Posts: 624
Threads: 1
Joined: December 4, 2015
Reputation:
1
RE: Intelligent Design
January 15, 2016 at 12:37 pm
(January 15, 2016 at 12:29 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: (January 15, 2016 at 12:19 pm)Rhythm Wrote: "Science can't test that!"....remember?
This is one of my favorites...that God is by nature untestable, and that science can never apply to him. Except we all know that if even a SHRED of anything resembling scientific evidence emerged to support ID, or miracles, or god's existence, every theist in the world would be creaming their pants screaming, "see?! I told you so! It's SCIENCE! You can't refute SCIENCE!"
There is plenty of evidence for ID, but that is not the same as PROVING the identity of the designer. I could sit back and wait for proof on anything, but the fact is you can prove very little scientifically.
Prove to me right now that the sun will still be there tomorrow.
Posts: 67172
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
162
RE: Intelligent Design
January 15, 2016 at 12:39 pm
-as if on que. 
Dance, puppet.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 9915
Threads: 53
Joined: November 27, 2015
Reputation:
92
Intelligent Design
January 15, 2016 at 12:41 pm
(January 15, 2016 at 12:37 pm)AAA Wrote: (January 15, 2016 at 12:29 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: This is one of my favorites...that God is by nature untestable, and that science can never apply to him. Except we all know that if even a SHRED of anything resembling scientific evidence emerged to support ID, or miracles, or god's existence, every theist in the world would be creaming their pants screaming, "see?! I told you so! It's SCIENCE! You can't refute SCIENCE!"
There is plenty of evidence for ID, but that is not the same as PROVING the identity of the designer. I could sit back and wait for proof on anything, but the fact is you can prove very little scientifically.
Prove to me right now that the sun will still be there tomorrow.
Hmmm....I can't! That must mean you are right, and I am wrong! Thank you for enlightening me. I can totally see now how an intelligent being outside of time and space concocted this elaborate plan for the universe and everything in it, and then waved his magical hands and made it so. It makes perfect sense. So much more sense then natural selection. Consider me officially saved.
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Posts: 13901
Threads: 263
Joined: January 11, 2009
Reputation:
82
RE: Intelligent Design
January 15, 2016 at 1:31 pm
(January 15, 2016 at 12:37 pm)AAA Wrote: (January 15, 2016 at 12:29 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: This is one of my favorites...that God is by nature untestable, and that science can never apply to him. Except we all know that if even a SHRED of anything resembling scientific evidence emerged to support ID, or miracles, or god's existence, every theist in the world would be creaming their pants screaming, "see?! I told you so! It's SCIENCE! You can't refute SCIENCE!"
There is plenty of evidence for ID, but that is not the same as PROVING the identity of the designer. I could sit back and wait for proof on anything, but the fact is you can prove very little scientifically.
Prove to me right now that the sun will still be there tomorrow.
You know what, I keep telling people that there is tons of evidence that I am the greatest lover ever, but for some reason people just wont believe me.
Dicks the lot of em.
You can fix ignorance, you can't fix stupid.
Tinkety Tonk and down with the Nazis.
Posts: 5356
Threads: 178
Joined: June 28, 2015
Reputation:
35
RE: Intelligent Design
January 15, 2016 at 1:44 pm
AAA Wrote:There is plenty of evidence for ID, but that is not the same as PROVING the identity of the designer.
Fine.
Then please, by all means, present these Quote:plenty of evidence of ID
you talk about.
In clear, concise, short points.
Posts: 1314
Threads: 14
Joined: December 1, 2015
Reputation:
9
RE: Intelligent Design
January 15, 2016 at 1:48 pm
(This post was last modified: January 15, 2016 at 2:00 pm by God of Mr. Hanky.)
(January 15, 2016 at 12:04 pm)AAA Wrote: (January 15, 2016 at 4:01 am)pool the great Wrote: What you're saying is:
* Designer had incredible intelligence that is truly awe inspiring.
* Stuff works like a designed system because other explanations are not good enough.
* Designer is a reasonable conclusion.
Forgive me for asking, but is this not what they mean by Circular Reasoning? No, you've got it backwards. It's 1. evidence points to it being designed, 2. If it truly was designed, it is a brilliant design with incredible mechanisms 3. the designer must be smart
No proof here that a designer had anything to do with life, only that if a designer was involved, it would have been smarter than you. Which is profoundly challenging to ponder...
Show us the evidence, if you have some - your unintelligent assertions aren't getting you anywhere, and they never will!
Now why, for the thousandth time, would a designer waste billions of years on what appears to be nature taking its course over the same span? Stop being such a wuss on answering that question too!
Mr. Hanky loves you!
Posts: 624
Threads: 1
Joined: December 4, 2015
Reputation:
1
RE: Intelligent Design
January 15, 2016 at 1:56 pm
(January 15, 2016 at 12:41 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: (January 15, 2016 at 12:37 pm)AAA Wrote: There is plenty of evidence for ID, but that is not the same as PROVING the identity of the designer. I could sit back and wait for proof on anything, but the fact is you can prove very little scientifically.
Prove to me right now that the sun will still be there tomorrow.
Hmmm....I can't! That must mean you are right, and I am wrong! Thank you for enlightening me. I can totally see now how an intelligent being outside of time and space concocted this elaborate plan for the universe and everything in it, and then waved his magical hands and made it so. It makes perfect sense. So much more sense then natural selection. Consider me officially saved. The point is that if you are demanding me to prove God exists, I can't do it. Also, natural selection is not oppositional to God, it is a mechanism to keep populations strong.
Posts: 624
Threads: 1
Joined: December 4, 2015
Reputation:
1
RE: Intelligent Design
January 15, 2016 at 2:00 pm
(January 15, 2016 at 1:31 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: (January 15, 2016 at 12:37 pm)AAA Wrote: There is plenty of evidence for ID, but that is not the same as PROVING the identity of the designer. I could sit back and wait for proof on anything, but the fact is you can prove very little scientifically.
Prove to me right now that the sun will still be there tomorrow.
You know what, I keep telling people that there is tons of evidence that I am the greatest lover ever, but for some reason people just wont believe me.
Dicks the lot of em.
The evidence comes from the genetic code, RNA, proteins, and the way the three interact. All are useless without the other. It is statistically impossible for these to all arrange themselves independently of each other, at the same place, at the same time, in a way that allows them to interact with each other. You will all respond with "Oh, well you just have to wait for a naturalistic explanation before you can accept that intelligence played a role." yet we already know that intelligence is capable of producing these types of systems. So why is it illogical to say it was likely designed?
Posts: 67172
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
162
RE: Intelligent Design
January 15, 2016 at 2:01 pm
(This post was last modified: January 15, 2016 at 2:02 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
It's also the method, in concert with mutation, by which speciation is achieved. That's what's meant by "modern synthesis", colloquially known to you as "the theory of evolution". Not exactly alot of room leftover for magic there, I'm afraid.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 624
Threads: 1
Joined: December 4, 2015
Reputation:
1
RE: Intelligent Design
January 15, 2016 at 2:09 pm
(January 15, 2016 at 1:48 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote: (January 15, 2016 at 12:04 pm)AAA Wrote: No, you've got it backwards. It's 1. evidence points to it being designed, 2. If it truly was designed, it is a brilliant design with incredible mechanisms 3. the designer must be smart
No proof here that a designer had anything to do with life, only that if a designer was involved, it would have been smarter than you. Which is profoundly challenging to ponder...
Show us the evidence, if you have some - your unintelligent assertions aren't getting you anywhere, and they never will!
Now why, for the thousandth time, would a designer waste billions of years on what appears to be nature taking its course over the same span? Stop being such a wuss on answering that question too!
I have pointed out the structures within the cell that we can only see produced from a designing intelligence. Repressor proteins, neurotransmitters, the need for proteins to produce other proteins. Proteins that move mRNA around in the cell, lysozomes, all the enzymes needed to metabolize nutrients. Helicases to unwind the DNA, telomeres to keep germline DNA from degrading. The outer membrane of the female egg that prevents further sperm from entering it after one fertilizes it to prevent polyploidy, which is detrimental to our function. Epigenetic factors influencing the shape of mRNA in a way that allows the same DNA sequence to produce variations of proteins. You can sit back and say it all evolved, but you would need thousands of mutations in order with the correct sequence of bases. And mutation events are very rare. Why does it seem like the universe is billions of years old? I don't think that is even close to the amount of time you would need to evolve everything we see.
|
