Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

So we are suppose to belive that Rock Hudson would mate with Tracy Ullman?

Considering where the Garden of Eden has been located on the world map, at least as close as they can get, Adam and Eve wouldn't look even close to that. That's like the depictions of Jesus -- either square jawed with angular features or rather an elongated gaunt face and neck and always very, very white. Jews of that time were more likely round faced, never wore long hair and were dark skinned.

That doesn't make any sense to me. I don't wish anything of the sort. When did IDers wish the flagella could have arisen spontaneously? I don't give a shite how flagella arose. It amazes me that anybody else does.

Does fine NECC have clarity or not? I would think all the ingredients are printed on the packet apart from the name of the genius whose cookery arts gave it to us and the microwave instructions. Is it good? Aesthetically I mean.

The last time atheists were running things it was all they could do to peel a banana and they had to live where they grew wild. And patiently wait for other seasonal delicacies.

Do try to keep up. The concept of irreducible complexity implies that something has arisen spontaneously. Youre circling in anever tightening pattern, soon probably, you will disappear up your own ass.

It's another black hole spendi still hasn't figure out. LOL

I know.

Adam was Jewish, hmm he doesnt look Jewish.

He looks like an all American big girl's blouse to me trying to look masterful. I bet he tucks his shirt in his underpants when he's about his daily doings planning for Mother's Day.

He looks like a good ol boy swimmin in the creek with his hot cousin. It must make the visitors to the museum feel right at home.

It does not. It implies that nobody has a ******* clue about what's going on and anybody who says he does is setting himself up to be laughed at.

Such as the flat earth? It's obvious your understanding of science is nil.

I've just got back from the pub and it looked flat to me.

A little West Virginia and Kentucky hill humor. I thought Adam was getting a hand job by his first cousin Evie Lou

Hey Frank,

I've finally got a full keyboard in front of me (no more posting on the iphone for a while). I've had plenty of time to read your thoughts, and I think I know what I'd like you to think about.

Stone soup.

Remember the old children's story? A cook and a child are going to prepare what the chef says is a special "stone soup." It starts with a pot of boiling water and a clean ordinary stone. One by one, the chef convinces to the child that they should add more ingredients to the soup, but always implies that the stone is the source of the soups final flavor. Eventually, the soup is complete, and the child eats it fully convinced that the stone (and not the other ingredients: carrots, celery, etc) is the source of the good flavor.

We have so many senses to examine the world around us, and we can be the child that believes that the stone deserves credit for the flavor, or we can be the cook that knows otherwise.

I get your statements. God could exist, if god did/does exist then some form of ID is certainly possible, and further the evolutionary process itself could be the driving mechanism in place.

What we have here is the problem of us all having soup, and some of us insisting that different stones (or even unknown stones) deserve credit for the flavor. Meanwhile, some others come along and say, why don't we just look in the pot and see if there is a stone(s). Many people look for stones, and can't find them, so they throw stones in the pot. There are others beyond that that wish to examine the soup and see if it can be recreated without a stone. The people giving credit to the stone do not like these people.

If the mystery of existence and life are to be found, we must do so rationally and empirically. Sure god could exist, but ID itself, under any design, has yet to find any rational support. If the most powerful being exists and created by design our universe, then we should be able to find evidence of that. Evidence not somewhere, but everywhere. The body of evidence sides with a natural universe. ID has no support.

There is EXACTLY (not more, not less) the same amount of evidence to believe in a god as...

Unicorns
Spaghetti Monsters
Body Thetans

If you believe otherwise, you are free to present an argument that is somehow distinguishable from the same arguments made in the defense of the three mentioned and provide evidence.

As I said before. If this is your belief, you need to be honest and humble about it. The only way your idea could become considerable is if there was a sea change of evidence; a new large body of material evidence that is sound with the rest of the universe. For you to be honest, you must simply admit, that you are waiting for that evidence to come. Do not make the mistake of others in insisting it already exists.

T
K
O

Post Script note on stones: Stop throwing them.

I'm sure that's true of all atheists; if there is any evidence, we will believe. Until then, there is nothing to prove the existence of any god or creator.

That there are many who believe in a god is their belief based on faith.

Faith for the atheist just doesn't cut it when it involves god and creation.

Not quite, there are some "metaatheists" like me who recognize (not believe) that all concepts like "God", "atoms" and even "rocks" are linguistically based social constructions. some concepts bear a "physical relationship" to others but "physicality" is itself a concept (ref the Social Reality thread). Since we can never "get at" an ontic reality directly, we can (and perhaps should) dispense with it at the "philosophical level" which is essentially a social debating operation. At that level concepts and the relationships between them and co-define them are all there "is".

Gee Diest--that's great. A very neat proof of ID.

There is stone in the soup you see. Soil was once stone in a cycle of soil and stone. High in the hills the river beds are all stone. At sea level they have been ground down to alluvial soil. And it is that the vegetables have been grown in. With sunlight and water and minerals in the soil (stone) you get your various species of vegetables. What's left eventually ends up in the sea as sand and forms into layers and eventually turns back into stone and tectonic forces shift it back up onto hills to go around again.

Where your metaphor for God is in error is in thinking because you can't see the stone, immediate evidence to a child, it isn't there but it is there in back of the whole process. Unseen. The stone in the pot symbolises the unseen stone in the vegetables. A bit like the cookery process symbolises the digestive process.

So what you have done is show that the anti-IDer is childlike. He only accepts what he has sensual evidence for and is thus at the mercy of the conjuror and illusionist. And he wants to put all the kids into a similar position as himself. Media will support that because it is the master illusionist and getting more skilled with everyday that passes. And wande's quotes all come from Media.

You have taken advantage of the fact that the child is unaware of the stone/soil cycle as a vital ingredient in the vegetables. And childlike egos only believe what they can see or sense. They think a picture on the TV is a real person whereas it is just a pattern of electronic dots which deludes them into thinking they are watching real people contemporary in time with themselves.

It is also childlike to assert things as truth and to pull faces and blurt raspberries at things it doesn't like.

Waaaall--hush ma mouth Lulabelle. Who'da thowt it?

Where's your evidence that a female sexual being is transformed into a wife by reading some mumbo-jumbo over the happy couple? What a magical transubstantiation that is I must say. And the beauty product industry is in your face evidence that she is not very happy about it once the early excitement has calmed down.

Evolution knows no such magic.

So it makes just as much sense to believe in God as to believe in your garden gate I presume.

I notice you are still in a funk over the questions I challenged you to answer yesterday. Are kids to be offered role models from the blue-funk brigade?

That seems useful I must say from a military point of view.

Paging farmerman!