DeitySlayer
President of Chindia
Would it be fair to say that intelligent design is the hypothesis that the 'irreducible complexity' of living organisms necessitates the need for a divine, intelligent, designer?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
For Danmac - Abiogenesis
- Thread starter The_Evelyonian
- Start date
Would it be fair to say that intelligent design is the hypothesis that the 'irreducible complexity' of living organisms necessitates the need for a divine, intelligent, designer?
Danmac
Well-Known Member
natural selection has no intelligence. It does not possess a will that can decide what is good and what is bad for living things.
DeitySlayer
President of Chindia
Don't change the subject. We're discussing the definition of your 'intelligent design'. Answer the question asked.
We know natural selection has no intelligence. It does not decide. It is a catch-all phrase to describe the fact that mutations beneficial to an environment will be preserved, and those that are not will be discarded through death. Nothing 'decides' that thick fur is advantageous in cold places. It just is. And so it will be selected for, because organisms with thicker fur will survive better.
Danmac
Well-Known Member
We will not name the "intelligent cause" we will simply say that certain features were designed by an "intelligent causer".
Noaidi
slow walker
Danmac
I've been following your understanding of evolution and abiogenesis over the last couple of days. I have a question: is the reason for your reluctance to look at the evidence solely to do with your religious beliefs, or is there another legitimate reason for your refusal?
Don't let your religion get in the way of your understanding. It's all very well digging your heels in, but it makes you publicly appear rather ill-informed.
I've been following your understanding of evolution and abiogenesis over the last couple of days. I have a question: is the reason for your reluctance to look at the evidence solely to do with your religious beliefs, or is there another legitimate reason for your refusal?
Don't let your religion get in the way of your understanding. It's all very well digging your heels in, but it makes you publicly appear rather ill-informed.
DeitySlayer
President of Chindia
What certain features are these?
Commoner
Headache
Have you been reading the creationist handbook again? Please, put it down and stop repeating things you do not understand. This is really getting absurd, you know?
For each one word non-answer you give you expect us to interpret what your argument might be, make it for you, explain what it means and give you a brief course on the subject and then tell you why the argument is wrong. Meanwhile, you have been completely ignoring questions that have been posed to you more-or-less from the beginning of this thread. What the hell is up with that? Do you get some sort of kick out of it?
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
I thought this thread was about abiogenesis?
You were saying that the existing is work is based on assumptions. Which of those assumptions do you take issue with?
In general, when science is not certain, it uses terms such as "may" to indicate that. When it is, it says so. Evolution is one of those things we're certain about, and ToE contains none of these terms.
It's called honesty. Are you familiar with it?
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
No, it's not. It's used in many different ways. Asking you to tell us what you mean is not playing word games, it's clarifying. Do you refuse to tell us what YOU mean by the term "Intelligent Design?"
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
It's not about good or bad, Danmac, it's about live or die. If it lives, it reproduces and persists.
What does any of this have to do with abiogenesis? Hypocrite much?
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Here, let me help you. "When I say 'Intelligent Design,' I mean ________________." Fill in the blank.
Last edited:
And what was the method that this "intelligent causer" used? Because saying that an "intelligent causer" helped or created the process tells us nothing. That statement is empty, we haven't learned anything new, in fact you've opened the door for many many more questions.
Danmac
Well-Known Member
As if abiogenesis didn't have enough questions already.
Danmac
Well-Known Member
Exactly! So, why posit the existence of some all powerful supernatural entity, that is vastly more complex than the universe? And oh, btw it's immune from investigation. Because that which does not manifest is indistinguishable from that which does not exist.
DeitySlayer
President of Chindia
And for what scientific reason do you believe in this Creator? What evidence, that evolution cannot account for, leads you to believe that life has been intelligently designed?
Danmac
Well-Known Member
There are many necessary parts to a complex system. Each part has a necessary function that without would disable the whole system. Take a cell phone for example. It is made up of many parts, and each part is necessary, for the absence of one part will disable the phone. Our universe is a very complex system. There are many parts that must be finely tuned or else the system will not work. When so many parts require such fine tuning for the universe to work we move away from coincidence to that which must have been designed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe
Evidence for the Fine Tuning of the Universe
McBell
Admiral Obvious
Yes, Mother Nature does a right fine job of keeping all those things in balance.
So once again, we see your god is not needed as an explanation.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Danmac, I know you get tired of me yelling at you, but how much patience to expect one person to have?
HOW. HOW. HOW. NOT WHO. HOW.
Science is not about who. It's about how.
I'm pretty sure this is about the twentieth time I've explained this kindergarten concept to you. So what's going on? Do you not believe me? Are you incredibly stubborn? Forgetful? Incapable of grasping a simple idea? Or what?
For the question of abiogenesis, or any other scientific question whatsoever, you can always proceed on the assumption that The Creator did it. In this thread, we can all assume that God, your God, created the first living thing. Also the second, the 45,782d and the 3,535,768,835th. God created all things. We're not disputing that. We're trying to figure out
HOW.
That's where science comes in.
Do me a favor. Go and get yourself a tattoo. Have these words tattooed on your wrist:
SCIENCE IS NOT ABOUT WHO; IT'S ABOUT HOW.
Then, when you feel the urge to post tripe like this, just look at your wrist. 'kay?
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
And another person who accepts science takes Danmac's bait and wanders away from the subject. This thread is not about God; it's about abiogenesis. We can understand abiogenesis whether or not God exists.
Since Danmac and his friends want to argue about the existence of God, I suggest they make a thread to do that. This one is about abiogenesis.