Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: June 16, 2024, 9:06 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Intelligent Design
RE: Intelligent Design
(January 14, 2016 at 12:23 pm)Stimbo Wrote:
(January 13, 2016 at 7:55 pm)AAA Wrote: I actually think the exact opposite.

Quelle surprise.

Way to ignore what I meant by opposite when I explained it afterwords. There are plenty of religious scientists who don't think it's too complicated and we just accept God.
Reply
RE: Intelligent Design
(January 14, 2016 at 1:12 pm)AAA Wrote:
(January 14, 2016 at 12:21 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Right; then it should leave evidence that can only point, unambiguously, to itself.

How so? a 3 dimensional being claiming to be a part of a higher being doesn't sound familiar?
How do you know I'm not a being from a higher dimension?
Burden of proof.
I'm supposed to prove my claim.

This 3 dimensional being you talk about, has it proven it's claim, it so, how?
Reply
RE: Intelligent Design
(January 14, 2016 at 12:52 pm)AAA Wrote:
(January 14, 2016 at 11:56 am)Stimbo Wrote: You don't make a case for your own position by pointing at the limitations if the opposition, even if they are genuine limitations anyway - which is something else that's only been declared and not demonstrated.

So I ask again: how would you set about testing for this designer of yours?

That's exactly how you compare competing hypothesis. We know that a designer could explain the specified sequence. We don't know that mutation could explain it. You can't demonstrate either in a lab because they both rely on a special, non-repeatable event. Laboratory science can't study historical events

Then in that case nobody has any reliable historical records.

All historical field studies defer to lab analysis for authenticity testing and date validation (got that from the school of James Michener Smile ).
Mr. Hanky loves you!
Reply
RE: Intelligent Design
(January 14, 2016 at 12:52 pm)AAA Wrote:
(January 14, 2016 at 11:56 am)Stimbo Wrote: You don't make a case for your own position by pointing at the limitations if the opposition, even if they are genuine limitations anyway - which is something else that's only been declared and not demonstrated.

So I ask again: how would you set about testing for this designer of yours?

That's exactly how you compare competing hypothesis. We know that a designer could explain the specified sequence. We don't know that mutation could explain it. You can't demonstrate either in a lab because they both rely on a special, non-repeatable event. Laboratory science can't study historical events

Ok, so let's go with the idea that, as you put it, "a designer could explain the specified sequence". Now how would you set about demonstrating that? By what means would you eliminate ambiguity, to be as sure as possible that your hypothesis is representative of reality?
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist.  This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair.  Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second.  That means there's a situation vacant.'
Reply
RE: Intelligent Design
(January 14, 2016 at 1:10 pm)AAA Wrote:
(January 14, 2016 at 12:02 pm)Stimbo Wrote: I agree, which is why I said the jury's still out. If Krasnopolsky and his colleagues are correct, the absence of areological activity doesn't really leave many alternative options other than microbial. This is what following the evidence means in this instance:

Step 1. Observation: methane on Mars
Step 2. Hypothesis: possible presence of microbial life
Step 3. Test hypothesis against observation to eliminate possibilities
Step 4. Revise or abandon hypothesis in the event of falsification
We have methane coming from vents underwater here on earth, and we know that mars has water, and used to have a lot more. Again it is just a carbon atom bonded to four hydrogen atoms. molecules more complex than that arise abiotically. I think that saying life is the only cause is premature. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

I agree and I have already said that. Nobody is saying that life is the only explanation for the observation; that's why they're looking.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist.  This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair.  Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second.  That means there's a situation vacant.'
Reply
RE: Intelligent Design
(January 14, 2016 at 1:12 pm)AAA Wrote:
(January 14, 2016 at 12:21 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Right; then it should leave evidence that can only point, unambiguously, to itself.

How so? a 3 dimensional being claiming to be a part of a higher being doesn't sound familiar?

Then how can you know it's even there?
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist.  This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair.  Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second.  That means there's a situation vacant.'
Reply
RE: Intelligent Design
A human is a four dimensional object.
I am John Cena's hip-hop album.
Reply
RE: Intelligent Design
Good point.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist.  This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair.  Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second.  That means there's a situation vacant.'
Reply
RE: Intelligent Design
Maybe I should have mentioned that earlier, would've saved the presuppositionalist a lot of typing. He just seemed to be enjoying himself so.
I am John Cena's hip-hop album.
Reply
RE: Intelligent Design
(January 14, 2016 at 1:12 pm)AAA Wrote:
(January 14, 2016 at 12:21 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Right; then it should leave evidence that can only point, unambiguously, to itself.

How so? a 3 dimensional being claiming to be a part of a higher being doesn't sound familiar?

Which one?

Hundreds, if not thousands of people have claimed to be the son or daughter or direct incarnation of various gods.  Should we believe them all on the merits of their claims?

Playing Cluedo with my mum while I was at Uni:

"You did WHAT?  With WHO?  WHERE???"
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Signature in the Cell: DNA as Evidence for Design, beside Nature's Laws/Fine-Tuning. Nishant Xavier 54 3087 July 8, 2023 at 8:23 am
Last Post: Fake Messiah
  On Unbelief III. Deconstructing Arguments From Design Mudhammam 10 4136 December 24, 2014 at 5:20 pm
Last Post: dyresand
  [Video] What if I'm wrong about a intelligent designer? Secular Atheist 1 1216 September 28, 2014 at 6:26 pm
Last Post: ShaMan
  Dawkins' Necker Cube, Physical Determinism, Cosmic Design, and Human Intelligence Mudhammam 0 1697 August 28, 2014 at 3:27 pm
Last Post: Mudhammam
  Is "discourse of the mind" evidence of design? Mudhammam 36 6481 July 14, 2014 at 2:53 pm
Last Post: Angrboda
  Intelligent Design: Did you design yourself? Artur Axmann 244 49955 June 8, 2014 at 10:24 pm
Last Post: Chard
  Does intelligent design explain why... Unsure 23 8298 June 2, 2014 at 7:39 pm
Last Post: Losty
  Intelligent Design: Did you design your intelligent designer? Whateverist 6 2369 June 2, 2014 at 1:33 pm
Last Post: Cato
  Atheists aren't always intelligent or reasonable or rational TaraJo 16 6683 December 15, 2012 at 8:42 am
Last Post: Brian37
  YouTube: 5 Questions Every Intelligent Atheist MUST Answer Mr Camel 18 10329 August 5, 2010 at 1:55 am
Last Post: SleepingDemon



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)