Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

@edgarblythe,

Quote:

edgarblythe wrote:

You seem to start with the "middle of the movie" without wondering where your living chemicals came from

Farmerman makes a great unanswered point.

Sorry, I wasn’t sure that was a serious question.

Maybe you could firm it up by defining just what you mean by 'living chemicals'. There are no such thing unless they are arranged in a very sophisticated way. I’m saying that never happens naturally by the known forces of physics.

I have already stated that for the sake of argument that I accepted the existence of what I think you/farmer mean by 'living chemicals', like in the Urey-Miller experiment that farmer is so fond of. Amino acids are as close as we get to natural 'living chemicals', but they are definitely not 'living things', just 'building blocks' as biologists call them.

That brings us to the 'middle of the movie'. Now I want the rest of the story, and we/Science do not have a 'natural explanation' of it. My protein argument shows why the movie ended in the middle unless an intelligent actor was involved.

Does this address your point?

2 Replies

@bulmabriefs144,

I can see that on of your limitations is comprehension. NOWHERE did I impugn the xpansions of knowledge and capabilities. However very few untrained artists make it past the nickname of outsider"

There are very few Caravaggios or Winslow Homers . of course there are plenty of outsider artists convinced of their genius. Are you Homer or a Basquiat?

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

The process was already long underway when your supposed divine intervention took place. You arbitrarily select a point to say magic intervened. Funny how gods follow the believer's agenda in your interpretations.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

Now I want the rest of the story, and we/Science do not have a 'natural explanation' of it. My protein argument shows why the movie ended in the middle unless an intelligent actor was involved.

REVERSE PSYCHOLOGY EH??

Ive admitted our ( science's) ignorance , but we are working . Whats the IDers excuse?. I see no attempis at even collecting any evidence to support your belief.
All you guys do is leap on science"s work and holler "Its not right:

All your "science minds " are coming up with nothing but lies
1 First and Foremost your leaders say that ID is all about THE SCIENCE.Yet, whenever they are one with one speech they add thoughts about God and Jesus being in control

2 NONE of the arguments (like irreducible complexity) have been able to stand any close scrutiny. Dr Behe i still left saying that Supernatural means are scientific.

You guys are counting on people being impressed by your hogswallop

1 Reply

@farmerman,

"On" of my limiations? Could perhaps "on" of your limitations be spelling?

Yes, I am an outsider artist. So what?

Are artists artists because other people designate what they do as art, or is it their drive and ambition to improve that makes them good?

Art is not something I've worked seriously, but I'm cynical enough about it after seeing a toilet with a confederate flag in it win first place (in my college art fair), while a realistic painting got runner-up. I of course tried to switch the 1st place ribbon but they'd alrwady awarded it. I brought a smile to the face of Runner-Up Gal though.

The point being that the only limitation is other people, but if you don't measure yourself according to their standards, then it's no big deal.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

All you guys do is leap on science"s work and holler "Its not right:

What Thundering ignorance.

All I’ve been doing is citing scientific facts and challenging you to find fault with them, which you can’t seem to do. That’s because they are right.

Quote:

All your "science minds " are coming up with nothing but lies

Projecting again?
Put up or shut up farmer. Point out the lies in my protein argument.

3 Replies

@edgarblythe,

You and farmer, big hats, no cattle.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

farmerman wrote:

All your "science minds " are coming up with nothing but lies

I am tempted to mimic some southern hick way of speaking and be all like, "Them's are using that science in ways that shouldn't ought not to be messed with. Don't they know these are forces they just don't understand? Not like me. They's got that fake noise (news?) dohickey again, they not following the science."

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/19/70/88/1970888b2391a4636928d2996894df87.jpg

You know Farmer, some people do know a few things. Disagreeing with you doesn't make them stupid. Sometimes it means you don't actually know science like you think you do.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/science
Science
n. "what is known, knowledge (of something) acquired by study; information;" also "assurance of knowledge, certitude, certainty," from Latin scientia "to know." It further relates to division of types of knowledge from "to cut."

We separate things in this world into categories to understand them. But there is nothing about this that prevents religious people from using science and/or religion to understand the world they live in. That you have a hangup, and can't get past the fact the Leadfoot does understand science ... that doesn't make him wrong. That just makes you flawed and prejudiced.

2 Replies

@bulmabriefs144,

I will only try to call a skunk a skumk. There are no "alternative facts
I try not to argue with folks who know what they speak.

I see you follow the "Stable genius: eh?|
WHY AM I NOT SURPRISED?

0 Replies

@bulmabriefs144,

Quote:

2 NONE of the arguments (like irreducible complexity) have been able to stand any close scrutiny. Dr Behe is still left saying that Supernatural means are scientific.

neither you , leadfoot and other science morons have ever been able to refute the above.

1 Reply

Farmer quote:

Quote:

2 NONE of the arguments (like irreducible complexity) have been able to stand any close scrutiny. Dr Behe is still left saying that Supernatural means are scientific.

neither you , leadfoot and other science morons have ever been able to refute the above.

Really easy to win an argument with someone when they aren’t there ya know. And, I see you misquote people other than me too. (Source?)

Be that as it may, I’m didn’t say anything about Dr. Behe. It is my protein argument you have to answer if you want any credibility.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

You all magic no science.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

More hat, still no cattle.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

You learn just enough about the portions that fit your agenda and call yourself a better scientist than a scientist. Your little picture doesn't fit the bigger picture.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Dr Behe is still left saying that Supernatural means are scientific.

I don't actually know who this Beher chap is, but I don't understand your problem.

I have read some discussions avout how the Ten Plagues can easily be explained as a series of natural evrnts. I'm sure the author intended "See? See?!? There is no God needed here, we can explain it all." Sorry, but that just shows how effective science has become in putting natural processes into words. The sea of blood is actually red tides, the other stuff is side effects of this such as insects and frogs leaving the lakes and rivers, eventually leading to animal sickness, mold, and a bad case of I think it was anthrax, which then contaminates the food sources. Far from dissuading me in the existence of God though, it only further cements the belief that God can use natural processes as well as supernatural stuff.
https://thebiomedicalscientist.net/science/ten-plagues-egypt
There's several articles in this, but this one tells history too.

Here's an interesting part though. The Jews are told to mark their doors with blood using hyssop. Now we think of the blood as the real part and the hyssop as just a handy plant to brush it on. But actually...
https://www.healthbenefitstimes.com/health-benefits-of-hyssop-essential-oil/
Hyssop is an antiseptic, and an antimicrobial. They were basically usually blood to paint the hyssop on, not the other way around.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

Quote:

Your little picture doesn't fit the bigger picture.

Tell me how/why it doesn’t fit Edgar. That’s all I’m asking you.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

The process is evolving on its own. Suddenly a magic entity steps in, an entity there has never been a shred of proof of, to jazz it up. I give up if that's your superior grasp of science.

2 Replies

@edgarblythe,

You bluff pretty good there old man.
Goodnight Edgar.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

Quote:

Science is ongoing, we know more now than we did a hundred years ago.

I don’t know about that mate, thousands of years ago our ancient ancestors knew that we live in an eternal oscillating universe that emerges from the darkness as an expanding universe, in what today we call the Big Bang, only to disappear into the darkness in its return to its origin in what we call the Big Crunch, to then reappear as another expanding universe.

The science of today is just beginning to catch up with what has been taught for thousands upon thousands of years.

The Buddhists believe that “Universe after universe is like an interminable succession of wheels forever coming into view, forever rolling onwards, disappearing and reappearing; forever passing from being to non-being, and again from non-being to being.

In short, the constant revolving of the wheel of life in one eternal cycle, according to fixed and immutable laws, is perhaps after all, the sum and substance of the philosophy of Buddhism. And this eternal wheel has so to speak, six spokes representing six forms of existence,” Or the six creative days, which the bible describes as the six generations of the universe.

The Buddhists see the universe as eternally evolving from generation to generation.

1 Reply

Tesla wrote:

Is nature a gigantic cat? And if so, who strokes his back?

https://animals.howstuffworks.com/pets/teslas-cat-and-other-feline-fascinations.htm

Oh yes, you say, you know all about these things. Alternate or direct current, various principles of electromagnetism or whatever. Because science. But who strokes nature's back?

https://images.fineartamerica.com/images/artworkimages/mediumlarge/3/2-lightning-bolt-over-brisbane-australia-matthew-drinkall.jpg

You ask me to know about the science of this, but I don't need to. You do. This is because my stake in this is proving that intelligent design is part of science because science is ultimately beholden to laws outside science. But you claim that intelligent design is no good because science.

So? Show us the science.

God knows these laws, obviously. I don't need to.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know