87
   

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

 
 
FBM
 
  2  
Reply Fri 27 Nov, 2015 06:55 am
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:

I thought so too. But you start out today suggesting that I'm mentally ill and I'M grumpy?

No, Set's grumpy! But that's not new :-)


Well, what I posted wasn't in anger and wasn't intended as a personal attack. I really do think there's a psychological problem when someone is faced with overwhelming evidence and nevertheless denies it. It doesn't have to rise to the level of mental illness, necessarily.
Leadfoot
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 27 Nov, 2015 07:42 am
@FBM,
OK, I get that. It's just that I'm not convinced of there is 'overwhelming evidence'. Evidence for sure, but not overwhelming, especially when trying to answer the questions that belief in A God is addressing.

It's only overwhelming in the since that most scientists accept it and we don't want to go back to the ad populum thing again :-)

I should add that the general population accepts it only on the basis of ad populum or appeal to authority. They don't really have a working understanding of evolution themselves. As Farmer pointed out, they don't teach it in school for the most part.
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Nov, 2015 07:51 am
@Leadfoot,
Evolution of species via natural selection doesn't weigh in on whether or not there is a creator. It just removes the requirement for one as an explanation for a limited set of observable, demonstrable phenomena. Back when I was a believer, but still very interested in science, I resolved the issue by telling myself that science was just discovering how God did what I was convinced He did. I think it's only a critical problem for Young Earthers.

Edit: I see you edited while I was writing. Some people may make the mistake of fallacious appeals to popularity or authority, but the evidence is there, nonetheless, and there an abundance of it. Verifiable and falsifiable. That's the key point, really.
Leadfoot
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 27 Nov, 2015 07:58 am
@FBM,
Really? You were a 'Young Earther? Or were you suggesting I was?
I read that as what atheists call 'a creationist' i.e. 6000 year old earth etc.
FBM
 
  2  
Reply Fri 27 Nov, 2015 08:00 am
@Leadfoot,
I wasn't and I wasn't suggesting you were. I was just saying that unless you think the earth is 6,000 years old or whatever, you could still rationalize evolution to fit in with theism.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Nov, 2015 08:02 am
@FBM,
Good enough.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Fri 27 Nov, 2015 09:10 am
@Leadfoot,
I would assume that, as science labors on its focused research into various areas of evolution, Creationists take all sorts of light to claim "Victory" re: many of these wxisting holes in evidence (Stuff like convergent evolution, the evolution of bats wings, or the claims of the 60 million year long "Cambrian Explosion").
Science, is a patient cat that knows its limitations (or should) and we dont make ridiculous claims that "we know how the whole world works" or the " a God didit". I think we leave that to the true believers who argue their points on web sites.

The Hekaelian "forced embryology "(recapitulation ).has been researched to death and the recapitulation of "phylogenetic structures", for the most part are well understood with a better degree of genetic certainty.
Quehoniaomath
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 27 Nov, 2015 09:23 am
@farmerman,
You just proved my point!

science IS a religion


so, now the question becomes, why are you stubbornly addicted to a religion, girly?
farmerman
 
  7  
Reply Fri 27 Nov, 2015 10:42 am
@Quehoniaomath,
you have no point save that one on your cephalon
Quehoniaomath
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 27 Nov, 2015 11:07 am
@farmerman,
Yes, I was wondering if you do pray, girly?

and, OF COURSE , not answering any questions. Now I wonder why that is?
farmerman
 
  7  
Reply Fri 27 Nov, 2015 12:00 pm
@Quehoniaomath,
Clambreath, Answering one of your rants would be like me trying to carry on a discussion about quantum chemistry with a guinea pig.
Leadfoot
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 27 Nov, 2015 12:11 pm
@FBM,
Quote:
Evolution of species via natural selection doesn't weigh in on whether or not there is a creator.
Oh, absolutely true. There are 'gaps' in the theory that are interesting though. If and when those gaps are closed I'll gladly absorb that information without the slightest effect on the question of a creator.
Frank Apisa
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 27 Nov, 2015 12:50 pm
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:

OK, I get that. It's just that I'm not convinced of there is 'overwhelming evidence'. Evidence for sure, but not overwhelming, especially when trying to answer the questions that belief in A God is addressing.



Leadfoot, you are making a mistake with your argument that is allowing these guys to claim a victory by default.

You should not be defending "there was no evolution." You should be defending, "intelligent design does not preclude evolution." (Or, evolution does not preclude the existence of a GOD.)

There is the possibility that a GOD exists. If there is the possibility of a GOD...there is the possibility of intelligent design.

There is no way anyone can show ANY EVIDENCE whatever that evolution, however it exists, is not part of intelligent design.

Evolution may be the design mechanism of a god that exists.

IF the possibility of a god exists...then the possibility of intelligent design exists.

For you to attempt to assert that we did not get here via the mechanism of evolution is a loser...and you will lose that argument every time.



farmerman
 
  5  
Reply Fri 27 Nov, 2015 12:58 pm
@Frank Apisa,
being the gabone thatyou are, ONE MORE TIME .

Although evolution does not preclude a creator, there is no compelling evidence to support one.
Quehoniaomath
 
  -3  
Reply Fri 27 Nov, 2015 01:29 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
Clambreath, Answering one of your rants would be like me trying to carry on a discussion about quantum chemistry with a guinea pig.


So, I understand you don't understand chemistry nor quantum chemistry! lol

btw quantum chemistry is non existent m because al quantum related things are a joke,


and what prayer do you use, girly-piggie? Wink
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 27 Nov, 2015 02:25 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
You should not be defending "there was no evolution." You should be defending, "intelligent design does not preclude evolution." (Or, evolution does not preclude the existence of a GOD.)
How the heck did you conclude that I was defending 'no evolution'? I can only guess that it was from the comment about evolution developments not affecting my belief in a creator? I wasn't denying evolution. No, I meant more or less just what you said about it not precluding the existence of God. Surely you've read enough of my posts to know that's what I meant within that context.
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 27 Nov, 2015 02:30 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
Although evolution does not preclude a creator, there is no compelling evidence to support one.
Shouldn't you specify 'That you know of' in that statement?
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Fri 27 Nov, 2015 02:47 pm
@Leadfoot,
Its really not my call. YOU are the one preaching about it. Id think the burden of evidence is upon you
Leadfoot
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 27 Nov, 2015 03:10 pm
@farmerman,
Do'n my best.

My point was that you are in effect preaching as well when you say as an absolute "There is NO evidence for a God'.

With a God, being of a metaphysical nature, wouldn't the evidence have to be his effect on individual minds? How could you possibly know there hasn't been any, just based on your personal experience?

Certainly some of the claims for those effects have been shown to be bogus, but that does not necessarily rule out all of them. Lots of peer reviewed scientific papers have been found bogus too but we don't reject them all because of that.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  -3  
Reply Fri 27 Nov, 2015 03:13 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

being the gabone thatyou are, ONE MORE TIME .

Although evolution does not preclude a creator, there is no compelling evidence to support one.


Being the gavone you are...you must have missed the thousands of posts I have made indicating that I understand there is no compelling evidence FOR the existence of a GOD...just as there is no compelling evidence that a GOD does not exist.

One cannot even come to "IT IS MORE LIKELY that there is a GOD than that there are none" or "IT IS MORE LIKELY that there are no gods than that there is at least one" through reason, logic, or science.

If there were compelling evidence...one could come to one of those.

Okay, gavone?

IF there is the possibility of a GOD...there is the possibility of intelligent design.

THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF A GOD.

So, gavone...let me hear you acknowledge the obvious. Let me see you type the words: There is the possibility of intelligent design.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 10/21/2019 at 09:17:28