The Fibonacci Sequence -

[KCfromNC]

As the dictionary definition proves, the word certainly does accurately encompass the activities you just enumerated.

Looks like they're just as militant as you are, then. What's your point?

 

[Radrook]

You keep repeating that accusation, but it is still false. The presence of functional organization is never by itself regarded as conclusive evidence of intelligent design.

That's because the cunning exception is immediately made whenever it is displayed in nature in order to totally avoid the ID conclusion. Which is where your biased, illogical, unscientific selective blindness comes in.

 

[Radrook]

Looks like they're just as militant as you are, then. What's your point?

What's YOUR point?"

 

[Radrook]

If you look into the history of ID at first it was creationism in a cheap lab suit. It was invented due to the legal losses that made it illegal to teach creationism in U.S. schools. Since that time it has acquired a life of its own and there are several versions of it out there. None of them are justified by the scientific method.

Since when does the scientific method include selective blindness-since atheism became a necessity?

 

[Radrook]

In a general way you are correct about theistic evolution--it does cover a variety of views. However, in the main theistic evolutionists believe in the competence of the evolutionary mechanism to produce the diversity of life which we see without periodic divine intervention. ID, on the other hand, is a much more specific proposal which does indeed require "tinkering." It has been rejected on that score by a number of prominent theistic evolutionists.

You object to the tinkering by a creator in your theistic evolution? How is that in any way in harmony with being a theistic evolutionist or even a theist for that matter?

 

[Radrook]

But no-one is saying that.

Exactly what is it that you aren't saying?

 

[Radrook]

Functional organization plus evidence of human manufacture (or use of similar manufacturing techniques) for products of human(oid) intelligence; otherwise there isn't anything that would be conclusive.

That requirement isn't included in the criteria to determine intelligent source. If it were then SETI would be out of business.

 

[Radrook]

After reading through this thread, I'm not convinced OP is even being serious, at all.

Your response puts your own seriousness into question.

 

[OcifferPls]

Your response puts your own seriousness into question.

As it should. I'm not even sure I know what I take seriously anymore.

 

[Radrook]

As it should. I'm not even sure I know what I take seriously anymore.

Why not?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Exactly what is it that you aren't saying?

That life comes from dead matter. No scientists is saying that, especially since it is an idea that has been proven false.

 

[KCfromNC]

What's YOUR point?"

That by the standards you posted you're behaving militantly. I said it right in the post you quoted.

 

[KCfromNC]

That's because the cunning exception is immediately made whenever it is displayed in nature in order to totally avoid the ID conclusion.

Not true. I acknowledge intelligent design when I see things designed by humans. But that's because we know humans exist and have good ways to distinguish the things they make from the things they don't. So far no one's given a similar method for us to lean what's made by invisible magical beings.

 

[KCfromNC]

Exactly what is it that you aren't saying?

The stuff in the post you responded to. Why do you ask?

 

[KCfromNC]

Since when does the scientific method include selective blindness

Does it now?

 

[Speedwell]

That requirement isn't included in the criteria to determine intelligent source. If it were then SETI would be out of business.

Which is false, as you know. SETI is not looking initially for a "coded message" but for a narrow-band modulated microwave signal because that is the kind of signal humans create for sending messages and they are not thought to be produced by natural sources.

 

[Speedwell]

You object to the tinkering by a creator in your theistic evolution? How is that in any way in harmony with being a theistic evolutionist or even a theist for that matter?

Because the God I believe in is capable of creating a natural world which does not require it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Since when does the scientific method include selective blindness-since atheism became a necessity?

It never has. I don't know why you keep making the error of using the phrase "atheistic evolution". It is no more atheistic than germ theory or gravity. Your use of a qualifier where none is needed shows that you have either an unwarranted hatred of evolution, or atheists, or both.

Why can't you call the theory of evolution by its proper name?

 

[joshua 1 9]

Mathematics is the language with which God has written the universe

- Galileo Galilei

Interesting because the Kabbalah students say that Hebrew is the Language of God. Frances Collins says that DNA is the language of God. Does God speak more than one language?

 

[Strathos]

Interesting because the Kabbalah students say that Hebrew is the Language of God. Frances Collins says that DNA is the language of God. Does God speak more than one language?

Undoubtedly.