Argument for the Argument of ID

ib1yysguy said:
Dixies making the same argument Thor was about the hollow earth and gravity. "Well, just because we dont understand it because it doesn't make any logical sense doesnt mean anything!"
Click to expand...

Not withstanding his views on the hollow earth with faeries and gnomes running around inside, he does make a valid point. We can't start drawing conclusions and making assumptions based on what we know so far, we will never be able to learn more. Who says ID doesn't make "logical sense?" It doesn't make "logical sense" that the vast and amazing universe and all its wonders, just happened randomly for some unexplained reason. Where is the logic in all the elements to form and comprise complex life, just mysteriously exploded into a universe one day, defying any principle or law of physics we currently understand or can define? And it just so happened there were a set of fundamental principles and physical laws in place, to enable all of the mechanisms by which life was enabled to emerge.... how is it logical to conclude that was random? And it also, just so happened, our particular planet was so overwhelmingly conducive to the propagation of life, with a variety of unique attributes and elements of environment, to enable these random elements to thrive and grow over time, and emerge into human knowledge. Where is the "logic" in... "it just so happened..." ???
 
Do you have evidence of God? Didn't think so. By the way, your personal experiences (angels appearing to you or whatever) are just your insanity.
 
Your video above doesn't say shit about your assertion that the universe has existed forever other than going into Kant's philosophy a bit.

Self ownage.
 
Appendix, tailbone, etc. are your intelligence suggesting they shouldn't be a part of an intelligent design because you can't personally rationalize them, but you are not the intelligent designer, so you really may not fully understand everything, and can't draw these conclusions based on your limited knowledge.

Look, it doesn't take a lot of intelligence to realize what a fucking tailbone is for. We know what it is for because we see shit exactly like it in other animals - except they have a tail attached. Evolution got rid of our tail but left the tailbone because the tailbone just doesn't hurt anything. It doesn't help, but evolution isn't an exact process. It doesn't take any intelligence to realize this. This indicates evolution pretty squarely.

An intelligent designer is not a scientific hypothesis because the designers is not falsifiable. I can't run an experiment to determine whether or not there's a designer there. I can run experiments to verify many independent things that evolution claims. Therefore, Evolution is a scientific theory, intelligent design is nothing but a bogus unscientific hypothesis.
 
Last edited:
Dixie said:
Not withstanding his views on the hollow earth with faeries and gnomes running around inside, he does make a valid point. We can't start drawing conclusions and making assumptions based on what we know so far, we will never be able to learn more. Who says ID doesn't make "logical sense?" It doesn't make "logical sense" that the vast and amazing universe and all its wonders, just happened randomly for some unexplained reason. Where is the logic in all the elements to form and comprise complex life, just mysteriously exploded into a universe one day, defying any principle or law of physics we currently understand or can define? And it just so happened there were a set of fundamental principles and physical laws in place, to enable all of the mechanisms by which life was enabled to emerge.... how is it logical to conclude that was random? And it also, just so happened, our particular planet was so overwhelmingly conducive to the propagation of life, with a variety of unique attributes and elements of environment, to enable these random elements to thrive and grow over time, and emerge into human knowledge. Where is the "logic" in... "it just so happened..." ???
Click to expand...

The difference, Dix, is that I don't run around, here an explanation, and then suddenly believe it simply because I know there's a lot of things I don't understand. I accept all possibilities but I don't take any of them seriously until I can run an experiment to point me up or down in that possibilities direction.
 
I think this is what Einstein meant when he responded; "God Doesn't Play Dice" when he was asked about conclusions drawn from the Uncertainty Principle in Quantum Physics.

Einsteins rejection of quantum theory is the most disproven thing he's ever claimed. He got quacky in his old age, like a lot of scientists, and just spouted off that shit without ever thinking about it. Now, we know that the uncertainty principle is fact.
 
Some of us will choose to believe it came from a God, some will perhaps realize the amazing potentials and secrets it holds, and some will believe it is a meaningless and insignificant object because they don't understand it or comprehend it's magnificence. There is no chance of the cavemen becoming MTSE Certified.

I agree dixie. But a caveman wouldn't even realize what an MTSE was anyway. The fact is that all this talk about a designer comes simply from our nature, our natural superstition. The God or designer theory would be irrelevant otherwise.
 
ib1yysguy said:
I tend to believe Hawkings before I believe a redneck Alabamaman.
Click to expand...

That's the problem. You believe a theory, instead of listening to a redneck from Alabama who believes nothing, but accepts possibility of other theories.

ib1yysguy said:
Do you have evidence of God? Didn't think so. By the way, your personal experiences (angels appearing to you or whatever) are just your insanity.
Click to expand...

We aren't arguing the evidence of God, you seem to think there is evidence to prove your theory as fact. I am willing to accept your theory is a valid theory, but so is mine. I am also willing to accept there may be other theories, some we may not have even pondered yet. You are stuck because you believe your theory as fact, and no longer feel compelled to ask questions and explore possibility. This is contradictory to the scientific method, by the way.
 
An intelligent designer is not a scientific hypothesis because the designers is not falsifiable. I can't run an experiment to determine whether or not there's a designer there. I can run experiments to verify many independent things that evolution claims. Therefore, Evolution is a scientific theory, intelligent design is nothing but a bogus unscientific hypothesis.
Click to expand...

Ahhh... but yes you can "run experiments", just as you can with natural selection or evolution theory. There is science evidence, you just refuse to evaluate it or accept it. If you took the same open-minded approach to exploring the possibility of intelligent design, as you take with cross-species evolutions, you may be able to better understand. But you won't, because you believe a theory about evolution is indeed a fact that explains everything.

We can observe the laws of physics and see, they clearly work in predictable manner, contrary to randomness, and indicative of organization. We can observe the elements of design in the patterns of nature and life, from basic chemical structures and interactions, to complex organisms with unique characteristics and attributes suited to their specific needs. DNA show us an even clearer indication of intricate design and intelligence, in the very nature of genetic code. Repeating patterns found in the life cycle, denotes a contradiction to randomness, and suggests intelligence and design.

These are not simple things you can pick off with a flurry of blanket refutations and excuses. They are important in understanding the foundation for the theory of intelligent design. It doesn't matter that you can provide explanations or find ways to contradict the points I've made, we could play that same game with ET or any other scientific theory. The fundamental principles of science dictate we accept these valid points and examine the possibilities.
 
Dixie thinks man developed moral codes from observing "spiritual rituals". That tells a lot about his ability to think. It's diminished.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top