Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Designer Consistent with the Physical Evidence
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 181 of 327 (505873)
04-18-2009 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by Bio-molecularTony
04-18-2009 9:16 PM


Re: Life is a masterfully created illusion
You just can't see so you think I am the blind one.
Nope, I can see just fine.
I can see intelligent design as a subterfuge, a lie, "designed" to sneak creationism back into the schools.
I can see the lack of scientific evidence presented to support intelligent design. The main proponent of ID, the Discovery Institute is staffed with PR flacks and lawyers, not research scientists. They are trying to convince state legislators and school boards, not scientists. They are waging a PR campaign, not a scientific investigation.
And I can see the "designer" as a code-name for the Christian deity. Any other suggestion is sure to meet opposition from those pushing ID, as this is all about religion--and their particular religion--not science.
Nope, Tony, I can see just fine. And I can sniff out dishonesty and junk science just fine too. But thanks for playing.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Bio-molecularTony, posted 04-18-2009 9:16 PM Bio-molecularTony has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by RAZD, posted 04-19-2009 11:06 AM Coyote has not replied

DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 182 of 327 (505875)
04-18-2009 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by Bio-molecularTony
04-18-2009 9:16 PM


Re: Life is a masterfully created illusion
Tony writes:
Coyote writes:
The thread is about intelligent design, supposedly a branch of science.
Why are you interjecting the supernatural into what is otherwise a naturalistic field of study?
Why is it you always think intelligence must be SUPERNATURAL.
If this intelligence that created life is not supernatural than the question must be asked: Where did this intelligent life come from? How did it originate?
Tony writes:
Are all creatures with some level of intelligence now to be called supernatural by "scientists".
If they defy a natural explanation for their existence, YES!
Tony writes:
Why is it you think we can not prove it was intelligently designed, just because you think intelligence must be supernatural and therefore impossible to prove?
You must provide evidence for this "natural" intelligent designer first. Using the guideline of Occams razor/principle of parsimony, it just does not make since to add to the question of how life began by adding the complexity of natural, intelligent design which in itself requires the question to be asked of where and how did this "natural intelligent designer" come into being in the first place. Thus you are just pushing off the question of how life began to now this intelligent designer (this is also the problem with the panspermia hypothesis).
Also, an all-powerful, omni-potent, omniscient being aka a "god", which created all that there is, is not bound by natural phenomena and can capriously defy all natural laws at any time it damn-well feels like it, is by its very definition SUPERNATURAL not NATURAL.
Tony writes:
If you can't identify something intelligently designed then the problem is with you, not with the evidence, or the existence of the creator that designed it.
Can you explain how dirt is intelligently designed? How about a proton? Can you explain how we can tell quarks are intelligently designed? Please enlighten us?
Tony writes:
This all starts with you more then it does with God almighty. If your a complete "X%#@$&*" then all the evidence in the whole universe is meaningless if the hearer can't understand what is being stated.
??? Well your post is then meaningless because I can't understand what the logic is in your rambling, incoherent sentances.
Tony writes:
So proving intelligent design is more an IQ test for you, then it is a problem of lack of evidence.
Incorrect (logical fallacy: burden of proof). The burden of proof lies in the one trying to assert the existence of something (in your case an intelligent designer), not with the one who is not asserting the existance of something. This is a typical theist PRATT as illustrated by the Philosopher and Nobel loriate Bertrand Russell's 'Russel's Teapot' analogy:
Bertrand Russel writes:
If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
Of course Richar Dawkins put's a great spin on Russell's analogy as shown below:
Richard Dawkins writes:
The reason organized religion merits outright hostility is that, unlike belief in Russell’s teapot, religion is powerful, influential, tax-exempt and systematically passed on to children too young to defend themselves. Children are not compelled to spend their formative years memorizing loony books about teapots. Government-subsidized schools don’t exclude children whose parents prefer the wrong shape of teapot. Teapot-believers don’t stone teapot-unbelievers, teapot-apostates, teapot-heretics and teapot-blasphemers to death. Mothers don’t warn their sons off marrying teapot-shiksas whose parents believe in three teapots rather than one. People who put the milk in first don’t kneecap those who put the tea in first.
Tony writes:
If you can't understand the simplicity of the question so as to see the simplicity of the answer right in front of you. Then your the defect as regards logic and not the evidence.
Special pleading, appeal to emotion and appeal to ridicule. Deriding the opposing side does not do anything to bulster your own claim. Only a logically sound argument supported by evidence will help your case.
Tony writes:
Well, of course not all persons have a logical argument, but this is not the case here is it. You just can't see so you think I am the blind one.
LOL. Are you ever going to provide any semblance of evidence to support your case? Please entice us with your vast intellect, I am dying to here more
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Bio-molecularTony, posted 04-18-2009 9:16 PM Bio-molecularTony has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Bio-molecularTony, posted 04-19-2009 9:33 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Bio-molecularTony
Member (Idle past 5378 days)
Posts: 90
Joined: 09-23-2008


Message 183 of 327 (505876)
04-18-2009 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by Phage0070
04-16-2009 10:44 AM


Re: One starts to get a little rattled
Phage0070 writes:
Why would you conclude that those realities are artificial? The way I see it you must do one of two things to conclude a reality is artificial: Either find proof of its creation by another being, or find proof of the true reality. Without one of those things, even if you can describe life as a machine it does not prove that such a machine did not come about naturally.
If you know anything at all about quantum mechanics - you know it is a theory that everything has a reason for existing. If there is weight, then there must be something creating this effect, a particle or something creating the effect of mass.
Based on this thought, we have gravity so there might be a graviton, and so on.
You see, none of these things are normal. There must be some field creating this force and in turn these effects. Nothing is taken for granted anymore. Just as colour does not exist but is the invention of the human minds wiring, which makes colours really artificial because they do not exist in the real world outside the mind.
So it is with life - which it seems real to the mind of the beholder but is proven false by science, as only bio-machinery. So life is artificial in the fact it is only seems real to the human mind of the person doing the thinking and feeling of information senses. The reality is quite different then what the human mind perceives.
Matter is artificial too for there is this optical illusion of it being solid, colourful, hard, etc. Yet the true reality is quite different as well. We are finely tuned to see the world (matter) this way.
So none of this is natural for the true reality is truly different then what we see and what we think it is.
We only get the optical illusion and not the true reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Phage0070, posted 04-16-2009 10:44 AM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Phage0070, posted 04-19-2009 12:25 AM Bio-molecularTony has replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 184 of 327 (505877)
04-19-2009 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by Bio-molecularTony
04-18-2009 11:36 PM


Re: One starts to get a little rattled
Bio-molecularTony writes:
If you know anything at all about quantum mechanics - you know it is a theory that everything has a reason for existing. If there is weight, then there must be something creating this effect, a particle or something creating the effect of mass.
Anything who knows anything about anything knows that things that exist... exist. You are not really saying anything useful here at all but are also simultaneously wrong, an achievement that bears noting. Certain effects (such as mass) are linked to observed phenomenon (such as matter) through observation, and for convenience we say that one "causes" the other. This is not at all the same as saying that one is the *reason* for the other's existence; that would imply a purpose, when all we know is simply that they exist.
Bio-molecularTony writes:
You see, none of these things are normal. There must be some field creating this force and in turn these effects. Nothing is taken for granted anymore.
Where in the world did you get this idea? I cannot see any logical reason to come to this conclusion, especially in the face of overwhelming evidence that the way the universe behaves is, by definition, "normal".
Bio-molecularTony writes:
So it is with life - which it seems real to the mind of the beholder but is proven false by science, as only bio-machinery. So life is artificial in the fact it is only seems real to the human mind of the person doing the thinking and feeling of information senses. The reality is quite different then what the human mind perceives.
This is simply incorrect, on every count. Logically, when we discover the details of human life and describe them then our definition of life should change; there is no way to prove life as "false", only eliminate incorrect concepts about what it truly is. That life is not at all artificial, as it is real and natural as anything can be. Just because it does not conform to the incorrect, magic-based concept of life you came up with in your own head does not mean that reality is artificial.
You are getting things backwards; when you come up with make-believe things, *that* is artificial. You would be wise to get that straight, lest you find yourself in the loony bin.
Bio-molecularTony writes:
Matter is artificial too for there is this optical illusion of it being solid, colourful, hard, etc. Yet the true reality is quite different as well.
You almost have a point here, but you don't. Just because matter may be made up of a complex interaction of tiny, dense nuclei interacting through various different fundamental fields does not mean that a metal bar is not "hard". The way that we perceive and interact with matter is completely valid for our frame of reference; even though an X-ray might interact with a brick wall like it is mostly open space, it does not mean that the wall is "really" any less solid if you tried to walk through it.
Just because our way of seeing things is not always valid for every frame of reference, all the time, everywhere, does not mean that our way of seeing things is incorrect.
Bio-molecularTony writes:
So none of this is natural for the true reality is truly different then what we see and what we think it is.
We only get the optical illusion and not the true reality.
True reality is exactly the way we see it, from where we see it. Imagine if you looked at the north side of a barn and saw that it was painted red. You might think "Oh, the barn is red. That is nice to know," and move on. If, however, you walked around to the east side of the barn and saw that it was painted yellow would you conclude "Oh my GOSH, the barn is an illusion! Everyone just sees a red barn, when the truth is hidden away that it is *really* a yellow barn!"? How about if the southern side of the barn was blue, what color is the barn in truth?
You see, reality is like the barn analogy because it isn't an either/or issue. Reality can be reconciled into a single cohesive idea; just like you can understand a barn having multiple colors in different circumstances, we can understand that while on a subatomic level we look at matter one way it does not mean that the way we see matter in our daily lives is any less valid.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Bio-molecularTony, posted 04-18-2009 11:36 PM Bio-molecularTony has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Bio-molecularTony, posted 04-20-2009 11:07 PM Phage0070 has replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 185 of 327 (505880)
04-19-2009 1:26 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by Bio-molecularTony
04-15-2009 11:11 PM


Re: Life is a masterfully created look real - illusion
To say that life resembles a machine is like saying the Mona Lisa resembles a painting seen at an art exhibit of your local high school. One would only say it to denigrate that great work of art. Many machines resemble the gross mechanical solutions that life has employed to propagate itself. But that's not the scale at which life emerges. That occurs at the sub-cellular level where it looks nothing like a machine. It looks like chemistry. That's because it is. No magic just physics.
Life is not an illusion. Neither is the solidity of objects. The only illusion is your too high expectation of understanding without an effort greater then you own musings.

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Bio-molecularTony, posted 04-15-2009 11:11 PM Bio-molecularTony has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 186 of 327 (505883)
04-19-2009 4:39 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by Bio-molecularTony
04-18-2009 9:16 PM


Re: Life is a masterfully created illusion
Bio-molecularTony writes:
Coyote writes:
The thread is about intelligent design, supposedly a branch of science.
Why are you interjecting the supernatural into what is otherwise a naturalistic field of study?
Why is it you always think intelligence must be SUPERNATURAL.
Coyote was only responding to your introduction of the supernatural back in your Message 167:
Bio-molecularTony in Message 167 writes:
The thread is about the creator...
Coyote was just responding to your supernatural claim.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Bio-molecularTony, posted 04-18-2009 9:16 PM Bio-molecularTony has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 187 of 327 (505894)
04-19-2009 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by Coyote
04-18-2009 9:29 PM


subterfuges and other intended results
I can see intelligent design as a subterfuge, a lie, "designed" to sneak creationism back into the schools.
That is the original purpose. A secondary purpose is that people, possibly Tony included, are hoodwinked into thinking there is a serious program to investigate the idea/s scientifically, because it has to be scientific if it is going to get into science class. These are people who don't know it is a subterfuge, and believe the core proponents are honestly pursuing science, rather than just more apologetics.
Of course an unintended result could be that people actually start doing science, and discover that the concepts don't measure up.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Coyote, posted 04-18-2009 9:29 PM Coyote has not replied

Bio-molecularTony
Member (Idle past 5378 days)
Posts: 90
Joined: 09-23-2008


Message 188 of 327 (505897)
04-19-2009 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by onifre
04-17-2009 1:37 PM


now we’re stuck knowing too much for our own good.
onifre writes:
So, if, like you suggest, we are designed and built, we, like machines, would, by definition, not be alive. Nature itself would simply be a functioning program and would not really exist. Nothing would be real in any sense, sort of like The Matrix, and our relationship to this "creator" would be irrelevant.
Yes at first it might cross ones mind that all becomes meaningless but that is not the case. For one, man really wouldn't have found out how he was made it Adam and Eve were still in the garden. Man might not have dug so deep into science because the need was never there to care. So if we never did find out, then it would never disturb us, ever. But someone just had to ask and someone just had to find the answer and now we’re stuck knowing too much for our own good.
God must regret that we came to this point of knowing this much, but it does prove there is a creator of superior intelligence.
So thinking God might now be irrelevant can not change our everyday reality. I still must living be the rules, stop when the cop says stop. Still love my wife, say hi to the neighbours, and still call the parents to see if their doing ok.
I still go to "church" and I still "pray" / Talk to my loving heavenly Father (God) and thank him for the "life" I am blessed to have. My prospective and word definitions have changed quite a bit, but I still must go to work, pay the bills, and gas up the car.
I may be stuck in this artificial created reality but it's not so bad. I enjoy "life" and this artificial "life" is just like the real thing, except that real life might not be possible and this is as good as it gets.
So the question keeps coming up - what is life? Can life truly exist if it is not normal to exist or must an artificial form be created to simulate what can not exist in "nature /reality".
So are we just simulated forms of un-nature entities, impossible realities, just an artificial creation of someone’s great imagination of things that can not truly exist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by onifre, posted 04-17-2009 1:37 PM onifre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by Percy, posted 04-19-2009 8:04 PM Bio-molecularTony has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 189 of 327 (505898)
04-19-2009 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by Bio-molecularTony
04-19-2009 6:57 PM


Re: now we’re stuck knowing too much for our own good.
This thread is about what the physical evidence allows us to conclude about the designer. Since we're only considering physical evidence, the supernatural doesn't have a role to play in this thread, and so, presumably, neither does God, and neither does the nature of reality. There's nothing wrong with occasional divergences, but maybe you could touch on the topic every now and then?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Bio-molecularTony, posted 04-19-2009 6:57 PM Bio-molecularTony has not replied

Bio-molecularTony
Member (Idle past 5378 days)
Posts: 90
Joined: 09-23-2008


Message 190 of 327 (505902)
04-19-2009 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Blue Jay
09-01-2008 10:17 AM


A Designer Consistent with the Physical Evidence
Bluejay writes:
I would like to determine, with this discussion, the highest possible set of values we could give a Designer in regards to these three attributes, and in light of the available physical evidence. I argue that a Designer who is competent, omniscient and benevolent is the highest set of values that can be given, and happens to also almost coincide with the God that I believe in.
I would say God is able to max the charts. We are unable to know so much and our view of reality is greatly restricted by our limited design of our senses. Even our mind is limited in the complexity of our understanding. We can only understand things in our personal experience.
The full scope of the universe is just a small sample of his power.
The understanding of matter and so-called living systems looking more like artificial realities that could never exist naturally.
Programming systems with love and joy, wisdom, intelligence and the so-called sex life of every kind of creature speaks of the kind of person he is inside. At lest what we can understand as limited humans.
Like I said everything about the creator is way off the charts. We can't even fully read the DNA coded software with understanding. But how could we, it is technological supremacy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Blue Jay, posted 09-01-2008 10:17 AM Blue Jay has not replied

Bio-molecularTony
Member (Idle past 5378 days)
Posts: 90
Joined: 09-23-2008


Message 191 of 327 (505904)
04-19-2009 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by DevilsAdvocate
04-18-2009 10:47 PM


Re: Life is a masterfully created illusion
DevilsAdvocate writes:
Tony writes:
Coyote writes:
The thread is about intelligent design, supposedly a branch of science.
Why are you interjecting the supernatural into what is otherwise a naturalistic field of study?
Why is it you always think intelligence must be SUPERNATURAL.
If this intelligence that created life is not supernatural than the question must be asked: Where did this intelligent life come from? How did it originate?
Simplicity of the argument works best. This linking "intelligent design" with the un-knowable supernatural is just the Atheist's way to derail the argument and cloud the real issues.
"Intelligence" does not equal supernatural nor does "intelligent design" even suggest you must be supernatural.
So you keep forgetting what this debate is really about. It is intelligent design, not the existence of the supernatural, and a un-knowable God.
So to sum it up, there is TONS of evidence of intelligent design. The "supernatural" is another story for another day....not related to this one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 04-18-2009 10:47 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 04-19-2009 10:54 PM Bio-molecularTony has replied
 Message 193 by Coyote, posted 04-19-2009 11:13 PM Bio-molecularTony has not replied

DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 192 of 327 (505909)
04-19-2009 10:54 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by Bio-molecularTony
04-19-2009 9:33 PM


Re: Life is a masterfully created illusion
Tony writes:
Myself writes:
If this intelligence that created life is not supernatural than the question must be asked: Where did this intelligent life come from? How did it originate?
Simplicity of the argument works best.
Which is exactly why you are losing this argument.
Tony writes:
This linking "intelligent design" with the un-knowable supernatural is just the Atheist's way to derail the argument and cloud the real issues.
"Intelligence" does not equal supernatural nor does "intelligent design" even suggest you must be supernatural.
So you keep forgetting what this debate is really about. It is intelligent design, not the existence of the supernatural, and a un-knowable God.
Stop avoiding the question. I don't care if this intelligent designer is natural or supernatural. Again, where did this intelligent agent come from and what is the evidence that it exists?
Tony writes:
So to sum it up, there is TONS of evidence of intelligent design.
Like what....? Please provide me just one piece of evidence from this "TONS of evidence".
To sum it up, you have yet to provide a single shred of evidence that this intelligent designer (natural or supernatural) exists.
Tony writes:
The "supernatural" is another story for another day....not related to this one.
BTW, if you are claiming this intelligent designer of life on Earth is not supernatural, than it must be an alien from somewhere else in this universe and thus not have the supernatural powers of your God (though it may be very advanced compared to us humans). How does this fit in with your religion? And again how did the alien intelligent designer originate?

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Bio-molecularTony, posted 04-19-2009 9:33 PM Bio-molecularTony has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by Bio-molecularTony, posted 04-19-2009 11:32 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 193 of 327 (505910)
04-19-2009 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by Bio-molecularTony
04-19-2009 9:33 PM


Evidence for ID
So to sum it up, there is TONS of evidence of intelligent design.
There is not.
There are a variety of claims that have been made, the most notable being irreducible complexity.
That has been blown out of the water everywhere it has been proposed. Not one example has been shown, upon examination, to actually be "irreducible complex."
What we have are claims of design--by the thousand, but no demonstrable method of detecting design.
Face it, ID and IC are religious beliefs cloaked in the terminology of science. They have not employed the scientific method, rather they are derived from religious beliefs! They are pure religious apologetics.
Until you can come up with some science, ID and IC are going nowhere except among fundamentalists--who believe without resort to evidence.
So how about producing some scientific evidence? If there's TONS of evidence, lets have some, eh?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Bio-molecularTony, posted 04-19-2009 9:33 PM Bio-molecularTony has not replied

Bio-molecularTony
Member (Idle past 5378 days)
Posts: 90
Joined: 09-23-2008


Message 194 of 327 (505911)
04-19-2009 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by DevilsAdvocate
04-19-2009 10:54 PM


The questions you are now asking are of a religious nature,
DevilsAdvocate writes:
Tony writes:
The "supernatural" is another story for another day....not related to this one.
BTW, if you are claiming this intelligent designer of life on Earth is not supernatural, than it must be an alien from somewhere else in this universe and thus not have the supernatural powers of your God (though it may be very advanced compared to us humans). How does this fit in with your religion? And again how did the alien intelligent designer originate?
The questions you are now asking are of a religious nature, and have little or nothing to do with science because what your asking is out of our grasp to achieve at this time.
Its like the theory of black holes in 1905+, looks good on paper but do they really exist? No one knows yet and so it was unproven at that early time. Now it is because of the side effects it creates.
Intelligent design is the end result of great intellect. End of story.
Something that is said to be supernatural is only because of our great ignorance to understand what is going on - so the mystery.
It is not that these things do not exist, just that they are over our heads for now. So we work with what we do have and infer to some extent other things till better information comes around.
For now we can prove there is intelligence out there that likes to create. Religion does the rest for now like prayer and answered prayers that infer someone is listening and answering.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 04-19-2009 10:54 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 04-20-2009 12:21 AM Bio-molecularTony has not replied

DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 195 of 327 (505913)
04-20-2009 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by Bio-molecularTony
04-19-2009 11:32 PM


Re: Intelligent design, the epitome of elusive reasoning and deliberate obfuscation!
Tony writes:
The questions you are now asking are of a religious nature, and have little or nothing to do with science because what your asking is out of our grasp to achieve at this time.
How so? You are the one bringing the whole intelligent designer bit into this, not me. All I am asking is evidence for the existence of your intelligent designer. All you give me is the run around, bullshit answers and religious rantings.
ANSWER THE DAMN QUESTION AND STOP BEING SO ELUSIVE! What is the evidence that your 'intelligent designer' exists? And what is your theory of how he/she/it originated? There is nothing religious in my question except how you possibly will answer it.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : Intelligent design, the epitome of elusive circular reasoning and deliberate obfuscation!
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Bio-molecularTony, posted 04-19-2009 11:32 PM Bio-molecularTony 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