Intelligent Design, but is God Smart Enough?

[Subduction Zone]

Did that viewpoint keep him from searching? Nope.

Believing God created everything, doesn't hinder discovery, it never has. In fact, it gives a person extra incentive.... not just to understand how it was made, but also why. for what purpose.

Actually that was his way of giving up. Once again your ability to reason failed you. And no, it does not give a person extra incentive. Try again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Would you accuse Newton of the same, saying he didn't understand?
Please!

Why not? Newton was not a God, he knew why he succeeded in so much of what he did. So do I. You clearly do not. You really need to quit making yourself an object of ridicule.

You further said: "So your soul dies with you."

Nope. The Bible teaches a person **is** a soul; he doesn't *have* one. Read Genesis 2:7, "....man became a living soul." Man wasn't given a soul; he is one. Hebrew 'nephesh' , translated as 'soul', means "a breathing creature".... it's what we are, not what we have.

Christendom's got it all screwed up.

And now you are just making garbage up. You are not being consistent, another fail on your part.

"So why do you believe?"
Because understanding it correctly, gives it credibility. As Newton discovered. But I'm not as smart as him; he discovered these facts on his own.... I was taught them.

Nope, you have no clue, as usual. And you do not understand the beliefs of Newton to boot. If you understood you would not constantly make the errors that you do. Lets' get back to the basics. Then we can see what you understand.

 

[ChristineM]

Actually, all evidence points to functional and integrated complex designs requiring an intelligent source. Has it been proven otherwise?

I think even Dawkins said it could've been aliens, i.e., an intelligent source. Lol.

Please provide examples of your claimed evidence.

Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist, please explain how he is qualified to talk about aliens?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please provide examples of your claimed evidence.

Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist, please explain how he is qualified to talk about aliens?

I posted the quote from Dawkins along with an explanation from him yesterday. He was misled (lied to) about an interview for a documentary and was interviewed by Ben Stein. He was asked to think of how "intelligent design" could have been involved with causing life on Earth and the only possibility that he could think of would be that of an alien seeding the Earth. In other word he bent over backwards to give them a plausible answer for a poorly asked question. That does not mean that he believes in it at all.

 

[ChristineM]

I posted the quote from Dawkins along with an explanation from him yesterday. He was misled (lied to) about an interview for a documentary and was interviewed by Ben Stein. He was asked to think of how "intelligent design" could have been involved with causing life on Earth and the only possibility that he could think of would be that of an alien seeding the Earth. In other word he bent over backwards to give them a plausible answer for a poorly asked question. That does not mean that he believes in it at all.

Thanks for that,

 

[ChristineM]

I posted the quote from Dawkins along with an explanation from him yesterday. He was misled (lied to) about an interview for a documentary and was interviewed by Ben Stein. He was asked to think of how "intelligent design" could have been involved with causing life on Earth and the only possibility that he could think of would be that of an alien seeding the Earth. In other word he bent over backwards to give them a plausible answer for a poorly asked question. That does not mean that he believes in it at all.

Just been looking up the interview, seems a con job from start to finish. It makes you wonder if IDers are actually capable of being honest.

Six Things in Expelled That Ben Stein Doesn't Want You to Know...

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Amazing that one of the smartest men who ever lived, Isaac Newton, 'studied the Bible daily' and never reached that conclusion! Are you privy to evidence he didn't have?

Yes, we are privy to evidence not available to Newton.

I'd have been a theist had I lived in Newton's day as well. Nothing else could have made sense given that level of understanding.

His generation laid the groundwork for deism by showing us that the universe ran like a clockwork without the need of intervention by a ruler god. Thus the builder god who then exited the universe was conceived.

Then, another wave of scientist revealed that the universe built itself from an expanding mote, and that the tree of life assembled itself from an initial seed of life, and the builder god was no longer needed, either.

So yes, we know a lot more than Newton did. We are privy to evidence he didn't have.

• "Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist" - Richard Dawkins

What jobs are left for a god? Creating those initial seeds? We have naturalistic hypotheses for their origins, and thus have no need for a god hypothesis at all.

That doesn't mean that a god or gods cannot or do not exist, just that the march of scientific progress has demonstrated that we don't need one, and that there is no reason to believe that one exists at this time.

• “We explain our existence by a combination of the anthropic principle and Darwin’s principle of natural selection. That combination provides a complete and deeply satisfying explanation for everything that we see and know. Not only is the god hypothesis unnecessary, it is spectacularly unparsimonious.” – Dawkins

Actually, all evidence points to functional and integrated complex designs requiring an intelligent source.

That is incorrect. There exists evidence that living cells came into being without being intelligently designed. Many of the steps have been identified, science keeps making progress without referring to gods suggesting that there is no need of that hypothesis, and there is the parsimony argument again. As Dawkins noted, an divine intelligent designer hypothesis is less parsimonious than the naturalisitic one, which requires no god.

Has it been proven otherwise?

No, but also not necessary. Nobody need disprove the existence of an intelligent designer.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just been looking up the interview, seems a con job from start to finish. It makes you wonder if IDers are actually capable of being honest.

Six Things in Expelled That Ben Stein Doesn't Want You to Know...

Let's make it seven. At a Minnesota pre-screening of the movie PZ Myers was kicked out of the theater because he was recognized, PZ was also prominent in the film. In other words the makers of Expelled expelled someone unjustly. And I thought that they were called IDiots... Oh well IDers it is:

No Admission for Evolutionary Biologist at Creationist Film

 

[ChristineM]

Let's make it seven. At a Minnesota pre-screening of the movie PZ Myers was kicked out of the theater because he was recognized, PZ was also prominent in the film. In other words the makers of Expelled expelled someone unjustly. And I thought that they were called IDiots... Oh well IDers it is:

No Admission for Evolutionary Biologist at Creationist Film

Such dishonesty surely doesn't do their cause any favours. Unless of course the idea is not to promote their cause but to brainwashing the already brainwashed.

My bad, IDiots it is.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Why not? Newton was not a God, he knew why he succeeded in so much of what he did. So do I. You clearly do not. You really need to quit making yourself an object of ridicule.



And now you are just making garbage up. You are not being consistent, another fail on your part.



Nope, you have no clue, as usual. And you do not understand the beliefs of Newton to boot. If you understood you would not constantly make the errors that you do. Lets' get back to the basics. Then we can see what you understand.

Oh, I see your MO.... it is obvious now. When you can't refute certain facts, you attack and accuse the other side of 'not understanding', to gloss over your inadequacies.

As they say, ignorance is bliss, temporarily anyway.

Have a good life, cousin. Because I'm through wasting my time talking to a wall.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Yes, we are privy to evidence not available to Newton.

I'd have been a theist had I lived in Newton's day as well. Nothing else could have made sense given that level of understanding.

His generation laid the groundwork for deism by showing us that the universe ran like a clockwork without the need of intervention by a ruler god. Thus the builder god who then exited the universe was conceived.

Then, another wave of scientist revealed that the universe built itself from an expanding mote, and that the tree of life assembled itself from an initial seed of life, and the builder god was no longer needed, either.

So yes, we know a lot more than Newton did. We are privy to evidence he didn't have.

• "Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist" - Richard Dawkins

What jobs are left for a god? Creating those initial seeds? We have naturalistic hypotheses for their origins, and thus have no need for a god hypothesis at all.

That doesn't mean that a god or gods cannot or do not exist, just that the march of scientific progress has demonstrated that we don't need one, and that there is no reason to believe that one exists at this time.

• “We explain our existence by a combination of the anthropic principle and Darwin’s principle of natural selection. That combination provides a complete and deeply satisfying explanation for everything that we see and know. Not only is the god hypothesis unnecessary, it is spectacularly unparsimonious.” – Dawkins

I knew someone would comment on this, and take the conversation out of context. And it's you, you've manifested this habit several times!

This is a strawman.....the issue under discussion was not whether God existed, but whether God was acting cruelly in the Bible. Nothing else was being deliberated!

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Please provide examples of your claimed evidence.

Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist, please explain how he is qualified to talk about aliens?

He said it, that it could have been.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Just been looking up the interview, seems a con job from start to finish. It makes you wonder if IDers are actually capable of being honest.

Six Things in Expelled That Ben Stein Doesn't Want You to Know...

It "seems a con job...."; so you form opinions on what things 'seem', eh?

Of course you do, you support CD.

 

[ChristineM]

Oh, I see your MO.... it is obvious now. When you can't refute certain facts, you attack and accuse the other side of 'not understanding', to gloss over your inadequacies.

As they say, ignorance is bliss, temporarily anyway.

Have a good life, cousin. Because I'm through wasting my time talking to a wall.

Figures, bottling out when the the truth gets embarrassing

He said it, that it could have been.

He was conned, tricked with lies, the fact you are blind to the deceit employed by stein and his crew if IDiots says more about your honesty than you even realise

Six Things in Expelled That Ben Stein Doesn't Want You to Know...

 

[ChristineM]

It "seems a con job...."; so you form opinions on what things 'seem', eh?

Of course you do, you support CD.

I form opinions based on fact, unlike you who chooses to besmirch an honourable man by condoning lies.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I form opinions based on fact, unlike you who chooses to besmirch an honourable man by condoning lies.

You said "seems"; that's not a fact-based assessment.

Have you seen the entire movie? I doubt it.

Anyone who hasn't seen the movie themselves, is relying on others' viewpoints.

Unfortunately, there have been lies and misleading statements on both sides.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I knew someone would comment on this, and take the conversation out of context. And it's you, you've manifested this habit several times!

You asked a question and I answered it:

You: "Are you privy to evidence he [Newton] didn't have?"
Me: "Yes, we are privy to evidence not available to Newton" followed by an elaboration of what that information was and how it changed what was reasonable to believe in the early eighteenth compared to now.

This is a strawman.....the issue under discussion was not whether God existed, but whether God was acting cruelly in the Bible. Nothing else was being deliberated!

I don't see any relationship between your question and whether God acted cruelly in the Bible.

Furthermore, if that was your area of interest, then you took the thread off topic. Look at the title of the thread again.

Unfortunately, there have been lies and misleading statements on both sides.

We've seen the deceit coming from the likes of Stein, Behe, and Sternberg. Creationist apologists are notorious for their ethics. Christine's link demonstrated the grossly dishonest quote mining of Darwin's words.

Where are the lies and misleading statements coming from the scientific community regarding ID?

 

[ChristineM]

You said "seems"; that's not a fact-based assessment.

Have you seen the entire movie? I doubt it.

Anyone who hasn't seen the movie themselves, is relying on others' viewpoints.

Unfortunately, there have been lies and misleading statements on both sides.

I assume sarcasm flies right over your head. I am relying on the word of the people involved and that you continue to condone lies and deception does your faith no favours whatsoever.

So according to you 2 wrongs make an creationist's right. And as yet you have not shown any lies by Dawkins et al.

 

[ChristineM]

You said "seems"; that's not a fact-based assessment.

Have you seen the entire movie? I doubt it.

Anyone who hasn't seen the movie themselves, is relying on others' viewpoints.

Unfortunately, there have been lies and misleading statements on both sides.

Fyi

Seem : give the impression of being something or having a particular quality.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh, I see your MO.... it is obvious now. When you can't refute certain facts, you attack and accuse the other side of 'not understanding', to gloss over your inadequacies.

As they say, ignorance is bliss, temporarily anyway.

Have a good life, cousin. Because I'm through wasting my time talking to a wall.

LOL!! Oh my! I have never met a person with a worse case of projection than you. You have no clue, but I am willing to educate you. It may take years, but I doubt if you are brave enough. Almost every creationist that I have met turns tail when it comes to learning.

You did not supply any "facts" bolded or not. You do not have a clue as to what a fact is. All you have shown time after time is your complete ignorance of both science and now the Bible.