Intelligent design
- Started
- Last post
- 690 Responses
- pavlovs_dog0
That Incompetent design article is fucking brilliant.
- ukit0
lol-
Regarding incompetent design, why is the creator not intelligent?
I didn't say that! We don't get into religion. The last thing we want to do is get into arguments of religion, a creator and so on. We're just: "Is there, or is there not, intelligence in the design?"
- pavlovs_dog0
hehe, whatever helps you, pavlov.
Denial ain't just a river in egypt.
discipler
(Dec 20 05, 10:52)ok
stating somthing cant happen is a testable prediction?
are you kidding?
id is all negative statements.
not one perdiction.
not one thing to test.
not science.
- danthon0
Incompetent design
- discipler0
well pavlov, might be a concern if Biblical Christianity was "religion", but it's not. ;)
- pavlovs_dog0
and i awlways like to remind the xtians... your lossing the religion war on other fronts as well.
- discipler0
oh liquid, just sit back relax and be happy about the fact that science points decidedly toward a purposeful creator.
:)
- liquid0
its annoying that he keeps going...and whats more annoying is that I keep reading....
- discipler0
hehe, whatever helps you, pavlov.
Denial ain't just a river in egypt.
- pavlovs_dog0
religion and politics, liquid knows what this thread is about.
- pavlovs_dog0
lolz
"can't"
thats a negative.
hundreds of posts and you fail on this most basic level.
- liquid0
version...we may agree to disagree on our beliefs but I agree with you about discipler
why dont you go to a site that just talks about this topic then...
2 things I barely get involved in anymore....politics and religion..and since then....version3 no longer wants to hang me by my toenails and pummel me with an organic carrot. nick/backwards whatever doesn't jump into any thread I write in to tell me I am an idiot...
I can post help when I have it....I can get help when I need it....
so....as that verse states about reasoning with fools .....I will consider you one and take its advice and no longer try to convince you otherwise...
- discipler0
Sure, testability:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts…
One single claim:
"If it could be shown that biological systems like the bacterial flagellum that are wonderfully complex, elegant, and integrated could have been formed by a gradual Darwinian process (which by definition is non-telic), then intelligent design would be falsified on the general grounds that one doesn’t invoke intelligent causes when purely natural causes will do. "
- discipler0
again liquid, the primary reason I post here and yes, repeat myself ad nauseum, is because there are hundreds of lurkers who do not post, some of whom might actually be objective and seeking.
- pavlovs_dog0
Ok I'll bite.
Name one single testable claim of ID.
- liquid0
discipler .....let me help you out...
Einstein's definition of stupidity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results.
And if you would like the bibles take on the subject.
Proverbs 23:9
let me clarify... ...I am concentrating on the part where they will scorn wisdom ...according to the bible anyone who doesn't believe is a fool by default... those aren't my words to anyone here...I am just pointing them out to discipler. If he wants to throw the bible at people there are plenty of things in there that disagree with what he says and how he does things.
and please....discipler dont dig up scripture to come back at me...you have been doing this for a long time...for you to do it a few times...okay.... but now you just need to give it up...
if someone was interested in what you had to say they would email you.
- discipler0
also an interesting read, regarding the "Wedge" document:
- ukit0
An interesting read:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCan…
Governing Goals
* To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
* To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.
Nope, nothing religious about it.
- discipler0
If it is not shared, mimio, it is because it is new science. We have only recently become privy to the liliputian world of the cell. But there are some things which we absolutely DO know. We know that a naturalistic mechanism cannot purposefully arrange parts and build specified machinery. Biochemists are employing advanced Mechanical Engineers just to begin to understand how these machines work. Thus, the inference to an intelligent causal agent, is a logical one.
- Mimio0
I think the "Specified Complexity" you speak of are highly debatable observations that are not shared across the majority of the scientific community. The majority of scientists still see good reason to believe that there are natural explainations to biological systems. I'd be careful not to render your shared opinions with Michael Behe( an other ID advocats) as fact so soon.