Dixie, Step Up

But...If you have the FUCKING NERVE to insist that "Intelligent Design Theory" is a PRODUCT OF SCIENCE, after having been shown the light, again and again...and you persist on making such a claim, after you have been disabused of such a notion MULTIPLE FUCKING TIMES...You deserve nothing more than to be spat upon.
 
I have no problem with belief. Also, those who seek to prove that there is no God are just as fuckwitted as those who seek to prove that there must be such a being.

There is a world of difference between trying to prove 'god' doesn't exist and presenting a reasoned argument that there is no such thing. Everyone works in the knowledge of the absence of possibility of absolutes such as 'proving'.
 
AC, how does your science explain the presence of ordered patterns in nature and throughout the universe? Think fibonacci...
 
Since when is science infallible? You treat it much like a religion...

Brent thats a strawman. AC didn't say science is infallible. In fact falsifiability is a requirement of a scientific theory.

It is the process of science that gives its fruits strong backing.

AC, how does your science explain the presence of ordered patterns in nature and throughout the universe? Think fibonacci...

I know of what you speak but if you are trying to go where I think you are it won't work. Lack of explanation of a phenomenon does not grant credence to a theory which is not a result of the scientific method.

For centuries the orbit of Mercury was unexplainable given Newtownian mechanics. However it would be ludicrous to say in those times that because there was no explanation that therefore the explanation that God was determining the course of the orbit takes precedence. This is not scientific yet is the route that many ID proponents take.
 
My only point is that you cannot explain it using the scientific method, nor do I foresee any scientific explanation arising in the future. It transcends nature and life to such an extent it must be the result of intelligent design. I cannot prove it, but I do believe it.

As a theist surely you can agree?
 
Augustine said:
My only point is that you cannot explain it using the scientific method, nor do I foresee any scientific explanation arising in the future. It transcends nature and life to such an extent it must be the result of intelligent design. I cannot prove it, but I do believe it.

As a theist surely you can agree?
Click to expand...

As of yet, you are correct. But quantum physics is proving to be unimaginable as well. Impossible shit happens down near the Plank scale.

But it doesn't point to Jesus. It points to the unexplainable, the inunderstandable, the unimaginable. Jesus was a good man. Perhaps one of the most decent humans to ever live.

He understood the field of interconnectedness, the reality that everything affects everything. Most of the greatest enlightened people understood this.

Science is showing it to be true in at least some aspects.

Life goes on, and there's no evil dickheaded God that is willig to sentence good people to eternal merciless torture. It's the belief in that kind of asshole "God" that descends us into things such as terrorism and fanaticism.
 
My only point is that you cannot explain it using the scientific method, nor do I foresee any scientific explanation arising in the future.

No. Lets go back to my mercury example. A better thing to say is scientific method hasn't explained it not couldn't. Everything is scientific. If someone would actually describe the mechanics of ID we could attempt to verify it using the scientific method. However any attempt to do so at this point has failed.

It transcends nature and life to such an extent it must be the result of intelligent design. I cannot prove it, but I do believe it.

As a theist surely you can agree?

I am a deist but I am also a naturalist. I don't believe in the supernatural because for any phenomenon to exist there must be information contained in it and if there is information it can be described and if it can be described it can be scrutinized by science.

Belief in the creator is a matter of faith. And that is fine faith is a cornerstone of many a religion. But that belongs in the philosophy classroom not in the biology one.
 
AC... your original post cannot be done. Intelligent design is a religious belief. There is no way to prove or disprove it other than to prove 100% that evolution is the only option. Until then not going to happen, regardless of how close evolution is to that 100%.
 
Why couldn't Evolution be the tool that God would use to create? Proving Evolution would not Disprove a Deity.
 
Damocles said:
Why couldn't Evolution be the tool that God would use to create? Proving Evolution would not Disprove a Deity.
Click to expand...

Thats what Ive always said, but the fundies say, beause thats not what the bible says. They say God created Adam and Eve and thats that.
 
Augustine said:
AC, how does your science explain the presence of ordered patterns in nature and throughout the universe? Think fibonacci...
Click to expand...

Ordered patterns succeed, random patterns disperse.
Then again perhaps we are just not smart enough to recognize the random patterns existing in our universe.
 
Augustine said:
My only point is that you cannot explain it using the scientific method, nor do I foresee any scientific explanation arising in the future. It transcends nature and life to such an extent it must be the result of intelligent design. I cannot prove it, but I do believe it.

As a theist surely you can agree?
Click to expand...

In very recent history diseases were known to be caused by evil spirits, so how do we know we now have ti all figured out ? Arrogance again ?
 
Jarod said:
Thats what Ive always said, but the fundies say, beause thats not what the bible says. They say God created Adam and Eve and thats that.
Click to expand...
I said "a Deity".

Anyway, ask them. Could an all-powerful being create the world in six days by speeding up effects so that to scientists it seemed to be billions of years? Might that be the way that the earth was created? Adam and Eve included?

See what you get.
 
"Could an all-powerful being create the world in six days by speeding up effects so that to scientists it seemed to be billions of years? Might that be the way that the earth was created? Adam and Eve included?"

The possibility of an all-powerful being cannot be proven or disproven at this point. Therefore it could also be argued that when man wrote down the various religious texts, the concept of time to God was not understood. Perhaps a being that lives forever sees a day the same way we see 10 billion years. Who knows. The discovery is the fun part of science.
 
Superfreak said:
"Could an all-powerful being create the world in six days by speeding up effects so that to scientists it seemed to be billions of years? Might that be the way that the earth was created? Adam and Eve included?"

The possibility of an all-powerful being cannot be proven or disproven at this point. Therefore it could also be argued that when man wrote down the various religious texts, the concept of time to God was not understood. Perhaps a being that lives forever sees a day the same way we see 10 billion years. Who knows. The discovery is the fun part of science.
Click to expand...
The question was for those who believe the whole six days thing.

IMO, such a Being could easily effect the speed of the process making billions of years pass in 6 24 hour periods... Their objection to science being the process to finding out how it was done is simply because they don't want to believe that we could figure it out.

IMO, that pretty much ignores the passage of their own book stating that if we lived forever after having "knowledge" we could "be like Us" in their first book of Genesis. Thus the Tree of Life was removed from the reach of man...
 
AC, how does your science explain the presence of ordered patterns in nature

What makes you ASSUME that pattern equates to design?

It doesn't follow.
 
My only point is that you cannot explain it using the scientific method,

Then present a method by which we can explain it, that isn't entirely subjective.

Science is just observation. What method would you prefer we use? Holding in mind that if you make a positive statement such as this thing exists, the onus is on yourself to demonstrate that it does?

More over, if it isn't possible to explain with human methods, how do we know about it? This leads to the natural extension that it is a human creation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top