Evidence for Design (2)

Status
Not open for further replies.

OllieFranz

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2007
5,328
351
✟23,548.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
we can theorize all day about the nature of the designer but I thought you wanted science?

If the designer is natural and not supernatural, then it is subject to scientific study. ID depends on a supernatural Designer. It is not Science. It is a lie.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
If the designer is natural and not supernatural, then it is subject to scientific study. ID depends on a supernatural Designer. It is not Science. It is a lie.

you WANT ID to depend on the supernatural so you can set up a nice strawman. It doesn't however, and you are perturbed by this. (BC depends on the supernatural not ID)
 
Upvote 0

OllieFranz

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2007
5,328
351
✟23,548.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
you WANT ID to depend on the supernatural so you can set up a nice strawman. It doesn't however, and you are perturbed by this. (BC depends on the supernatural not ID)

Again, if there is a possible natural designer that does not simply defer ther question int an infinite regress, I'd love to hear about it. We could examine it together.

Also, see my response to E D. Argument from Design has long been a philosophical argument specifically for asserting the existence of God. That the liars at DI co-opted it to bolster their "non-religious" recasting of "Creation Science" does not alter that fact.
 
Upvote 0

EternalDragon

Counselor
Jul 31, 2013
5,757
26
✟21,267.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
If the designer is natural and not supernatural, then it is subject to scientific study. ID depends on a supernatural Designer. It is not Science. It is a lie.

I am trying to understand why you call something that is described in the Bible by God and then is described by some qualified scientists the same way, a lie? Do you consider Genesis to be a lie or to be just a made up story? Do you consider Jesus a liar? ID, Jesus, qualified scientists, Genesis....all agree.

Just as ruins of an ancient city can be studied without knowing the designers, the work of a designer can be equally studied without the designer. (But also bear in mind that the designer has revealed himself to us.)

I also don't understand why people keep calling ID scientists liars for merely finding new evidence that contradicts evolution theory. Merely questioning and learning.
 
Upvote 0

lasthero

Newbie
Jul 30, 2013
11,421
5,793
✟229,457.00
Faith
Seeker
investigating the claims of CSI in DNA for example, if it can be proven that there is no CSI then it is falsified. That is just one example.

What, exactly, is CSI? Is there any objective way to measure for it? Does it have units? How can we 'prove' something does or does not have it? What metric are we using for it? What standard?
 
Upvote 0

OllieFranz

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2007
5,328
351
✟23,548.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I am trying to understand why you call something that is described in the Bible by God and then is described by some qualified scientists the same way, a lie? Do you consider Genesis to be a lie or to be just a made up story? Do you consider Jesus a liar? ID, Jesus, qualified scientists, Genesis....all agree.

Just as ruins of an ancient city can be studied without knowing the designers, the work of a designer can be equally studied without the designer. (But also bear in mind that the designer has revealed himself to us.)

I also don't understand why people keep calling ID scientists liars for merely finding new evidence that contradicts evolution theory. Merely questioning and learning.

The primary lie of ID is the claim that it is not religious, it is not about promoting the Creationist view of Genesis, and that, as Gradyll has been trying to point out, the designer is not necessarily the God of the Bible, or even a supernatural entity. Thank you for making my point.

The secondary lie of ID is that it is in any way science. Michael Behe was forced to admit on the stand in the Katzmiller trial that ID is no more science than astrology is science.

If the two pillars of the institute are admitted lies, how can you not call its willing proponents liars and con men. Open your eyes and think for yourself.
 
Upvote 0

lasthero

Newbie
Jul 30, 2013
11,421
5,793
✟229,457.00
Faith
Seeker
The primary lie of ID is the claim that it is not religious, it is not about promoting the Creationist view of Genesis, and that, as Gradyll has been trying to point out, the designer is not necessarily the God of the Bible, or even a supernatural entity. Thank you for making my point.

It's particularly telling that once you get past religions that have Genesis as a holy text, where their religion doesn't conflict with Genesis in any way, the number of creationists drops sharply. There are VERY few Hindu intelligent design advocates - the debate is almost unheard of in India. And I can't find a single Buddhist in the category. If there was no religious component to ID, we would expect to see a more even distribution, independent of religious affiliation. We don't see that.
 
Upvote 0

lasthero

Newbie
Jul 30, 2013
11,421
5,793
✟229,457.00
Faith
Seeker
say you have redness of an apple, and you smash it. Does the red go away? Maybe, maybe not. Same with CSI, sometimes the indications of information goes away, sometimes not.

This is a poor comparison, because red is a color. You can't 'measure' red. You're talking about something in a way that sounds like it's supposed to be measurable in an objective fashion, like weight, or height. If that's the case, it should have some sort of metric - a way to determine exactly how much 'CSI' a certain thing has. A criteria. A unit.

Nothing you posted actually answers my questions - it all sounds spiffy on the surface, but when you actually read it and think about what it's saying for a few minutes, you realize it's not really saying anything substantial. Saying something has a 'high level of CSI' is basically a fancy way of saying 'it's complex, therefore it must be designed'. And that's ridiculous, because complexity is subjective. Just because something seems complex to you doesn't mean it's going to be complex to someone else. Just because something seems complex now, doesn't mean it will be considered as such in the future.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The primary lie of ID is the claim that it is not religious, it is not about promoting the Creationist view of Genesis, and that, as Gradyll has been trying to point out, the designer is not necessarily the God of the Bible, or even a supernatural entity. Thank you for making my point.

The secondary lie of ID is that it is in any way science. Michael Behe was forced to admit on the stand in the Katzmiller trial that ID is no more science than astrology is science.

If the two pillars of the institute are admitted lies, how can you not call its willing proponents liars and con men. Open your eyes and think for yourself.

See you simply have nothing to stand on with ID therefore you strawman.
I would like you to say the above to the evolutionists on staff at Discovery institute. Or the many non christians on staff. How are they to feel when you are telling them they have a "religious" job? You can't see your error here?
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Again, if there is a possible natural designer that does not simply defer ther question int an infinite regress, I'd love to hear about it. We could examine it together.

Also, see my response to E D. Argument from Design has long been a philosophical argument specifically for asserting the existence of God. That the liars at DI co-opted it to bolster their "non-religious" recasting of "Creation Science" does not alter that fact.

So here we are again, I say that" ID doesn't refer to a designer", and you say "there is no designer that is not supernatural" then again I say "ID doesn't refer to the designer, be it religious or not, it simply doesn't refer to it" Then you say " there is no designer that is not supernatural".

So again, I say in reference to your comment.

ID doesn't make reference to the nature of the designer.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The primary lie of ID is the claim that it is not religious, it is not about promoting the Creationist view of Genesis, and that, as Gradyll has been trying to point out, the designer is not necessarily the God of the Bible, or even a supernatural entity. Thank you for making my point.

The secondary lie of ID is that it is in any way science. Michael Behe was forced to admit on the stand in the Katzmiller trial that ID is no more science than astrology is science.

If the two pillars of the institute are admitted lies, how can you not call its willing proponents liars and con men. Open your eyes and think for yourself.


AH the old Michael Behe quote mine from Katmiller, it never gets old Ollie. You need some new tricks here.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
It's particularly telling that once you get past religions that have Genesis as a holy text, where their religion doesn't conflict with Genesis in any way, the number of creationists drops sharply. There are VERY few Hindu intelligent design advocates - the debate is almost unheard of in India. And I can't find a single Buddhist in the category. If there was no religious component to ID, we would expect to see a more even distribution, independent of religious affiliation. We don't see that.

can you restate this? It is confusing.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
What, exactly, is CSI? Is there any objective way to measure for it? Does it have units? How can we 'prove' something does or does not have it? What metric are we using for it? What standard?

CSI is complex specified information, of which you did not give a response to. (the example of DNA being CSI). Now since you do not want to answer that response, I look at this conversation as already won in my favor. However I will present again the example of CSI

Intelligent Design as a Theory of Information: Dembski, William A.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
ollie and last hero
as soon as you mention that our views are lies, or that ID is a lie, or that we are liars. I will be out of this conversation. I don't put up with this type of ad hominem, straw man, fallacious argumentation.
 
Upvote 0

EternalDragon

Counselor
Jul 31, 2013
5,757
26
✟21,267.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
The primary lie of ID is the claim that it is not religious, it is not about promoting the Creationist view of Genesis, and that, as Gradyll has been trying to point out, the designer is not necessarily the God of the Bible, or even a supernatural entity. Thank you for making my point.

The secondary lie of ID is that it is in any way science. Michael Behe was forced to admit on the stand in the Katzmiller trial that ID is no more science than astrology is science.

If the two pillars of the institute are admitted lies, how can you not call its willing proponents liars and con men. Open your eyes and think for yourself.

Is that your way of getting around God's word? "Think for yourself"?

"God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged."

That includes you and me.

"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?"

I don't agree with some of the ideas of ID theory. Just as I don't agree with some the the ideas of evolution theory. It doesn't make either a lie. Open your eyes to God's words and think with the Holy Spirit.
 
Upvote 0

lasthero

Newbie
Jul 30, 2013
11,421
5,793
✟229,457.00
Faith
Seeker
AH the old Michael Behe quote mine from Katmiller, it never gets old Ollie. You need some new tricks here.

That's not a quote mine. There's no quote. You can't quote mine without an actual quote. That's why it's called 'quote mining'...because there's a quote. That's mined. From a source. No quote - no quote mine.

Also, I'd like to point out that you're (erroneously) accusing someone of quote mining, when you actually have a legit quote mine in your signature, one that's been pointed out to you numerous times and yet you refuse to change.
 
Upvote 0

lasthero

Newbie
Jul 30, 2013
11,421
5,793
✟229,457.00
Faith
Seeker
CSI is complex specified information, of which you did not give a response to. (the example of DNA being CSI). Now since you do not want to answer that response

You haven't actually answered the question. Telling me that DNA is an example of CSI doesn't tell me how CSI is detected, or how it's objectively measured in any real fashion. Claiming that something has 'high levels' of CSI implies that there's some way to tell how much CSI something has, that there are units involved, standards of measurement, a way to objectively test for it and get the same results. Otherwise, it's like saying an object has 'high levels of prettiness'. It doesn't actually mean anything.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

OllieFranz

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2007
5,328
351
✟23,548.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
AH the old Michael Behe quote mine from Katmiller, it never gets old Ollie. You need some new tricks here.

I can supply Behe's entire testimony if you want. You will see for yourself, in context how he was forced to admit that ID is not science, and that if the definition of science were changed to include ID, astrology would also be included.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.