32
   

Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

Forums: Intelligent Design, Religion, Unintelligent Life Form, Wingnut Denialism 101, I L F
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Reply Tue 2 Dec, 2014 09:25 am
@parados,
parados wrote:

I guess you failed to read my post.


I read your post very carefully...so that is a bad guess on your part.


Quote:
I didn't call you names. The chances of all the empirical evidence proving you are an idiot are the same as all the empirical evidence proving there is a god. That means it isn't testable and is unlikely.


Work on your wording, Parados. If you cannot stay further away from insults...then accept that I saw insult.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Tue 2 Dec, 2014 09:55 am
@Frank Apisa,
I'm not supposing anything, just saying evolution doesn't display the typical characteristics one would expect from 'intelligent design'. Don't use the words 'intelligent design' if you reject the meaning and implications of such words...
parados
 
  2  
Reply Tue 2 Dec, 2014 10:01 am
@Frank Apisa,
Perhaps you could clarify this post then Frank. It certainly seems to me you are saying scientists and by extension their science is saying there is no god.
http://able2know.org/topic/226001-185#post-5829267
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Reply Tue 2 Dec, 2014 12:12 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

I'm not supposing anything, just saying evolution doesn't display the typical characteristics one would expect from 'intelligent design'. Don't use the words 'intelligent design' if you reject the meaning and implications of such words...


You are SUPPOSING you can describe what constitutes "typical characteristics" of an intelligent designer (not "intelligent design).

It is a supposition...and may be wrong.
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Reply Tue 2 Dec, 2014 12:13 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:

Perhaps you could clarify this post then Frank. It certainly seems to me you are saying scientists and by extension their science is saying there is no god.
http://able2know.org/topic/226001-185#post-5829267


And there are. That does not mean that I said "science" does.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Tue 2 Dec, 2014 12:19 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Yes, i assume i can understand English. But maybe not. How would YOU describe the characteristics of 'intelligent design'? How can you tell the difference (objectively) between something designed and something not designed?

Or perhaps these words 'intelligent design' have no clear meaning? A useless distraction therefore.
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Reply Tue 2 Dec, 2014 12:43 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

Yes, i assume i can understand English. But maybe not. How would YOU describe the characteristics of 'intelligent design'? How can you tell the difference (objectively) between something designed and something not designed?

Or perhaps these words 'intelligent design' have no clear meaning? A useless distraction therefore.


I suspect that any GOD worthy of the name GOD would "intelligently design" life in the universe exactly the way science has been showing us that it has gone, Olivier.

"Intelligently designed" may have what puny humans may perceive as flaws and unnecessary chaos...but they may not be flaws or chaos at all. Any flaws or chaos may be part of a fail-safe system...or just a fun system.

Not sure why you cannot get that, but that is your problem.

Said another way...what you perceive to be "intelligent design" may be different from what a GOD might perceive it to be. If you suggest that cannot be the case...or that it is improbable...you are just being stone-headed for some reason.

Can't imagine why...it is so unlike you!
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Tue 2 Dec, 2014 12:53 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Either the concept of 'intelligent design' says something precise, that can be tested empirically, or it doesn't.

If the former, what is it saying? And how can we test whether it's correct or not?

If the latter, ie if 'intelligent design' doesn't say anything that we can test against evidence, then it's a phrase without any scientific meaning, like 'Jesus loves you'... End of story.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Dec, 2014 01:00 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:

As I have said here in this thread...and in many other threads...IF there is a GOD...then the GOD is NOT "supernatural." If there is a GOD...the GOD is as natural as hair on a human head or sand on a beach.

Stop thinking in terms of "supernatural."

God by the definition is supernatural. It is outside nature.
Herald
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Dec, 2014 01:03 pm
@FBM,
FBM wrote:
We all know that the standard model is incomplete
     Forget about that 'it is incomplete', as you express yourself. What is your understanding of a standard model in the field of cosmology, for example - affording the luxury to be in contradiction with all the laws of math logic and physics, affording itself to make axiomatic claims on quicksand, or what?
FBM wrote:
...but it's a helluva lot more robust than anything you've brought to the table.
     What do you mean by 'more robust' - when you call a mambo jambo 'standard model', and the fake assumptions that it is based upon 'robust' one starts thinking whether you have at all some 'standard' definition of that 'robust'. Can you give some synonyms of your interpretation of standard in the phrases that you use with such a great ease and so casually - 'standard model', 'standard theory', etc.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Dec, 2014 01:28 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

Either the concept of 'intelligent design' says something precise, that can be tested empirically, or it doesn't.


I agree.

And it is my opinion that it doesn't.

Quote:
If the former, what is it saying? And how can we test whether it's correct or not?


It is my opinion it is not the former.

Quote:
If the latter, ie if 'intelligent design' doesn't say anything that we can test against evidence, then it's a phrase without any scientific meaning, like 'Jesus loves you'... End of story.


I do not agree with that...and I certainly am going to talk about it.

I most assuredly am not going to accept your take on it, which seems to amount to: If there is intelligent design, I do not know what it is or how to describe it... but the one thing it is not, is what is happening.

You do see the problem I have with that, don't you?

Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Dec, 2014 01:30 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:

Quote:

As I have said here in this thread...and in many other threads...IF there is a GOD...then the GOD is NOT "supernatural." If there is a GOD...the GOD is as natural as hair on a human head or sand on a beach.

Stop thinking in terms of "supernatural."

God by the definition is supernatural. It is outside nature.


IF a GOD exists...it is NOT outside of nature. It would be a part of nature...IF it exists.

Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Dec, 2014 01:42 pm
@Frank Apisa,
I am just saying that, if intelligent design is NOT saying anything that can be tested empirically, then it does not belong to science. It is a metaphysical issue, like the sex of angel, not anything scientists need to bother themselves with.

Of course you are welcome to talk about the sex of angels as you want. I couldn't care less.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Dec, 2014 01:52 pm
@Frank Apisa,
If it is part of nature then it isn't a GOD.
Herald
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Dec, 2014 02:06 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:
It (ID) is a metaphysical issue
     So what - the hyperspace is also 'metaphysical issue', the theory of the 11-D space is also in essence metaphysics, the dark matter is most probably metaphysical issue, and the dark energy of the CMB is into the epicenter of the metaphysics ... obviously, so what?
Olivier5 wrote:
...not anything scientists need to bother themselves with.
     This is not entirely bad idea - the whole Cosmology to be winded up and to pronounce itself as unsustainable ... and in contradiction with most of the other sciences ... and in the capacity of being so, only introducing chaos into the system.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Dec, 2014 02:11 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

I am just saying that, if intelligent design is NOT saying anything that can be tested empirically, then it does not belong to science. It is a metaphysical issue, like the sex of angel, not anything scientists need to bother themselves with.

Of course you are welcome to talk about the sex of angels as you want. I couldn't care less.


Okay...then stop talking about it.

I do not think it can be tested...just as I do not think the existence of a GOD can be tested.

But I do not think that is adequate reason not to discuss it.

This has not been just about science, Olivier.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Dec, 2014 02:12 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:

If it is part of nature then it isn't a GOD.


Did you proclaim this as a GOD...or are you just trying to see if you can force that on everyone?
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Dec, 2014 02:14 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Please provide us with the gods that are part of nature along with your evidence to support the claim.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Dec, 2014 02:17 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:

Please provide us with the gods that are part of nature along with your evidence to support the claim.


IF a GOD exists...it IS a part of nature.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Dec, 2014 02:32 pm
@Frank Apisa,
If the God is part of nature then it can't be the designer of nature.
 

Related Topics

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion? - Discussion by wandeljw
Intelligent Design - Question by giujohn
What is Intelligent Design? - Discussion by RexRed
Do *ANY* creationists understand evolution? - Discussion by rosborne979
Liberal Hypocrisy about Intelligent Design - Discussion by ebrown p
What has caused some mathematicians to reassess their views on intelligent design ? - Question by anthony1312002
The Bed Bug/Parasite Plant Theory - Question by TeePee38
dna worlds - Discussion by Syamsu
DD VERSUS EVOLUTION - Discussion by Setanta
The Evil of god - Discussion by giujohn
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe
  3. » Page 188
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 01/11/2025 at 08:47:56
▲ ▼