DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[The Grand Nudger]

The cultist defends his false prophet in a thread devoted to the rejection of the lords work, lol. Delicious.

[Pat Mustard]

We are debating it right now.

Again with the lies. You are not debating anything, you are simply repeating long debunked lies and we are laughing at you.

Have you no sense of shame to complement your long displayed lack of a sense of right and wrong?

PS for somebody who so loudly and lyingly proclaims himself an oec, you're rather fond of quoting yec Stephen C Meyer. Not alone are you a compulsive liar, you're a bad one.

[Gwaithmir]

---

Citations needed.

Common ancestry is a proven fact. The evidence is overwhelming. Get an education!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_descent

Read Darwin's Doubt by Dr. Stephen Meyer.

---

I have read it and I am not impressed. Darwin's Doubt is nothing more than a lame attempt at reintroducing the concept of Intelligent Design, a dubious hypothesis that has been thoroughly debunked years ago.

https://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/13-08-07/

Kindly cite even one scientific paper Meyer wrote on The Cambrian Explosion that has successfully passed legitimate peer review.

[The Valkyrie]

"Design" isn't a theory.

It's a claim with no scientific merit.

According to you. According to some brilliant scientists it's a theory.

---

 I'm sorry. I can't grok your reply.

Could you try again?

Could you please offer something more than just Mr Myer or a x-tian web link?

Cheers.

Not at work.

He's one of the best of them.

"Brilliant" must have a different meaning where you're from.

[Peebothuhlu]

According to you. According to some brilliant scientists it's a theory.

---

He's one of the best of them.

"Brilliant" must have a different meaning where you're from.

 Indeed.

That's what I'm asking for CDF47. DO you have any others?

Or are you just going to keep trotting out the same persons time after time.

Which is becoming boring because even in this thread their claims have been shown to wrong of spurios mulitple times already.

Not at work.

[Amarok]

According to you. According to some brilliant scientists it's a theory.

Their not brilliant and no ID does not qualify as a theory in any way shape or form at it's charitable it's hypothesis if even that .

[fredd bear]

According to you. According to some brilliant scientists it's a theory.

Their not brilliant and no ID does not qualify as a theory in any way shape or form at it's charitable it's hypothesis if even that .


Minor problem: a LOT of theists I've spoken to and seem to think that the word "theory" used in science, is a synonym for" "hypothesis"

Evolution is a scientific theory .

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.[1][2] In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.[3]

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



Intelligent design is an hypothesis ,or proposition. It's based on the old chestnut of the "The Watchmaker's Analogy", rather than on scientific method.

Below are two points of view, that of a Christian apologist, and one from a philosopher


---the watchmaker argument, as formulated by the British Christian apologist William Paley in his book Natural Theology, goes like this:

“In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer I had before given, that for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there. ... There must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers, who formed [the watch] for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use ... Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater or more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation.”

The point that Paley was trying to make is that a watch implies a watchmaker, and that the world is like a watch, in that the world implies a worldmaker. Obviously, there are many flaws to this analogy (the world isn’t even remotely comparable to a watch, for example), and in fact, Scottish philosopher David Hume pretty much demolished the teleological argument before Paley was even born in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. Read it if you are looking for a wild time on a Saturday night.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-a-s...30878.html

[Pat Mustard]

Minor problem: a LOT of theists I've spoken to and seem to think that the word "theory" used in science, is a synonym for" "hypothesis"

Evolution is a scientific theory .

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.[1][2] In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.[3]

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



Intelligent design is an hypothesis ,or proposition. It's based on the old chestnut of the "The Watchmaker's Analogy", rather than on scientific method.

Below are two points of view, that of a Christian apologist, and one from a philosopher


---the watchmaker argument, as formulated by the British Christian apologist William Paley in his book Natural Theology, goes like this

<Quote lost in the reply process>

Problem with cretinism is that it's not even a hypothesis. Hypotheses in science generally are made to explain known phenomena and agree with known facts. Cretinism on the other hand hasn't agreed with the known facts for at least 1,000 years and is used specifically to project an idea which contracts the facts and ignores the phenomena it tries to explain.

At the very best cretinism can be described as a conjecture, and I'm being very generous with that description. Bovine excrement would be more accurate.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Minor problem: a LOT of theists I've spoken to and seem to think that the word "theory" used in science, is a synonym for" "hypothesis"

Evolution is a scientific theory .

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.[1][2] In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.[3]

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



Intelligent design is an hypothesis ,or proposition. It's based on the old chestnut of the "The Watchmaker's Analogy", rather than on scientific method.

Below are two points of view, that of a Christian apologist, and one from a philosopher


---the watchmaker argument, as formulated by the British Christian apologist William Paley in his book Natural Theology, goes like this

<Quote lost in the reply process>

Problem with cretinism is that it's not even a hypothesis.  Hypotheses in science generally are made to explain known phenomena and agree with known facts.  Cretinism on the other hand hasn't agreed with the known facts for at least 1,000 years and is used specifically to project an idea which contracts the facts and ignores the phenomena it tries to explain.

At the very best cretinism can be described as a conjecture, and I'm being very generous with that description.  Bovine excrement would be more accurate.

I spent the best part of my formative years dealing with bovine excrement and found it MUCH more rewarding that dealing with creationists.

Boru

[Gwaithmir]

The biggest problem with CDF47 is that you'd have to educate him before you could have a legitimate argument with him.