Intelligent Design

[AAA]

What could I do to convince you? It really wouldn't matter to me if you believed it or not if I didn't feel like I'm being dismissed as a liar by nearly everyone on this thread. It's like these people are just shocked out of their mind that someone who studies biology would disagree with a particular scientific theory, not realizing that there are disputes constantly among people who study science.

It's simple: UNDERSTAND SCIENCE.

I understand science better than you guaranteed. At least biology and chemistry. You don't understand science if you think that people with disagreements among how to interpret scientific evidence are not scientific people. If I disagree with string theory, can I not be a physicist? Disagreements among people who study science is how scientific views are critiqued, revised, and improved. If everyone who disagrees with the current consensus is not a scientist, then Isaac Newton wasn't a scientist. Neither was Galileo, Lyell, Copernicus, Einstein, or even Darwin. YOU don't understand science if you think that you must agree with the scientific consensus to study science.

[Silver]

I understand science better than you guaranteed. At least biology and chemistry. You don't understand science if you think that people with disagreements among how to interpret scientific evidence are not scientific people. If I disagree with string theory, can I not be a physicist? Disagreements among people who study science is how scientific views are critiqued, revised, and improved. If everyone who disagrees with the current consensus is not a scientist, then Isaac Newton wasn't a scientist. Neither was Galileo, Lyell, Copernicus, Einstein, or even Darwin. YOU don't understand science if you think that you must agree with the scientific consensus to study science.

You are not having a disagreement with science. Rather, you are presenting an argument that has no place in the scientific community.

[AAA]

I think we're actually in agreement that our universe is not eternal, but I'm not sure. Wouldn't something outside of time be exempt from the need of a previous cause? Obviously we can't jump to God from that, but the God of the Bible does claim to be the creator of time and space, and therefore removes himself from the need for a previous cause.

How could anything, like the humanoid god of the bible that possesses a mind with intent and purpose to design and the ability to carry out the creation of the universe, ever possibly be able to exist outside of time and space...?

You want me to explain how something can be outside time? I don't think I have an answer, but there are spacial and temporal dimensions. We 3D creatures can be outside of a 2D spacial realm. In a similar way, something could conceivably be outside of the temporal realm also. Not a great answer, but I don't see why it couldn't.

[AAA]

I understand science better than you guaranteed. At least biology and chemistry. You don't understand science if you think that people with disagreements among how to interpret scientific evidence are not scientific people. If I disagree with string theory, can I not be a physicist? Disagreements among people who study science is how scientific views are critiqued, revised, and improved. If everyone who disagrees with the current consensus is not a scientist, then Isaac Newton wasn't a scientist. Neither was Galileo, Lyell, Copernicus, Einstein, or even Darwin. YOU don't understand science if you think that you must agree with the scientific consensus to study science.

You are not having a disagreement with science.  Rather, you are presenting an argument that has no place in the scientific community.

Why not?

[Silver]

Why not?

Because it is not science.

[AAA]

So, evolution has flaws, but MAGIC makes perfect sense?

Gotcha.  Good luck with that premise in your "scientific" field.

What magic? Is wireless electricity magic? It may seem like it to someone who doesn't understand it. Just because we don't know the mechanism of how it was designed (if we suppose it was) doesn't mean it doesn't have a rational explanation. I believe God is the designer. I also believe that God is understandable (or at least will be).

[Silver]

I also believe that God is understandable (or at least will be).

Except that gods are always eventually categorized as mythology for a very valid reason.

[AAA]

Yet again, Facebook has perfect timing:

I actually think the exact opposite. Humans are a smart species capable of great understanding. I think the answer to the problem is that we are the product of an intelligent designer. Science is the study of the world we live in. Newton (considered the founder of modern science) approached science from the perspective that the world was designed. He believed that it was because it was a designed by a rational being that it could be understood by us. In other words, it's not that we aren't smart enough to figure it out, it is because we are smart that we can understand it.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

So, evolution has flaws, but MAGIC makes perfect sense?

Gotcha.  Good luck with that premise in your "scientific" field.

What magic? Is wireless electricity magic? It may seem like it to someone who doesn't understand it. Just because we don't know the mechanism of how it was designed (if we suppose it was) doesn't mean it doesn't have a rational explanation. I believe God is the designer. I also believe that God is understandable (or at least will be).

LOL, I just love how willing you are to non-sequitor your magic god with actual science when you think it may work! You know as well as any of us what would happen to your god if it ever happened that it was not only discovered to be real in some form, but understood thoroughly as is electricity. That's why your non-so-intelligent design theory requires a god idea, one which is to be forever mysterious, never to be understood by anyone. As NDT said, it's the philosophy of ignorance alright!

[AAA]

Why not?

Because it is not science.

Why not?