Atheism vs. God's Existence

[robvalue]

Well, all my points about the difference between science and pseudo science have been unaddressed.

I wonder if AAA went to discuss this with any of his professors.

Science tests falsifiable hypotheses. Pseudoscience doesn't. That's it in a nutshell. Don't believe me? Go ask a scientist.

Anyone who thinks the theory of evolution has not been established via falsifiable hypotheses understands neither evolution nor science. Scared to find out if I'm right?

[Pat Mustard]

The designer of your car isn't omniscient and omnipotent, dumbass. ID proposes just such a designer.

ID stops at designer, and does not attempt to identify the designer. That goes on to historical, philosophical, and other lines of inquiry other than observable science.

Bullshit and you know it. It has been well establised (cf the Wedge Document Kitzmiller vs Dover &c) that ID is an attempt by YECs to get their christian brand of creatardism, with its 6,000 year old earth, kinds, bariminology, Noah's ark and all the other stupidities, taught in schools as science. ID not only posits an allpowerful and knowing god, it specifies the god and makes him integral to their conjecture.

[Pat Mustard]

You're still on that? Your atheist friends were the ones who were saying that snowflakes have qualities of design. Take it up with the RocketSurgeon, he was the one who kept using the analogy.

No.

Pages back, you asserted that design doesn't require intelligence. I asked for an example of something that is designed sans intelligence, and you asserted "a snowflake", not in relation to what any other member said. I'm asking for your evidence. Your assertion; your BOP.

Why shouldn't I still be "on that"?

Notice how Junk Status picked out a member that recently went on a very public hiatus, too? Very shitty hehaviour from him trying to shift his words onto a member who can't currently reply for themselves.

[Cyberman]

One of the main reasons is that Jesus's resurrection is the only acceptable explanation for the explosion of the early Christian church as many people were reported to have seen him alive afterword.

I can probably find hundreds if not thousands of people that have seen Elvis. Does that mean Elvis is the second christ?

Compare and contrast:

The thousands of witnesses who saw the resurrected Elvis;

The hundreds of witnesses who saw the resurrected John Stonehouse (MP who famously faked his suicide and turned up in Australia years later);

The thousands of witnesses who saw the resurrected Gandalf.

Which of these most closely fits the Jesus story?

[Mister Agenda]

And that's just a complete assertion: "none of it has supported design". Just because you say it doesn't make it so. Molecular biology has revealed processes that we have only ever seen in one place; intelligently designed systems. It isn't based on what we don't know, it is based on what we do know.

Speaking of assertions....

And at most, your claim, even if true, should be reduced to: only ever seen in one other place.

[Mister Agenda]

Of course, the trachea/esophagus thing isn't all that's not quite right with our transition from quadruped to biped. Our ancestors' guts hung downwards, ours need to be supported by muscle, not always reliable, leading to hernias. Our backbones went from an arched horizontal 'pole' great for climbing and moving in trees to an 'S' shape that leaves us prone to backaches and back injuries, because an 'S' isn't a good shape for supporting weight. We have too many bones in our feet, and flexible feet are great for climbers, but make us prone to fallen arches, ankle sprains, Achilles tendonitis, shin splints, and broken ankles. Ostriches have a much better foot design for bipedalism, but then, their ancestors were bipedal many millions of years before ours were.

These folks might just be 'the next step' in human foot evolution, though their reproductive isolation both preserves their unusual feet and prevents the gene from becoming more widespread.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vadoma#Ectrodactyly

[AAA]

The RocketSurgeon had just been talking about how a snowflake has the qualities of the design without a designer, and I don't disagree. Obviously the snowflake was not consciously designed, but was the result of unintelligent natural processes. I'm not trying to argue that the snowflake was designed by an intelligence, so let's get that straight. It has features of design: high degrees of geometric symmetry and irregularity.

Remember, you asked what design doesn't require intelligence, I said a snowflake, and now you seem to be disagreeing. Are you saying that a snowflake does require intelligence? If not, then we are on the same page and I don't see why you are asking me about it.

No, I'm asking for your evidence that it was designed. "Was designed" and "features that look designed" are two different things, and my question is specific to the former.

https://www.google.com/search?q=design+d...e&ie=UTF-8

de·sign
dəˈzīn/Submit
noun
1.
a plan or drawing produced to show the look and function or workings of a building, garment, or other object before it is built or made.
"he has just unveiled his design for the new museum"
synonyms: plan, blueprint, drawing, sketch, outline, map, plot, diagram, draft, representation, scheme, model
"a design for the offices"
2.
purpose, planning, or intention that exists or is thought to exist behind an action, fact, or material object.
"the appearance of design in the universe"
synonyms: intention, aim, purpose, plan, intent, objective, object, goal, end, target; More
verb
1.
decide upon the look and functioning of (a building, garment, or other object), typically by making a detailed drawing of it.
"a number of architectural students were designing a factory"
synonyms: plan, outline, map out, draft, draw More

By definition, design requires intelligence, a plan, intention, thought. Maybe you'd like to try another example of something that is designed but doesn't require intelligence?

It looks like it goes under number two. If you are going to define design as something that requires intelligence, then it is by definition impossible to find an example of design that did not require intelligence.

[AAA]

One of the main reasons is that Jesus's resurrection is the only acceptable explanation for the explosion of the early Christian church as many people were reported to have seen him alive afterword.

I can probably find hundreds if not thousands of people that have seen Elvis.  Does that mean Elvis is the second christ?

It's so clear that you guys really, really, really want to move the conversation toward a theological debate. There are obviously hundreds of people impersonating elvis by dressing and acting like him. Are you suggesting that there were people dressing like Jesus trying to fool people back then?

[AAA]

They would just say that it is an argument from ignorance and ignore it... And yeah, I know it is near impossible to convince a skeptic. 

With an argument that you yourself acknowledge experts in the relevant field would ignore, you bet it's near impossible to convince a skeptic.

Again, you cut out the core of the argument to make it look like I'm saying something different than I said. You really like to quote mine and cherry pick information. While I think most would ignore it, I think that the theory behind why it is acceptable still stands. And why are you so skeptical of design, but not skeptical of evolution? You ought to read a primary article on the evolution of some biological system and see how speculative and non-empirical it is.

[AAA]

ID stops at designer, and does not attempt to identify the designer. That goes on to historical, philosophical, and other lines of inquiry other than observable science.

Bullshit. ID is the creation of believers like yourself. But, if you want to go down tjat road, what is you intelligent design agent? Really, there can be no further meaningful dialog until that is defined.

I think it was the Christian God, but not all ID proponents do. Some even buy into panspermia, and the idea that a higher civilization helped engineer life.