Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

@Leadfoot,

Enjoy

@Theo202,

Says the nitwit who misspells and misattributes quotes, and quotes horse's asses about bicycle racing. Spelling: the last refuge of the intellectually bankrupt arguer. Really, you are pulling on Superman's cape when you pipe up next to Frank.

1 Reply

@bobsal u1553115,

You still got your panties in a wad over that "conspiracy theory" having solid facts to back it up?

1 Reply

@Theo202,

You would know about panties, wouldn't you? Try keeping your dark secrets to yourself, you little pervert.

Let's see how quickly you can get this threat locked. Get your thumb out.

1 Reply

@bobsal u1553115,

Wow, you really are pissed, aren't you? Gullibility has consequences, it would seem.

1 Reply

@Theo202,

Your mommy wears combat boots and dresses you funny.

You wouldn't know a fact if it ran over you and called you fat and sassy.

Come on, show your true colors and get this thread locked.

1 Reply

@bobsal u1553115,

I'm not aware of any reason why the thread should be locked. Cui bono?

https://www.nist.gov/system/files/documents/2017/04/28/AE911Truth-NIST-Written-Submission12-18-07.pdf

1 Reply

@Theo202,

I know. That's the amusing part. I think your nickname should be 'clueless'.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

That was a gift from God, Izzy. You and Christ.

What I mean is, all glory to God, but full credit to the messenger.

2 Replies

@Theo202,

Theo202 wrote:

Quote:
Occam's Razon and Pascal's Wager are bullshit. They are to philosophy what a wart on the ass of a horse is to bicycle racing.

Your opinion would be way more credible if you could actually spell the name of the principle. Maybe you could even find some halfwit who cared about what you thought about it as well.

Occam's Razor is useful because it provides a rational basis for evaluating explanations of behaviours. The principle is that the more assumption are made in an explanation the less likely that explanation is to be true, simply because each assumption is a possible source of error.

Occum's Razor is bullshit. Using it gets you to the Earth being at the center of everything...and "everything" is circling it.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Glad you liked it.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
Leadfoot asked:
“Just to be sure, you are saying that you you followed the logic and facts I presented in my protein argument and agree that they are true, but you just do not agree with my conclusion. Do I have that right?”

Frank replies:
Allow me to answer that question this way:

I have never heard an argument suggesting that anything we humans know to exist requires any kind of god or outside "design." There is no complexity that suggests to me that a god (or designer) is required to explain.

That is why in my explanation of my position, one of the elements is:

"I see no reason to suspect that at least one GOD must exist...that the existence of at least one GOD is needed to explain existence..."

You do not my permission to “answer” my question any way you wish.
But that was no answer at all.

It was an answer...and it was an answer to your question. And I do not need your permission to answer any question any way I choose.

Quote:

I did not ask anything about God, god, or gods.

I asked whether you understood a purely scientific argument concerning the likelihood of the biological process of protein production occurring by chance on the Earth or anywhere else in the known universe.

I have answered your question. If you think the answer is deficient...I guess you will have to do without an answer. This is not an interrogation, Leadfoot, it is a discussion.

Quote:

If you do not know enough about biology to give a meaningful analysis it is perfectly fine to say so.

Of course it is. And I think I know enough about biology to give a meaningful answer...which I did.

Quote:

If you DO understand the argument but find it ambiguous, it should be no problem for you to point out why it is ambiguous.

I do not see any argument. I see gratuitous assertions.

Quote:

But to dodge the question in this manner is dishonest and not worthy of the man I thought you were.

I am not dodging anything...and I am not being dishonest.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Don't you get it Frank? You aren't allowed any opinion that isn't filtered by a theist or atheist?

I'm a Christian and I get your very simple stance that Leadbrain can't: Something unproved proves nothing else.

Contradiction proves or disproves no third thing.

I just do not see how you can be more clear or logical. Let them stew.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Now I remember.

THIS is where it got abhorrent years ago.

1 Reply

@bobsal u1553115,

bobsal u1553115 wrote:

Don't you get it Frank? You aren't allowed any opinion that isn't filtered by a theist or atheist?

I'm a Christian and I get your very simple stance that Leadbrain can't: Something unproved proves nothing else.

Contradiction proves or disproves no third thing.

I just do not see how you can be more clear or logical. Let them stew.

Thank you, Bobsal.

As I said, I've been at this for decades...and I realize, for the most part, theists like to argue with atheists rather than agnostics...and for an even much greater part, atheists would rather argue with theists than agnostics.

So...essentially I am just having some discussions here.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Now I remember.

THIS is where it got abhorrent years ago.

Okay, thank you for sharing that. But it still hasn't gotten abhorrent to me this go-around. We can discuss these issues without rancor...without hurling insults...and I am still willing to try to do that.

Obviously you did not like my response to one of your questions. Give it another shot...in a different way. I thought the response I gave, considering the wide scope of your question, was adequate. Essentially you wrote a short essay...and then questioned me about the subtleties of some of its content.

Form a more specific question--self-contained and of a less wide-ranging scope. Here is what I mean about a self-contained specific question:

Since a significant component of my position on the specific "Is there at least one god*...or are there none?"...is: I do not know...

...let me ask you:

Do you know if there is at least one god or are there there none?

* (When I use the word "GOD or gods" here, I mean "The entity (or entities) responsible for the creation of what we humans call 'the physical universe'...IF SUCH AN ENTITY OR ENTITIES ACTUALLY EXIST.)

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

The science has changed since the film came out.

I believe the probability of the 9th Configuration occurring naturally isn't as unlikely as the figures given suggest.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Oh contrar, your statement does not hold up.
The more we learn about biology, the odds go up another order of magnitude.

I do wish they had spent more time on the math. Or that they could teach the teachable just what the meaning of a three digit exponent is.

The odds in the movie could lose several orders of magnitude and still be conclusive to an objective mind.

But damn, didn’t you see everybody here in there?
I had to pause every ten or so seconds to think 'Now which mad hatter A2K'er was it in that scene?'

Think I said it earlier on A2K; 'Every great story I’ve ever seen, read or heard has been a retelling of the story of Christ, in one way or another.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Thanks Frank, I will get back to you on that. I had a few celebratory beverages after that movie so I can’t give it my best right now.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

I didn't see that.

The story of Christ was originally the story of Marduk, then Osiris and finally Odin before Christ.

2 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know