Intelligent Design

[The Grand Nudger]

-just as we've observed speciation.  So whats the problem?  

It's not an issue of convincing me (I'm actually pretty easy to convince, btw, what with not having any sacred cows to maintain).  The reason I'm not a christian has nothing to do with my inability to believe in your god, or whether or not your god is, in fact, real.

But you just said that even if God himself approached you, you would not believe, so I think you are admitting that nothing could convince you.

No, Trips...I didn't...I said that I still wouldn't be a christian. I want you to understand this, because you seem to think that people have been disagreeing with you because they don't believe, or because they don't want to believe. Because of some uncomfortable conclusion they wish to avoid. I truly and frankly do not give a shit. Were your god were real, fine...I'm still not a christian and those facts to which you've been made aware are still no less true. If god "created" us..evolution is how he did it.

I disagree with you on point of facts because you are plainly and demonstrably wrong, not because I -need- to. Understand?

[Cyberman]

I guess you don't have to believe anything just on a claim, but I personally don't think it is a good life philosophy to require evidence for everything. If someone you know tells you they got a new TV, would you demand to go to their house before you would believe them?

Tell me you rode a horse yesterday and I'll believe you without question, even if it turns out you're lying.

Tell me you rode a zebra and I'd like to see the photos or video, but it's not beyond possibility.

Tell me you rode a unicorn - well now, you're going to have to pull something really special out of the bag before I can even consider taking you seriously.

Insinuating that you either believe every claim without evidence or reject every claim without evidence is ridiculous. People are not binary.

[The Valkyrie]

But you just said that even if God himself approached you, you would not believe, so I think you are admitting that nothing could convince you.

No, Trips...I didn't...I said that I still wouldn't be a christian.  I want you to understand this, because you seem to think that people have been disagreeing with you because they don't believe, or because they don't want to believe.  Because of some uncomfortable conclusion they wish to avoid.  I truly and frankly do not give a shit.  Were your god were real, fine...I'm still not a christian and those facts to which you've been made aware are still no less true.  If god "created" us..evolution is how he did it.  

I disagree with you on point of facts because you are plainly and demonstrably wrong, not because I -need- to.  Understand?

This.

I have said before, many times, that if the Abrahamic god was proven to exist I would believe but not worship it.

This being, as depicted in it own "holy" book, is hideously evil.

[AAA]

It's not an argument from ignorance. I think you got to this thread late, but this has been covered a lot. It's not "We don't know, therefore God", it's "We do know how it works, and it functions like things that we only see paralleled (although not nearly rivaled) by things designed from humans" Therefore maybe it requires intelligence to exist.

Yes, argument from analogy. Just as bad as argument from ignorance.

So, when have you eliminated all possible natural explanations? What peer reviewed journal is your paper published?

Why haven't the majority of biologists been swayed by your oh so convincing arguments?

Face it, you already had your conclusion, and you are constantly forcing the evidence to fit.

Do we have to eliminate every possibility except design before we can accept a designer to account for the design?

[The Valkyrie]

I guess you don't have to believe anything just on a claim, but I personally don't think it is a good life philosophy to require evidence for everything. If someone you know tells you they got a new TV, would you demand to go to their house before you would believe them?

Tell me you rode a horse yesterday and I'll believe you without question, even if it turns out you're lying.

Tell me you rode a zebra and I'd like to see the photos or video, but it's not beyond possibility.

Tell me you rode a unicorn - well now, you're going to have to pull something really special out of the bag before I can even consider taking you seriously.

Insinuating that you either believe every claim without evidence or reject every claim without evidence is ridiculous. People are not binary.

Do you have something against gay, sparkly horses and their owners?

[Cyberman]

Hey - there's only room for one prophet around here! Work the other side of the street!

In fact, I don't see any value in asking - let alone "demanding" - proof (or even evidence - learn the difference) for unfalsifiable things. I was just going to point out that positing a less-credible and unprovable explanation than rather more mundane yet plausible ones isn't a particularly tenable approach to discerning reality, that's all. Basically, when you hear hoofbeats, first eliminate horses (not literally, in a weird Equus kind of way) before concluding unicorns.

Right, but what happens in instances where you eliminate every known hooved animal? You then have to start to think outside the box, and suppose it may be explained by something we have not yet seen. But yes, I agree we should turn known causes before we turn to things that we don't know can cause it.

Indeed, but since we haven't yet eliminated every mundane explanation in the case of god claims, nor even come anywhere close to it, there's no reason yet to explore beyond the box. Or put another way, the box of explanatory causes is, to date, sufficiently large.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yes, argument from analogy. Just as bad as argument from ignorance.

So, when have you eliminated all possible natural explanations? What peer reviewed journal is your paper published?

Why haven't the majority of biologists been swayed by your oh so convincing arguments?

Face it, you already had your conclusion, and you are constantly forcing the evidence to fit.

Do we have to eliminate every possibility except design before we can accept a  [extra dimensional, un-evidenced and magical] designer to account for the design?

B-Brackets are mine.

Yes, yes we do. Particularly in that if you absolutely -have- to call life designed...there is a decidedly more mundane force which can accomplish that...and it is described in the theory of evolution, not only described..but demonstrable and in-evidence.

Now, my previous comments, I want some acknowledgement, do you understand?

[Cyberman]

Do you have something against gay, sparkly horses and their owners?

Yes - a target with a lovely big red bullseye.

[AAA]

I guess you don't have to believe anything just on a claim, but I personally don't think it is a good life philosophy to require evidence for everything. If someone you know tells you they got a new TV, would you demand to go to their house before you would believe them?

Tell me you rode a horse yesterday and I'll believe you without question, even if it turns out you're lying.

Tell me you rode a zebra and I'd like to see the photos or video, but it's not beyond possibility.

Tell me you rode a unicorn - well now, you're going to have to pull something really special out of the bag before I can even consider taking you seriously.

Insinuating that you either believe every claim without evidence or reject every claim without evidence is ridiculous. People are not binary.

I didn't mean to convey that, but Beccs made it sound like we should not accept ANY claim unless it's accompanied with evidence. I was just pointing out that this was not a good life philosophy.

[Cyberman]

Indeed, it wouldn't be. Good thing there likely aren't many espousing it round here.