Steve Petersen
Senior Veteran
Intelligent design might be logical, and possibly rational, but it is in NO WAY scientific. It is not testable and it makes no predictions that can be falsified.
Upvote
0
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.
Why not? So truth seeking is subordinate to definitions by anonymous tribunals who decide what is and what is not scientific? Quote.Intelligent design might be logical, and possibly rational, but it is in NO WAY scientific.
Testable with the explanatory power to that of competing hypos.It is not testable
Quote.and it makes no predictions that can be falsified.
Why not? So truth seeking is subordinate to definitions by anonymous tribunals who decide what is and what is not scientific? Quote.
''We don't care whether a particular proposition is true of not, we just care if it fits our naive, tautological, self-serving definition of science.''
Testable with the explanatory power to that of competing hypos.
''The argument from design would predict any attempt to rationally explain the origins of functional complexity and specified information. (In DNA or Bacteria) as being the results of some unguided, undirected process is hopeless and will end in failure.''
''If you wish to assert that the bacterium, along with all its astonishing nanotechnology, it's genetic information Processing System, and the enormous of preloaded digitally encoded information, are the result of an unguarded process, the extraordinary heavy burden of proof is on you.''
Does nature grant you a right to life? Does nature grant you a right to equality?Can anything be proposed as the cause of the event? will anything do or must any proposal always contain those three letters (God) before it is even considered? just saying 'God' explains absolutely nothing in fact saying a God did it opens a whole new can of worms, but I believe that was the idea of saying 'Goddidit' right from the outset, it caused uncertainty and confusion in the minds of the simple people the concept was first aimed at, they could not understand it so they just went along with it,
that's why "The Emperor's New Clothes" written by Hans Christian Andersen is such a perfect analogy for religious belief, most people don't understand they just go along.
Does nature grant you a right to life? Does nature grant you a right to equality?
How bout this Freud quote.
''The moment a man questions the meaning and value of life, he is sick, since objectively neither has any existence.''
Any meaning assigned is subjective fiction no different then supposed God belief. Now that we have established life is objectively meaningless, why are you not as contented as a cow out in the field somewhere? That being since you probably have it better than most of the humans who have ever lived?
So you admit you have no rights from nature. That means your default must be the king can do no wrong. Thanks for the clarification.Rights are a man made construct. Not really the same wheelhouse as Intelligent Design in biology.
So you admit you have no rights from nature. That means your default must be the king can do no wrong. Thanks for the clarification.
''The argument from design would predict any attempt to rationally explain the origins of functional complexity and specified information. (In DNA or Bacteria) as being the results of some unguided, undirected process is hopeless and will end in failure.''
It's beginning to seem that your position is, that if we don't accede to your ID theory, we can't believe in God as creator.So you admit you have no rights from nature. That means your default must be the king can do no wrong. Thanks for the clarification.
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?
And yes, laugh if one will but there has to be a power to make so many miss something so obvious, hence...
It's beginning to seem that your position is, that if we don't accede to your ID theory, we can't believe in God as creator.
his is kinda funny to me since in roundabout way it reinforces what we've long known about creationism/ID/etc: that's it lockstep with religion.
Well, Duh. lol...go figure. I hope it's been known all along, it doesn't exactly take a genius to figure out the creator and what he requires of us IS religion, or better yet, "all there is/the meaning of it all"....take it or leave it.
And in your bout of brilliant deductions, did you also notice Atheism is the lockstep against religion.
God is the maker of heaven and Earth and of all things, both visible and invisible. Whether or not He is the Discovery Institute's "designer" is what we are discussing.?
God IS the ID/intelligent designer...what you said makes no sense.
If you call what the bible says he did, a theory, what do you think Bible believing Christians are going to think?
Yep, the "half way in between" people that seem to complicate the situation. But in the end it isn't complicated at all. With God, it's all or nothing, we believe him or we don't...there is no half way...He even so much as tells us that.
If we aren't for God, we're against him.
Except that IDists will often try to purport that ID is scientific. Granted, that's been exposed in the past, but it kinda makes you wonder what the purpose of ID is in the first place. To make religious beliefs sound science-y I guess?
You'll notice though that I never referenced atheism; I was referencing science. Science does not require any particular religious faith one way or the other. As I said, it's the great equalizer.
God is the maker of heaven and Earth and of all things, both visible and invisible. Whether or not He is the Discovery Institute's "designer" is what we are discussing.
We get it, Kenny. Only "Bible-believing" Christians are real Christians.
Intelligent Design is the invention of a group of militant Calvinists in Seattle calling themselves the Discovery Institute. It is not just the vague general notion that God is the "designer" of the universe, it is a very specific hypothesis with a very specific political agenda attached.And?
The Discovery Institute?
Because I'm a Christian and find your attitude towards me offensive. I don't deny your faith, after all.I agree...why do you bring it up?
This is the first I've heard of that being any major purpose.
Science is nothing on it's own, just a term. If ID is provable by mans use of science, so be it.
It at least seems probable they would, but as to using that to push God, why try?
If you know anything at all about psychology, even if we proved it beyond a shadow, (Just the OP makes it so obvious, if it were a snake, it would have bitten you) if you don't want to see it you won't. Certain minds just switch it off....it's actually phenomenal.
And did you notice I never referenced you referencing Atheism?
Because I'm a Christian and find your attitude towards me offensive. I don't deny your faith, after all.
Intelligent Design is the invention of a group of militant Calvinists in Seattle calling themselves the Discovery Institute. It is not just the vague general notion that God is the "designer" of the universe, it is a very specific hypothesis with a very specific political agenda attached.
Never heard of it? Then why have you signed on?
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?