.

The good things, aren't the problem.

And it being good or bad, doesn't affect its truth value.

 

[dmmesdale]

No, this is not what biogenesis refers to. While biogenesis does refer to life from other life, there is nothing strictly prohibiting life from arising from non-life.

Since when did that become a science standard? Another ad hoc rescue, pull a standard out of our backside and throw it up there. There is nothing prohibiting God made everything in 6 days and made it all to look millions of years old. You come on here and claim to represent science and throw up these standards which are alien. Nothing prohibiting winning the Powerball twenty time in a row. It certainly is not impossible. You need to prove your positive and not expect us to prove the negative.

Most of what has been disproved was the idea of spontaneous generation; which again, is the idea of fully formed modern organisms just appearing from non-living sources.

Spon gen is life from nonlife broadly defined. Lets not quibble over definitions out of desperation.

However, there is nothing strictly precluding life arising from non-living sources. In fact, we know that life must have arisen from non-living sources since life on this planet does not appear to have always been here. At some point it had to come from somewhere.

It comes by the intervention of a living source as the most reasonable. Absent a living source, we would not be here.

 

[pitabread]

It comes by the intervention of a living source as the most reasonable. Absent a living source, we would not be here.

You do realize that all this does is push back the problem. If life on Earth needed an external living source, then where and how did that living source originate?

Regardless, the original point still stands: You're claiming that biogenesis prevents life from arising from non-life. I'm simply pointing out that this is a misunderstanding of biogenesis.