Intelligent Design Question

Then what's the difference between evolution in Nature and saying it's "guided intelligently"? It's then just an argument over the use of words - semantics - and both refer and mean the same thing. Just an argument over words. So then what's the point? Just to argue?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Grow up or get lost. There's no point in wasting precious forum space with senseless, criticism, condescending remarks, and YOUR constant immature verbal abuse. There you go again. Same old thing, isn't? You're replies are just like a broken record and ALWAYS involve verbal abuse.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You consider that those two terms mean "the same thing"???

Baron Max

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Valich,

I'm hurt by your hurtful words.
Words can kill, Valich dear heart.
You big meany.
Verbal abuser.

There's even less point in wasting precious forum space backing up your senseless claims, is there?
Come on, Valich. I did ridicule you a bit about your dumb ass "watch your mouth" bullshit. But my main intent was to learn this wonderful proof of the inexistence of God that you've come up with.
Let's hear it.
You prove that God doesn't exist every day in your lab you said. It should be a piece of cake for you to elucidate that proof for those of us here in the forum.

Or are you saving the proof for publication in a journal? If so, it wasn't very nice of you to tease me that way.

Is it verbal abuse to expect you to actually back up your words? Come on, Mr. Disprover of Gods. Let's see your proof.

 

Be extremely detailed and precise about pointing out the resulting differences. Everything you say about evolution, then the creationist could say: "but that was due to guiding intelligence." Everything and anything.

 

Down goes the forum: down, down, down.

 

Infact, when creationists attempt to prove their "intelligent design" theory,
they fail to realize that saying "God" created the universe does not solve the question.

It leaves us right where we were before, it is the same assumption as saying that some "mysterious force" created the universe.

 

Ok.
So, you have failed to back up your claim of proving the non-existence of God.
Right?
You won't admit that your statement was idiotic, of course.
But, you can't deny that you've failed to back up your words in any way, shape, or form?
In fact, all you have now is insults? Right?
Because Valich wants to go down, down, down.

 

Why? As long as the "mysterious force" is not required to follow any of man's scientific laws/rules, then it's the same thing as saying "god" ...ain't no difference, is there?

And I think ye're wrong that creationists are attempting to prove ANYTHING. Creationists already "know", they require no proof ...and certainly not the meager, flimsy "proof" that science could provide.

Evolution explains lots of things for scientists, but if god created the process of evolution just for the amusement of the scientists, wouldn't it all seem quite exacting and real and ....ooooh, scientific?

"457 gazillion yeas ago, God created the heavens and the Earth, and he invented evolution just to give the scientists something to do and others just to argue about on Internet forums. God is a pretty smart fella, huh? ....."

Baron Max

 

don't have time or pateince to scroll through all the pages but was this article linked already? if not read it if haven't already

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1327926&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

either one

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...n,1,5724059.story?coll=sns-ap-world-headlines

 

the fact of the matter is: no proof period. i didn't read any of the links but i can tell you any proof would make headline news. maybe we could give invert and valich a flamethrower apiece with a lifetime of gasoline and let them chase each other around the countryside.

 

then it should be stated that science doesn't know how abiogenesis occured. science is the art of possibilities is it not? if science doesn't have the answers to abiogenesis then why discount id? because it's ridiculous isn't a reason. every scientist on this board will tell you "we do not know how abiogenesis occured". no scientist worth their credentials will ever discount a possibility. since science doesn't know how abiogenesis occured then id is a possibility along with a whole slew of other possibilities.

 

And we are progressively developing the range of possibilities for abiogenesis. We may not know how it occured, but we certainly know how it may have occured. There are a multiplicity of candidate processes for each of the several steps needed to take us from pre-biotic chemistry to the first bona-fide replicating, metabolising, organism. Because we do not yet know which of these was the actual pathway followed to reach that first organism is no reason to introduce ID.
Please note, if you choose by ID to truly mean Intelligent Design, by a material entity wholly of this Universe, then scientists do not reject this as a possible explanation for the origin of life on Earth. What they reject is the implicit supernatural element present in most ID arguments.

 

you mean there are other id's? and if it is material where did THAT one come from?

 

As I understand it, the essence of the ID position is that life and/or universe is too complex to have occurred by chance, (ignorant ID supporter's version) or that the selection by "survival of the fittest" mutations (better informed ID supporter's version) is not adequate to explain the more complex organism existing now in the time available since the Earth was too hot for life, etc..

If we grant that a more complex ID must be responsible, then it too, being more complex must have a creator to have come into exist during the period since the Big Bang until the ID that made humans etc was created. Etc for the third order ID who made this "second order" one. An infinite regress at best. Obvious nonsense is more likely. Let us just admit we have no idea why there is something instead of nothing, but we are something wondering about this problem.

 

BillyT the point I was making to leopold, but that he is clearly not even willing to entertain, is the possibility that life on Earth was deliberately seeded by an earlier, intelligent and space travelling life form. Given the uncertainties that surround the initial life on the Earth, this is a possibility that cannot be reasonably excluded.
Note, that it works only as an explanation for life on Earth, or else we get into the regression sequence you noted. Such a scenario was strongly promoted by Fred Hoyle and his colleague Wickramasinghe, and notably by Francis Crick of DNA fame.

 

Yeh all fine , but what is nothing? How can one dictate a state existence without something to compare it to?

There is nothing in a cookie jar because either someone ate them all or there were never any in the first place. The reason we understand the latter is because somewhere in our lives we have seen cookies in a jar, giving an idea of what we are looking for (which is a cookie).

My analogy is to support this question. How do we know if matter does not exist, or could not have existed before a certain time? When we talk about the big bang theory do we account the idea of invisible matter not being able to exist outside of the formatted universe as we know it?

Basically all i am saying is how can one conclude that their was once nothing!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Who is concluding there was once nothing? No scientist I know of. The closest any come to this point of view are those who speculate that the Universe could be nothing more than a vacuum fluctuation. And they are very far from concluding that. On top of which they will be the first to tell you that a vacuum is much more complex than nothing.
So, I ask again, who is it you think is making such a ludicrous suggestion?

 

because of the regression sequence.THAT entity must come from somewhere etc. like i said natural causes makes the most sense. but sometimes sense is nonsense

 

I have no problem with the concept that life originated spontaneously on the Earth, or that it arrived accidentally - as in pan spermia, or that it was deliberately seeded by an earlier life form that had arisen by one of these three methods.