Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Its entertaining, its a lesson on the dawn of morality, ITS certainly NOT science

Not surprising. It was not written as a scientific treatise.

2 Replies

@neologist,

What makes sense? That it is true the earth was formed before there was light AND the sun was formed before the earth?

0 Replies

@neologist,

And yet Leadfeet told us that nothing in the Bible was contradicted by science.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

go peddle your wares elsewhere.

No.

Quote:

You are getting a bit tiring with your mantra. You are like leadfeet where you both are stuck in one groove unable to cobble up any critical thinking

Is that your way of saying you cannot produce the evidence you said existed?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Im not going to repeat the obvious for your childishh games Frank. You may take a time out and bother someone else because I shall not provide you with a"review" of all the evidence weve discussed and youve commented upon for many years.
The very relationship between evolution and environmental change or geography or island/cave isolation etc etc, the fat that we can monitor evolution resulting from human activities, the fact of several mass extinctions on life.
etc etc
All these are quite compelling evidence that seem to strongly deny anything but an arbitrary and capricious deity (should one exist0. A deity who would be anything but INtelligent.

Still you keep your head firmly up your butt and deny just to continue on with your self gratification.

Many here have done a pretty good job and you have, like Quahog, continued to sink into communication by bumper sticker.

I recall when you inserted yourself into these evolution threads when you ran out of takers about "possible gods"

Please , go find someone who gives a **** about your obsession. Im just trying not to be rude to you.
I got my "I said something positive on the internet" tee shirt and Im taking it seriously

1 Reply

@neologist,

Quote:

It was not written as a scientific treatise

Try to explain that to the vocal group of YECs who interpret it as prescient science and inerrant history

0 Replies

@farmerman,

You said evidence that there is no "creator intelligence" keeps piling up.

I have NEVER seen any unambiguous evidence that there are no gods...just as I have never seen any unambiguous evidence that any gods exist.

Not one tiny bit in either direction.

So I asked you to produce the evidence you say you have.

You cannot do it (mostly because there isn't any)...so now you are into this self-righteous denunciation of my comments in this thread. And you are actually peppering it with stuff like:

Quote:

Im not going to repeat the obvious for your childishh games Frank.

Quote:

Still you keep your head firmly up your butt and deny just to continue on with your self gratification.

Quote:

Please , go find someone who gives a **** about your obsession.

And you end up with the laughable:

Quote:

Im just trying not to be rude to you.

There is no unambiguous evidence that there are no gods, FM...just as surely as there is no unambiguous evidence that there are gods.

If there is the possibility of a god (and there is the possibility of a god)...

...there is the possibility of intelligent design.

Tough for you to accept that...but if you are the logical, scientific person you hold yourself out to be...you would accept it. You would embrace it.

In any case, you are overdoing the indignation with what I am saying. What I am saying makes sense.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Im just trying not to be rude to you.

I know, I dont always succeed. Since this will be my last communication re: evidence, with you. I wish youd go find some science lit sources like Barbara Forrest or jerry Cohen who do a good job of discussing the "meaning" that all this evidence that weve managed to develop over the last (especially) 50 years or so, has upon a firm worldview about Universal Intelligence.

"The hardest thing in science is to explain the obvious"

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
Im just trying not to be rude to you.
I know, I dont always succeed. Since this will be my last communication re: evidence, with you. I wish youd go find some science lit sources like Barbara Forrest or jerry Cohen who do a good job of discussing the "meaning" that all this evidence that weve managed to develop over the last (especially) 50 years or so, has upon a firm worldview about Universal Intelligence.

"The hardest thing in science is to explain the obvious"

The evidence, FM...is that evolution happened in a particular way. I agree that more and more evidence is being accumulated that we developed in the way science is discovering.

THAT IS NOT EVIDENCE THAT THERE IS NO GOD...OR THAT THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY OF A GOD.

Why can you not finally get that through the blockage?

Everything that science is discovering has happened...apparently DID HAPPEN.

Why are you insisting it is impossible that is the way a god intelligently designed it to happen?

Why are you not able to accept something as easy and non-threatening as:

IF there is the possibility of a god...

...there is the possibility of intelligent design.

0 Replies

TO EVERYONE ELSE:

Since Farmerman will not discuss this further with me...

...anyone else who wants to comment on what I just said is welcome to do so.

If the notion that "it is not impossible that there is a god" is too offensive...I guess I will not get any replies.

If, however, there is a possibility of a god...then there is the possibility of intelligent design. It is, as I said earlier, effectively a tautology.

But if it was intelligently designed...science is now discovering the process of how it was designed...

...and that "bit of clay" and "taking a rib" nonsense...can be thrown in a garbage can to pollute the decent garbage in it.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I gave up on trying to establish that same starting point with atheists as well. If you can't agree on that obvious and irrefutable point, the rest is useless.

I find that Atheism is the most dogmatic religion around.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Evidence-based reasoning isn't religious thinking. Your rhetoric is empty. Show us some credible, falsifiable evidence that your invisible friend exists, then we'll have something to work on. Right now, it's all just pointless word-wrangling. You believe because it makes you feel good. Atheists doubt because of the lack of evidence, regardless of how it makes them feel. (Speaking for all atheists only rhetorically.)

Yeah, it would be nice and comforting to know that there was an omnisicient, omnipotent and loving creator who was going to cradle us in his arms for eternity. That would feel real good. But until you come up with genuine evidence, it's looking a whole lot like just another fantasy.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

I gave up on trying to establish that same starting point with atheists as well. If you can't agree on that obvious and irrefutable point, the rest is useless.

I find that Atheism is the most dogmatic religion around.

I disagree that atheism is a religion, Leadfoot...but it is a type of belief system that is more rigid, at times, than theism.

In the post just after yours, FBM, shows that rigidity.

People like FBM and Farmerman seem unable to even acknowledge the obvious...that gods are at least possible.

We really do not know the true nature of the REALITY of existence...but atheists seem to demand that one thing is certain...there is no possibility of a god or gods in it.

I do not agree with theists...except those who simply are positing the possibility of a god. But the insistence of atheists not only that there are no gods...but that there is not even a possibility of gods...is beyond reason.

I laugh at the notion that they think their position is based on reason, logic and science.

It isn't.

0 Replies

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

Evidence-based reasoning isn't religious thinking.

The theories of evolution and the Big Bang are real and God is not "a magician with a magic wand", Pope Francis said some time ago - something I've learnt in religious classes already more than 50 years ago ...

0 Replies

@FBM,

Quote:

Atheists doubt because of the lack of evidence, regardless of how it makes them feel. (Speaking for all atheists only rhetorically.)

"Doubt" would make you an agnostic rather than an A-theist wouldn't it? I'm not hearing much doubt in your rhetoric. Which is fine. I'm just say'n.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
Atheists doubt because of the lack of evidence, regardless of how it makes them feel. (Speaking for all atheists only rhetorically.)

"Doubt" would make you an agnostic rather than an A-theist wouldn't it? I'm not hearing much doubt in your rhetoric. Which is fine. I'm just say'n.

What I doubt is that you have any evidence to support your g0d-claim. You said you did, but upon examination all that fell apart. Got anything more substantial?

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

"Doubt" would make you an agnostic rather than an A-theist wouldn't it?

Agnosticism can be found among theists as well as among atheists.

1 Reply

@FBM,

Quote:

What I doubt is that you have any evidence to support your g0d-claim. You said you did, but upon examination all that fell apart. Got anything more substantial?

Nice dodge. But nope, not anything 'substantial' that would change your mind. What did you have in mind? You want me to turn water into wine or something?

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Quote:

Leadfoot wrote:
""Doubt" would make you an agnostic rather than an A-theist wouldn't it? "

Agnosticism can be found among theists as well as among atheists.

I suppose you are right. Even Darwin had his doubts.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
What I doubt is that you have any evidence to support your g0d-claim. You said you did, but upon examination all that fell apart. Got anything more substantial?

Nice dodge. But nope, not anything 'substantial' that would change your mind. What did you have in mind? You want me to turn water into wine or something?

I didn't dodge anything. I refused to follow your red herring. If you've got no evidence, why did you claim to? It's not polite to waste people's time with false claims.

Furthermore, if you have no evidence and "make your living" in science, why the theistic beliefs?

1 Reply

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know