Existence of God

quote:

---

it doesn't add up that countless individuals - well educated and intelligent - would say, "Yes, the Bible has many contradictions and I know this but I'm going to pretend that there aren't any, continue believing in the Bible as if there weren't any, and I'll do this until I die."

---

However, you seem to believe that it makes perfect sense that we evolutionists do the exact same thing by subscribing to a theory that is manifestly untrue. If we're so adept at self-delusion and insulating ourselves from the Truth, why can't the same be said for believers?

quote:

---

The only reasonable alternative is that these alleged contradictions aren't as authentic as you think them to be.

---

Could it likewise be true that the contradictions and flaws you see in the theory of evolution by natural selection are the result of your wishful thinking?------------------
I would not let the chickens cross the antidote road because I was already hospitlized for trying to say this!-Brad McFall

quote:

---

If you're going to base your decision on a logical, scientific basis then DO SO! You cannot selctively employ logic and evidence to arrive at the conclusion that you desire. This is intellectually dishonest and you are fooling no one but yourself.

---

"The verdict you pass upon others will be the one passed against you." Matthew 7:2------------------
I would not let the chickens cross the antidote road because I was already hospitlized for trying to say this!-Brad McFall

Joralex,I'm only saying that you're accusing evolutionists of being intellectually dishonest, but when Percy asks you to provide evidence supporting your claims, you tell him you're not obliged to do so.So which is it? If you don't present evidence we assume you believe blindly. However, if you'd like to present evidence we can respond to that instead.------------------
The bear thought his son could talk in space about the time matter has to rotate but twisted heaven instead.
-Brad McFall

quote:

---

To wit : given our present state of knowledge, what is the most logical, scientific inference : unguided, purposeless natural emergence of life OR guided, purposeful, created life?

---

In our present state of knowledge, there is no evidence supporting any 'guide' for natural phenomena. Is there a will behind the formation of biomolecules? Is there an intent behind the adaptation of organisms to their environment? What evidence do you have that any purpose exists in natural occurrences?------------------
The bear thought his son could talk in space about the time matter has to rotate but twisted heaven instead.
-Brad McFall

quote:

---

The basis for detection of intelligent design is very simple : if one cannot reasonably explain an observation by chance, natural law, or combinations thereof, then the only remaining alternative is intelligent design.

​

As I've stated before, this is something that has been done for a very long time and today is manifest in areas such as forensic sciences, archaeology, AI, cryptography, SETI and others.

---

It's convenient that after cursory examination and predictable disqualification of explanations that have some hope of carrying empirical weight, we can conclude intelligent design. This is understandable in forensics and archaeology, where artifacts are known to have been intelligently designed in the first place and humans are the likely agents. However, things like the bacterial flagellum would have to have been 'designed' hundreds of millions of years ago. Shouldn't the likelihood of intelligent design be calculated independently, and accepted or rejected like the other alternatives? Wouldn't natural processes be the more reasonable explanation?Let me put it this way. If an archaeologist claimed to have found a human artifact between strata that were hundreds of millions of years old, we would be correct in concluding design, namely fraud. Your inference is just as suspect.------------------
The bear thought his son could talk in space about the time matter has to rotate but twisted heaven instead.
-Brad McFall

Oh yeah, we all know how fascinating those always are.

That's not technically why they call Dan the Flash.