Programming of Life - Intelligent Design

[Radrook]

Further evidence for intelligent design.

BTW
"I can't see!" isn't a rebuttal.

 

[Speedwell]

Further evidence for intelligent design.

BTW
"I can't see!" isn't a rebuttal.

2:50 Bogus definition of "information."

 

[Skreeper]

<staff edit>
Maybe a crash course in the actual philosophy of Intelligent Design might help <staff edit>?

 

[Radrook]

<staff edit>
Especially if you vehemently refuse to watch it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Especially if you vehemently refuse to watch it.

<staff edit>

Here's my rebuttal to your video:

 

[Radrook]

<staff edit>

Here's my rebuttal to your video:

Say, those are interesting videos. Will watch! Thanks!

 

[Radrook]

<staff edit>

The argument is in the video's theme .

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The argument is in the video's theme .

Summarize it.

 

[Radrook]

Summarize it.

The problem is that you disqualify nature as being capable of indicating intelligent design. That is a prime directive of the strictly materialistic viewpoint which characterizes atheistic science today.

In short, you are not allowed to even imagine that such a thing is possible because to imagine it as even remotely possible is tantamount to being unscientific. So what I have is a person with that mentality asking me to tell him the reasons why I feel that nature displays intelligent design? That is an invitation to an exercise in futility since you have already disqualified the information as unacceptable from a scientific perspective even before it has been presented. In short, you are inviting me to waste my time.

 

[Speedwell]

In short, you are inviting me to waste my time.

Only if you're here just to win. If you're here to explain and discuss your position, then it is not a waste of time. No one here is disqualifying nature as capable of indicating intelligent design a priori. But we don't all have a clear idea of what your position actually is. At first you seemed to be telling us that the presence of organized functionality justifies the inference of intelligent design. Is that still the basis of your position?

 

[Radrook]

Only if you're here just to win. If you're here to explain and discuss your position, then it is not a waste of time. No one here is disqualifying nature as capable of indicating intelligent design a priori. But we don't all have a clear idea of what your position actually is. At first you seemed to be telling us that the presence of organized functionality justifies the inference of intelligent design. Is that still the basis of your position?

That sounds like a reasonable understanding of what I said.

 

[Speedwell]

That sounds like a reasonable understanding of what I said.

OK. The next question is, why? Or is that the part you think is self-evident and we just "cain't see?"

 

[Sammy-San]

Further evidence for intelligent design.

BTW
"I can't see!" isn't a rebuttal.

Do you think intelligent design answers this speculation?

Why don't humans have natural blue or green hair?

Why don't humans have blonde eyes, or green or blue hair? • /r/NoStupidQuestions

Why isn't human hair naturally blue, green, red, or yellow? - Quora

 

[Radrook]

Do you think intelligent design answers this speculation?

Why don't humans have natural blue or green hair?

Why don't humans have blonde eyes, or green or blue hair? • /r/NoStupidQuestions

Why isn't human hair naturally blue, green, red, or yellow? - Quora

That doesn't pose a problem from the theistic evolutionist standpoint.

 

[Sammy-San]

That doesn't pose a problem from the theistic evolutionist standpoint.

What do you mean by that?

 

[Radrook]

OK. The next question is, why? Or is that the part you think is self-evident and we just "cain't see?"

Why what?

 

[Speedwell]

Why what?

Why do you think that the presence of organized functionality justifies the inference of intelligent design?

 

[HitchSlap]

The problem is that you disqualify nature as being capable of indicating intelligent design. That is a prime directive of the strictly materialistic viewpoint which characterizes atheistic science today.

In short, you are not allowed to even imagine that such a thing is possible because to imagine it as even remotely possible is tantamount to being unscientific. So what I have is a person with that mentality asking me to tell him the reasons why I feel that nature displays intelligent design? That is an invitation to an exercise in futility since you have already disqualified the information as unacceptable from a scientific perspective even before it has been presented. In short, you are inviting me to waste my time.

<staff edit>
In short, you'll need define what "intelligent design" is, and then how to recognize it, and then how it's different from natural sciences.

 

[Loudmouth]

That doesn't pose a problem from the theistic evolutionist standpoint.

Theistic evolution does pose a problem for Intelligent Design, as in completely refuting intelligent design.

 

[Loudmouth]

The problem is that you disqualify nature as being capable of indicating intelligent design.

By definition, intelligent design is the direct actions of a designer outside of natural processes. By its very definition, intelligent design is falsified when we find a natural process capable of producing these observations.

In short, you are not allowed to even imagine that such a thing is possible because to imagine it as even remotely possible is tantamount to being unscientific.

Imagining something is unscientific. Science isn't the process of sitting around imagining things. Science is the process of testing hypotheses.

<staff edit>

So what I have is a person with that mentality asking me to tell him the reasons why I feel that nature displays intelligent design? That is an invitation to an exercise in futility since you have already disqualified the information as unacceptable from a scientific perspective even before it has been presented. In short, you are inviting me to waste my time.

You haven't shown how the information is scientific.