Quote:Where have you seen the terms "functional" and "operational" in ID literature?

Everywhere

(April 25, 2019 at 3:10 pm)CDF47 Wrote: Dr. Meyer is not a crack pot.  He is a brilliant scientist.

House!



Well maybe not a full house but there aren't many boxes unticked.

(April 25, 2019 at 3:03 pm)CDF47 Wrote:

(April 25, 2019 at 5:08 am)Fake Messiah Wrote: Then why is so called creation so badly designed? Why do we have testicles that are so vulnerable to outside forces? Why are eyes so poorly designed? So many people must wear glasses and even those that don't have things like blind spots. Why is human throat so badly designed that we easily choke? Why can't we produce vitamin C like cats and get scurvy? Why is human immune system so badly designed that people get attacked by their immune system?  Why are there so many genetic diseases like diabetes or simply deformed organs? Why is human back so badly designed for upright posture that we get back pain? So why are these and other features so poorly designed, even when there are easy ways to make them better? One would think that an intelligent designer could do better.

We live in a fallen Earth.  It is explained in the Bible.  The intent of this design is not perfection.  We are designed to live, decay, and die and on to everlasting life.

So there's proof of intelligent design except when there isn't because God messed up DNA because a woman ate from a wrong tree.

This obviously is not a discussion but preaching. There really is no reason for me to take stories from the Bible or any other magic book for granted.

Quote: We live in a fallen Earth.  It is explained in the Bible.  The intent of this design is not perfection.  We are designed to live, decay, and die and on to everlasting life.

In other words an nonsensical Ad hoc non answer

---

Quote:Dr. Meyer is not a crack pot

Yes he is 

Quote:.  He is a brilliant scientist

No he isn't

Steven C Meyer

"Stephen C. Meyer (born 1958), a philosopher of science, advocates for intelligent design. He helped found the Center for Science and Culture (CSC) of the Discovery Institute (DI), which is the main organisation behind the intelligent-design movement.

Meyer has written:
Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design (2009)
Darwin's Doubt: the Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design (2013), "a masterwork of pseudoscience"[1]
Doctor Meyer has absolutely no qualifications in biology; he does hold a Bachelor of Science in geology and physics, but his Ph.D is in the philosophy of science which has no relevance to evolutionary biology.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Stephen_C._Meyer

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/inters...MMOimhKiM8


More of Stephen Meyer's Bad History of Science :

https://evolutionnews.org/2016/03/as_richard_dawk/
As Richard Dawkins Takes on Stephen Meyer, Other Scientists Join the Melee over “Random” Evolution

https://www.skepticblog.org/2013/08/28/s...n-follies/
STEPHEN MEYER’S FUMBLING BUMBLING AMATEUR CAMBRIAN FOLLIES

Steven Meyer is a complete idiot, and is not even qualified to say anything on the subject.

That's a pro for creationists, not a con.

The trouble is that they very much don't like what intelligent people qualified to speak on the subject have to say. If you view this in the light of service fulfillment (rather than some misbegotten scientific inquiry) alot of the things that seem wtf out there about creationism resolve to something approaching sense. CDF, for example, is chiefly concerned with not being a monkey. That carries some unspecified baggage, to his mind. Creationism and/or ID offers no insight on human origins, no information on the nuts and bolts of the process that lead to our development. In point of fact it asserts that we could not have developed at all. This satisfies his desires as a consumer of religious products and services. Are there religious products and services that include modern synth as a fact? OFC there are, but their target demo isn't a person like CDF, and because of this one basic fact of who he is, it's not surprising that he chooses intelligent design despite there being many other relatively more factual offerings equally available to him.

(April 23, 2019 at 10:08 pm)CDF47 Wrote:

(April 23, 2019 at 9:57 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: The first and best lies we tell are the ones we tell ourselves.  

You didn't reason your way to belief if the process involved anything you've mentioned in all of these many pages.  Why engage in this little charade to begin with, though?  You and I both know that's not how you came to your beliefs - and that's okay-...just as you and I both know that you very much do take issue with the notion that you're an evolved ape.  

IMO, you need to work more on being comfortable and honest with your faith and less on rationalizing it to atheists and yourself ad hoc.  

"Magic book says".  

IDK what use it would be to point to what "science states", when scientists get things wrong all the time.  Science also states that magic book was comically wrong about space, the stars, and our origins.  Pick a lane.

I am not an evolved ape. 

In fact you are still an ape.

The branch Hominidae of which we are part is classified as a kind of ape.

Quote:The [b]Hominidae[/b] (/hɒˈmɪnɪdiː/), whose members are known as [b]great apes[/b][note 1] or [b]hominids[/b], are a taxonomic family of primates that includes eight extant species in four genera: [i]Pongo[/i], the Bornean, Sumatran and Tapanuli orangutan; [i]Gorilla[/i], the eastern and western gorilla; [i]Pan[/i], the common chimpanzee and the bonobo; and [i]Homo[/i], which includes modern humans and their extinct relatives (e.g., the Neanderthal), and ancestors, such as [i]Homo erectus[/i].[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae

(April 26, 2019 at 10:04 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: That's a pro for creationists, not a con.

The trouble is that they very much don't like what intelligent people qualified to speak on the subject have to say.  If you view this in the light of service fulfillment (rather than some misbegotten scientific inquiry) alot of the things that seem wtf out there about creationism resolve to something approaching sense.  CDF, for example, is chiefly concerned with not being a monkey.  That carries some unspecified baggage, to his mind.  Creationism and/or ID offers no insight on human origins, no information on the nuts and bolts of the process that lead to our development.  In point of fact it asserts that we could not have developed at all.  This satisfies his desires as a consumer of religious products and services.  Are there religious products and services that include modern synth as a fact?  OFC there are, but their target demo isn't a person like CDF, and because of this one basic fact of who he is, it's not surprising that he chooses intelligent design despite there being many other relatively more factual offerings equally available to him.

And the worst thing is: Mr Inquisition's not a monkey anyway, 'e's an Ape!

Now, this is a monkey:

(April 26, 2019 at 3:38 pm)Nomad Wrote: Now, this is a monkey:

We need a thread about this!

Ahhh Pigsy.

(April 26, 2019 at 3:38 pm)Nomad Wrote: And the worst thing is:  Mr Inquisition's not a monkey anyway, 'e's an Ape!

Creationists are as murky on the difference between monkeys and apes as they are on the details of modern synth.  After all, understanding what separates the two is reading a description of their taxonomic family..and they aint that, member?

Personally, I'll just run with the natural response to "I aint one a them thur monkeys" - Yeah, you are...maybe just a little more than the rest of us, even.