Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Who designed the ID designer(s)?
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 306 of 396 (621064)
06-23-2011 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 300 by Portillo
06-08-2011 2:53 AM


Re: Faith Or Evidence?
Are you asking me why I believe that God exists? I dont think its possible to explain in one message why I believe because believing in God isnt something that happens overnight, at least not for me. It is a long spiritual journey. But I do believe it is based on the evidence around me, such as a strong sense of place within a cosmos that radiates the glory of God and displays a divine structure.
So that boils down to a hunch, then?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 300 by Portillo, posted 06-08-2011 2:53 AM Portillo has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 316 of 396 (621822)
06-29-2011 5:44 AM
Reply to: Message 312 by Chuck77
06-29-2011 3:25 AM


Re: A form of faith
So what if it takes faith to agree with ID,
If it takes faith then it is not science. This is a science thread (as Percy pointed out up thread).
If you need to invoke faith what does that tell you about the scientific validity of I.D. being under the aegis of the scientific method?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 312 by Chuck77, posted 06-29-2011 3:25 AM Chuck77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 317 by Chuck77, posted 06-29-2011 6:51 AM Larni has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 322 of 396 (621861)
06-29-2011 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 317 by Chuck77
06-29-2011 6:51 AM


Danger Will Robinson! Faith in a science forum!
No, you seem to be the one who is confused.
RAZD is asking for scientific evidence as he posted it in the science forum.
You provided non-scientifc evidence i.e. faith.
That was my point.
Make sense?
Edited by Larni, : Make sense?
Snappy title.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 317 by Chuck77, posted 06-29-2011 6:51 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 380 of 396 (648906)
01-19-2012 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 379 by Energy
01-19-2012 10:12 AM


Re: What happened before that?
So, the answer to a question does not need to be explained in itself to be acceptable. Nor does it need to be simpler.
No.
What Taq seems to be saying is that initial conditions of the universe are not required to be known to understand how atoms and molecules interact.
It's a bit like understanding ToE does not need an understanding of abiogenesis.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 379 by Energy, posted 01-19-2012 10:12 AM Energy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 381 by Energy, posted 01-19-2012 10:33 AM Larni has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 382 of 396 (648908)
01-19-2012 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 381 by Energy
01-19-2012 10:33 AM


Re: What happened before that?
Basically.
Water is going to boil at 100C stp: we know that at that temperature the molecules break apart becuase the covalent and hydrogen bonds cannot be maintained.
We do not need to know where the atoms ultimately originated from.
Oh, and welcome to EvC!

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 381 by Energy, posted 01-19-2012 10:33 AM Energy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 383 by Energy, posted 01-19-2012 11:01 AM Larni has not replied
 Message 384 by NoNukes, posted 01-19-2012 1:48 PM Larni has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 385 of 396 (648965)
01-19-2012 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 384 by NoNukes
01-19-2012 1:48 PM


Re: What happened before that?
Covalent bonds breaking when water boils? Surely not.
Well I thought they did. That's what I remember from school.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 384 by NoNukes, posted 01-19-2012 1:48 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 386 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-19-2012 4:35 PM Larni has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 390 of 396 (649004)
01-19-2012 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 386 by New Cat's Eye
01-19-2012 4:35 PM


Re: What happened before that?
D'oh!

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 386 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-19-2012 4:35 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 394 of 396 (649080)
01-20-2012 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 393 by Taq
01-20-2012 11:15 AM


Re: answers to find depend on the question asked
Perhaps you could tell us how they are different?
It would be possible to decsribed the compression of the snow without making direct reference to it being a human foot.
But I guess that would be asking 'what compressed the snow?'
Rather than 'what made that foot print?'
The second case we assume it is a footprint rather than anything else.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 393 by Taq, posted 01-20-2012 11:15 AM Taq has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024