|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The evidence for design and a designer - AS OF 10/27, SUMMARY MESSAGES ONLY | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1618 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
The ONLY model out there is the Theory of Evolution.
If that were true, you would not be arguing against ID for so many years. If you call I.D religion based only, then this site needs to evolve. Religions interpret the will of God, while as an I.D. proponent, I simply recognize God is there scientifically. I accept the basics of evolution, while reject the interpretations until more evidence can confirm links. Just because things have evolved does not mean it wasn’t intelligently designed to behave that way. Adaption is necessary for survival in a world with ever changing dynamics. I am a practicing Christian. based on the evidence I have found and UNDERSTAND as true science, vs. wild guesses that scientist love to pull out calculus and say hahaha *point* your stupid. Fine, I don't have to accept your "educated guess" because it’s still a guess, and you can't explain it in a way I can understand, meaning in my mind: YOU don't understand it either. I have frequently been disappointed in the sophistry of this site. ying becomes yang, double speak becomes superfluous axioms designed to appear smart when it’s the same political debate tactic of appearing deaf dumb and blind for the sake of winning an argument. HOW can truth ever be discovered if the goal isn’t the truth? Yes there are other things besides 'biological evolution proves all things have randomly came together so screw donkeys if you want to' science. Simply because: biological evolution only proves that the dynamic of our universe is to evolve. And it does not explain how the first evolution became possible. Edited by tesla, : S in proponent. keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1618 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
No. One is based on empirical evidence, and can change if that evidence changes. The other is based on such squishy things as dogma, scripture, and "divine" revelation. How does one test any of those empirically?
My observations are not dogma. its an untested half educated guess. But it makes more sense than accepting everything sprang out randomly for essentially no purpose at all. The same empirical evidence we all look at when we open our eyes is the same data you say is proof there is no God, and I use to point out there is. It's the same evidence: viewed from a different logical perspective. My logic say's it's too perfect in it's natural order to exist without a purpose. Which say's to me: 'Purpose' supports the dynamic of a design from intelligence. I know you will not agree, But that doesn't mean that a version of I.D. will not one day be taught in the classroom. keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1618 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
And a third class of people, who, unlike the first, actually exist, attribute it to the laws of nature --- which requires no faith whatsoever.
Well if you don't want to look past your nose, you certainly do not have to. keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Well if you don't want to look past your nose, you certainly do not have to. Your meaning is obscure. I have often looked past my nose. In fact, it is impossible for me to look in any other direction.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Yes there are other things besides 'biological evolution proves all things have randomly came together so screw donkeys if you want to' science. There are indeed. For example there's real science --- which does not say that "all things randomly came together"; which does not endorse the screwing of domesticated African equids; and which is not a bunch of crazy crap that you made up in your head.
I have frequently been disappointed in the sophistry of this site. Ah, irony. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
My observations are not dogma. its an untested half educated guess. But it makes more sense than accepting everything sprang out randomly for essentially no purpose at all. And science makes more sense than either of those options.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22489 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
tesla writes: My observations are not dogma. its an untested half educated guess. But it makes more sense than accepting everything sprang out randomly for essentially no purpose at all. I think we all agree with half of what you say. An untested half-educated guess (presumably based upon available but incomplete evidence) *does* make more sense than accepting that everything sprang out randomly. That's why none of us accept that everything sprang out randomly. As far as well can tell, matter and energy follow fairly well established laws of nature, and evolution uses natural selection to choose from randomly produced alternatives. Look at it this way. Were an asteroid to strike the Earth it would be a random event, but the event itself would follow the non-random laws of nature. In an analogous fashion, were a mutation to occur it would be a random event, but whether the mutation makes it to the next generation (that's the "selection" part of natural selection) would again follow the non-random laws of nature. As to "purpose" in a "meaning of life" kind of sense, that isn't something science can tell us about.
I know you will not agree, But that doesn't mean that a version of I.D. will not one day be taught in the classroom. Things that we've learned scientifically are what tend to get taught in science classrooms. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Typo.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 419 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
tesla writes: The ONLY model out there is the Theory of Evolution.
If that were true, you would not be arguing against ID for so many years. No, there will always be ignorant folk that simply do not understand the question or even what a model is. That is why this continues.
tesla writes: If you call I.D religion based only, then this site needs to evolve. Religions interpret the will of God, while as an I.D. proponent, I simply recognize God is there scientifically. I accept the basics of evolution, while reject the interpretations until more evidence can confirm links. How does one recognize God scientifically?
tesla writes: Yes there are other things besides 'biological evolution proves all things have randomly came together so screw donkeys if you want to' science. Misrepresent what is said much Charlie? And once again, notice that you did not present the model for ID. The Theory of Evolution is still the only model available to explain the variety of life we see. If you have the ID model, here is a chance to present it.
tesla writes: I am a practicing Christian. based on the evidence I have found and UNDERSTAND as true science, vs. wild guesses that scientist love to pull out calculus and say hahaha *point* your stupid. Don't try pulling out some "I'm a Christian Card" because this is not an issue related to Christianity. I too am a Christian and would hazard a guess that I have been a Christian longer than you. The Theory of Evolution is understood and accepted by much if not most of Christianity and Christians, just as the Big Bang Theory is not just accepted by Christians, it was developed by a Christian Priest. That card is just not a trump card, it is not even the two of spades. it's just the two of clubs. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1618 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
As far as well can tell, matter and energy follow fairly well established laws of nature, and evolution uses natural selection to choose from randomly produced alternatives.
I agree. It's the 'well established' part, the 'order' part that shows to me 'purpose'.The random part is well contained by laws. If the natural order was lawless I would be less inclined to believe in creation. keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1618 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
How does one recognize God scientifically?
lol I love you jar. You always ask the right questions. You first need a scientific definition viable to scientific observations of what is. Some aspects of theory cannot be proven, in even our most accepted scientific theories. There is enough evidence and belief for the belief of God and a created universe, vs. the belief the universe exist from random energy interactions (chance) Double speak aside: either chance or direction was the universe brought into being. What’s missing is a scientific definition of God that will be accepted. Accepted being the key. It has to fit the science. keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Double speak aside: either chance or direction was the universe brought into being. How have you eliminated the other alternatives?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
tesla writes:
Accepted by whom? What’s missing is a scientific definition of God that will be accepted. Accepted being the key. "It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4215 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
There is enough evidence and belief for the belief of God and a created universe Good. Maybe you will be the first to show us this evidence which we have been asking for since this forum started. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 419 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
You first need a scientific definition viable to scientific observations of what is. Some aspects of theory cannot be proven, in even our most accepted scientific theories. There is enough evidence and belief for the belief of God and a created universe, vs. the belief the universe exist from random energy interactions (chance) Yet you claim that:
tesla writes: If you call I.D religion based only, then this site needs to evolve. Religions interpret the will of God, while as an I.D. proponent, I simply recognize God is there scientifically. I accept the basics of evolution, while reject the interpretations until more evidence can confirm links. I am curious how you did that?
tesla writes: Double speak aside: either chance or direction was the universe brought into being. How exactly did you eliminate all other possibilities?
tesla writes: What’s missing is a scientific definition of God that will be accepted. Accepted being the key. It has to fit the science. Huh? What about the tests and experiments needed to verify? And above, you indicate that you already have that since the way you recognize god is involved was scientifically. How do you do that? Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BarackZero Member (Idle past 4879 days) Posts: 57 Joined: |
dwise1 - truly a humble name, writes:
Dawn, how do we determine whether or not something has been designed? How do we do so objectively? Until you can tell us how, all your ramblings are pure bullshit. BarackZero replies: This is a clear violation of Rule #10, not that any "moderator" gives a damn, or will do anything about it. I merely point out the pervasive hypocrisy of Darwinists, and of course the left in general. "Understanding through Discussion" is a joke, and all of you have made it so through your "bullshit" posts. Q.E.D. Hyenas proceed with your attack. You are unable to do otherwise.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024