Programming of Life - Intelligent Design

[Loudmouth]

The argument is in the video's theme .

What is that theme?

 

[Radrook]

What do you mean by that?

Which words that I used are confusing to you?

 

[Sammy-San]

Which words that I used are confusing to you?

What you meant by your words.

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

 

[Radrook]

What you meant by your words.

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

Theistic evolution doesn't view what he described as a problem of any kind. It explains it in an evolutionist way but sees an intelligent designer behind it.

 

[Loudmouth]

Theistic evolution doesn't view what he described as a problem of any kind. It explains it in an evolutionist way but sees an intelligent designer behind it.

Behe clearly states that the flagellum is evidence for intelligent design because the flagellum could not have evolved.

Do you agree with Behe or not?

 

[Sammy-San]

Theistic evolution doesn't view what he described as a problem of any kind. It explains it in an evolutionist way but sees an intelligent designer behind it.

What is your view on those articles about a hair color?

 

[Radrook]

What is your view on those articles about a hair color?

Theistic evolution has no problem with that.

 

[Sammy-San]

Theistic evolution has no problem with that.

From a bibical standpoint, how do you explain or interpert that article and its topic?

 

[Radrook]

From a bibical standpoint, how do you explain or interpert that article and its topic?

You mean this?

Hair color is the pigmentation of hair follicles due to two types of melanin: eumelanin and pheomelanin. Generally, if more eumelanin is present, the color of the hair is darker; if less eumelanin is present, the hair is lighter. Levels of melanin can vary over time causing a person's hair color to change, and it is possible to have hair follicles of more than one color on the same person. Both of these proteins don't form blue, green! while yellow(Blond) and red is possible!
https://www.quora.com/Why-isnt-human-hair-naturally-blue-green-red-or-yellow

That's the way the intelligent designer made things.

 

[Sammy-San]

You mean this?



That's the way the intelligent designer made things.

Does this remind you of 1 Corinthians 14:40?

 

[Radrook]

Do you think it's just the way things are or there's a specific reason?

The specific reason is that's the way that the intelligent designer wanted it to be.

 

[Radrook]

Does this remind you of 1 Corinthians 14:40?

How does it apply?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

<staff edit>

Behe clearly states that the flagellum is evidence for intelligent design because the flagellum could not have evolved.
Do you agree with Behe or not?

 

[Skreeper]

The specific reason is that's the way that the intelligent designer wanted it to be.

How on earth have you figured out what the supposed designer wants or that he even has wants and needs?

 

[Radrook]

How on earth have you figured out what the supposed designer wants or that he even has wants and needs?

Justifiable inference.

BWE

I didn't say that the ID is a he, or her, or it-YOU did.

 

[Radrook]

<staff edit>

Behe clearly states that the flagellum is evidence for intelligent design because the flagellum could not have evolved.
Do you agree with Behe or not?

If Behe means that he doesn't believe in totally mindless, unguided evolution then I agree.

BTW
Please note that there is a limit to how many times I will attempt to express what I already said in clear English and to clarify.

 

[Skreeper]

Justifiable inference.

BWE

I didn't say that the ID is a he, or her, or it-YOU did.

You have not demonstrated that your inference is justified. I don't see the connection from "This looks designed to me - therefore I know what the designer wants". What about when the designer is not a being? Can something without a mind have wants and needs?

 

[Radrook]

You have not demonstrated that your inference is justified. I don't see the connection from "This looks designed to me - therefore I know what the designer wants". What about when the designer is not a being? Can something without a mind have wants and needs?

I never claimed an ability to convince atheists that theistic inferences are justified or to miraculously enable atheists to see connections which theists easily perceive. About the designer not being a being? ID doesn't delve into those minute details. All that ID does is to propose an organizing mind evident in nature. Since mind is evident to us then wants and needs are inferred because they are characteristic of mind-especially of a mind indicative of meticulously complex planning and execution of minute details towards accomplishment of purpose.

Of course I recognize your right to simply dismiss the whole display by saying simply that the chemicals did it. But since I personally find your explanation of mindless genious unsatisfactory, I cannot.

 

[Jimmy D]

ID doesn't delve into those minute details.

It doesn't seem to delve into any details.

All that ID does is to propose an organizing mind evident in nature

Does it? As far as I can see all it does is wrongly claim "that can't have evolved!"

Of course I recognize your right to simply dismiss the whole display by saying simply that the chemicals did it. But since I personally find your explanation of mindless genious unsatisfactory, I cannot.

Where's this "mindless genius" phrase you've started using come from? Is it supposed to be insulting or something?

 

[Radrook]

<staff edit>

I answered that question by saying that if Behe means that he doesn't permit the concept of theistic evolution then we don't agree since I find no conflict between theistic evolution which has the intelligent designer both establishing and supervising the evolutionary process and the concept of intelligent design.