• 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!

Intelligent Design Isn't So Intelligent

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
You are correct, once we first prove that the scriptures are moral, anti-scriptural attitudes are shown to be immoral. Yes.

Now, should I understand genocide to be immoral because you say it is? I think you might say, "harm to others is immoral," but we would need to prove morality exists first, and if you claim our present morality existed 2,000 or 3,000 years prior to now, it sounds like are further claiming moral objectivity personally along with morals themselves being absolutes.

No, not because I say it is. Once again you are demonstrating that at least some Christians cannot be honest. One needs a basis for morality in the first place. A reasonable basis of morality is that of least harm to others. There is no such thing as an "objective morality". All morals are a human invention. But by any reasonable definition of morality the morals of the God of the Bible are reprehensible.
 

jedi__knight

New Member
When it comes to the origin of nanotechnology in a living cell, I suppose it's interesting to hear what one of the wold's leading chemists says about it. Dr. James Tour is an expert in synthetic organic chemistry and nanotechnology and he is one of the top 10 cited chemists in the world. He is one of the few people in the world who deals with the synthesis of molecular machines from scratch. He invented a nano-car (a molecular machine with wheels which moves similar to cars in the macro world). This is his open letter on the origin of life:
http://inference-review.com/article/an-open-letter-to-my-colleagues
Here he talks live on that subject:
part1:
part2:

In this short video, he talks about the situation in the scientific community and the open challenge that he has given:

Those are sources to hear the opinion of one of the most competent people in the world when it comes to the origin of life and nanotechnology in a living cell. It's not my goal to get into the debate. I wanted to offer you new informations, and everyone has the freedom to accept those informations as he/she wants.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
When it comes to the origin of nanotechnology in a living cell, I suppose it's interesting to hear what one of the wold's leading chemists says about it. Dr. James Tour is an expert in synthetic organic chemistry and nanotechnology and he is one of the top 10 cited chemists in the world. He is one of the few people in the world who deals with the synthesis of molecular machines from scratch. He invented a nano-car (a molecular machine with wheels which moves similar to cars in the macro world). This is his open letter on the origin of life:
http://inference-review.com/article/an-open-letter-to-my-colleagues
Here he talks live on that subject:
part1:
part2:

In this short video, he talks about the situation in the scientific community and the open challenge that he has given:

Those are sources to hear the opinion of one of the most competent people in the world when it comes to the origin of life and nanotechnology in a living cell. It's not my goal to get into the debate. I wanted to offer you new informations, and everyone has the freedom to accept those informations as he/she wants.

This appears to be a false appeal to authority fallacy. First off he is not qualified to speak on evolution. From what I have seen at the very best he can only oppose abiogenesis, not evolution, and even that is highly doubtful. None of his published peer review work seems to oppose evolution or even abiogenesis at all. If he has such a problem with the idea why did he not do the science properly? Why did he not put his ideas through the processes and tests of peer review?

In the sciences even when someone puts their ideas through the rigors of peer review they are quite often wrong. When a scientist avoids peer review his ideas are almost always wrong. By avoiding peer review Tour puts his claims into the latter category.
 

jedi__knight

New Member
This appears to be a false appeal to authority fallacy. First off he is not qualified to speak on evolution. From what I have seen at the very best he can only oppose abiogenesis, not evolution, and even that is highly doubtful. None of his published peer review work seems to oppose evolution or even abiogenesis at all. If he has such a problem with the idea why did he not do the science properly? Why did he not put his ideas through the processes and tests of peer review?

In the sciences even when someone puts their ideas through the rigors of peer review they are quite often wrong. When a scientist avoids peer review his ideas are almost always wrong. By avoiding peer review Tour puts his claims into the latter category.

There is absolutely no evidence that spontaneous abiognesis is possible, but there are many reasons why it can be considered senseless. If you think spontaneous abiogenesis is possible, then write an answer to the open letter that the James Tour has posted and prove that you are right, and that he is wrong. This top-level expert in the field of synthesis of organic molecules and the synthesis of molecular machines from scratch, presents his reasons why spontaneous abiogenesis is senseless. In scientific journals someone does not prove that a senseless thing is impossible. No one will submit a paper to a scientific journal on why it is impossible to convert the stone into mobile phone. There is simply enough reason to think such a thing as senseless and a man can give his reasons for doing so. Especially if he is a top-level expert in the relevant field.


You asked about the publication of official scientific papers that criticize evolution?

Here's what this top scientist is also talking about censorship in the scientific community:
https://www.jmtour.com/personal-topics/evolution-creation/
"Furthermore, some scientists, though generally fine people, seek to justify themselves for attacks upon others, so they use that statement as a self-justification for their attacks. Some proponents of Darwinism exclude the signers of the Dissent statement from societies of academic achievement, regardless of the fact that by objective standards, some signers of the Dissent statement have achieved scientific successes that have eclipsed their detractors’ achievements many times over. Shame on those proponents of Darwinism who exclude the dissenters for their views in a field where many scientific mysteries remain.
...
I have witnessed unfair treatment upon scientists that do not accept macroevolutionary arguments and for their having signed the Dissent statement regarding the examination of Darwinian Theory. I never thought that science would have evolved like this. I deeply value the academy; teaching, professing and research in the university are my privileges and joys.
...
But my recent advice to my graduate students has been direct and revealing: If you disagree with theories of evolution, keep it to yourselves if you value your careers, unless you’re one of those champions for proclamation; I know that that fire exists in some, so be ready for lead-ridden limbs. But if the scientific community has taken these shots at senior faculty, it will not be comfortable for the young non-conformist."
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
There is absolutely no evidence that spontaneous abiognesis is possible, but there are many reasons why it can be considered senseless. If you think spontaneous abiogenesis is possible, then write an answer to the open letter that the James Tour has posted and prove that you are right, and that he is wrong. This top-level expert in the field of synthesis of organic molecules and the synthesis of molecular machines from scratch, presents his reasons why spontaneous abiogenesis is senseless. In scientific journals someone does not prove that a senseless thing is impossible. No one will submit a paper to a scientific journal on why it is impossible to convert the stone into mobile phone. There is simply enough reason to think such a thing as senseless and a man can give his reasons for doing so. Especially if he is a top-level expert in the relevant field.

Sure there is, you do not seem to understand what is and what is not evidence when you make such a claim. I really don't care what James Tour has to say since he has not run his ideas through peer review.
You asked about the publication of official scientific papers that criticize evolution?

Here's what this top scientist is also talking about censorship in the scientific community:
https://www.jmtour.com/personal-topics/evolution-creation/

Actually I asked for articles that went through the process of peer review. They need to be in well respected peer reviewed journals. No circle jerk creationist "peer review" allowed.

"Furthermore, some scientists, though generally fine people, seek to justify themselves for attacks upon others, so they use that statement as a self-justification for their attacks. Some proponents of Darwinism exclude the signers of the Dissent statement from societies of academic achievement, regardless of the fact that by objective standards, some signers of the Dissent statement have achieved scientific successes that have eclipsed their detractors’ achievements many times over. Shame on those proponents of Darwinism who exclude the dissenters for their views in a field where many scientific mysteries remain.
...
I have witnessed unfair treatment upon scientists that do not accept macroevolutionary arguments and for their having signed the Dissent statement regarding the examination of Darwinian Theory. I never thought that science would have evolved like this. I deeply value the academy; teaching, professing and research in the university are my privileges and joys.
...
But my recent advice to my graduate students has been direct and revealing: If you disagree with theories of evolution, keep it to yourselves if you value your careers, unless you’re one of those champions for proclamation; I know that that fire exists in some, so be ready for lead-ridden limbs. But if the scientific community has taken these shots at senior faculty, it will not be comfortable for the young non-conformist."


So you have nothing.

Once again, you need more than a false appeal to authority to refute an idea that has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

ETA: You do realize that Expelled was shown to be nothing but one lie after another don't you? It hurts your argument to link to such dishonest arguments, it does not help them.
 

Thermos aquaticus

Well-Known Member
Those are sources to hear the opinion of one of the most competent people in the world when it comes to the origin of life and nanotechnology in a living cell. It's not my goal to get into the debate. I wanted to offer you new informations, and everyone has the freedom to accept those informations as he/she wants.

Opinions =/= Science
Opinions =/= Facts
Opinions =/= Evidence
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
I have to say I'm somewhat comforted by how creationists now seem to be reduced to two main arguments, the origin of life and the universe. Having gone through the 80's with "scientific creationism" and the 90's-2000's with ID creationism, the fact that all they really have now are two God of the Gaps arguments is a good indication that this whole "debate" is winding down.

Good riddance I say.
 

Zosimus

Active Member
There are some people who maintain that cars have been intelligently designed. However, this common misconception flies in the face of all we know about cars. Here are some of the top known flaws in cars today:

1. Too many cylinders. Although some cars use a three-cylinder engine, most cars have 4, 6, or 8 cylinders. There are even examples of 12 and 16 cylinder vehicles! A three-cylinder engine features less frictional loss from moving components than a four-cylinder engine and substantially less than an 8-cylinder engine, resulting in fine performance and superior fuel efficiency. No intelligent designer would have ever created an 8-cylinder engine.
2. Fuel as a coolant. What many people don't know is that most cars' fuel pumps are cooled by the gasoline flowing into it. Thus, when the tank is near empty, the fuel pump can easily overheat and be destroyed.
3. Spark-ignited engines. Unlike diesel engines, spark-ignited engines do not ignite all the fuel at the same time, rather the fuel is ignited at the spark and the ignition spreads our spherically. As ignition occurs, unignited gas is compressed and may spontaneously ignite more violently than appropriate. The result is called engine knocking. Engine knocking can cause damage to the piston or the cylinder wall. Engine knocking is often worsened if the wrong octane is put into the car. Even so, most cars and gas pumps are designed so that virtually any octane fuel can be put into a car. Even diesel fuel can be put into a gasoline-powered car, with disastrous results.
4. Racing stripes. Although not everyone knows this, racing stripes provide no benefit to a car. They do not make the car faster, more gas efficient, or easier to drive. No intelligent designer would put racing stripes on a car.
5. Power windows. Another vestigial structure found on many cars nowadays are power windows. They provide no benefit to the car of any kind -- no increase in speed or maneuverability. In fact, they result in reduced gas mileage. They are prone to malfunction as the car ages. They are as useless as the muscles that some people have that move their ears. No intelligent designer would have included these in a car.
6. Power locks. The same as power windows. Need I say more?
7. Transmissions. Most of us know that cars cannot be shifted into reverse when they are moving forward. This is an important adaptation included in cars. However, cars can be shifted into drive while moving backward. The resulting stress on the transmission can easily lead to catastrophic transmission failure.
8. Radiators. Despite popular misconception, cars can be air cooled. Radiators add unnecessary parts, such as water pumps, that add to the chances of system failure. Worse yet, radiators cannot adequately cool engines with water alone. Special, expensive coolant-water mixes must be added to prevent the system from freezing in the winter or from boiling in the summer. Granted, air cooling is not enough for large 6- or 8-cylinder engines, but as we've already pointed out above, 3-cylinder engines are adequate. No intelligent designer would put a radiator on a car.
9. Parking brakes. Although all cars come with parking brakes, the majority of people do not use them. However, the park setting on the transmission is usually inadequate to keep the car from rolling. No intelligent designer would create a transmission with a park setting that was not adequate to keep the car parked!

The above are just a few of the many design flaws in modern cars. Even one of them is sufficient to completely refute the idea that cars could be intelligently designed! There is only one possible explanation for the cars we see around us.

Cars evolved through natural selection into the form we see today. Perhaps you are skeptical. Perhaps you wish to dispute this idea. Very well, I am open to new ideas. If you can find any peer-reviewed study published in a reputable scientific publication that casts doubt on this, I will rethink my ideas. Until then, keep your creationist nonsense out of our schools!!
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Why do you keep keep bringing beauty into it, i have never said the universe is not beutiful.

The universe is chaotic as i suggested to you and provided an Impression made from real data.

* And then start your ad hominem, keep personal attacks about my husband out of this or i will be reporting you.

* Maths is not the universe, although maths can attempt (only attempt) to describe the universe. I insist on observation and accurate measurement in science, if that results in a chaotic result than that shows the observed and measured was chaotic

Ahh 'clearly' again, it's surprising how often creationist use it when they have not got a clue of what they speak but have a belief without evidence. I enjoy the benefits of science, as do you. As for maker? They recieve considerable profit from selling the fruits of science. Meaning both of they and their customers are content.

The universe shows immense evidence of being non-chaotic and organized. I don't want to argue subjective beliefs with you, but I believe you are in denial.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
I cannot find such a post. And please, do not misrepresent what others have posted. That is breaking the Ninth Commandment.

I did no such thing, I was challenged that atheists are more honest than believers and I gave an inflated example, ALL Christians are liars, to show the point was invalid.

I believe you are currently breaking multiple commandments, by the way. Pretty sure you are missing Jesus's points about planks in eyes, telling me over and again I've missed on thing in the decalogue when you live against multiple decalogue commandments!
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
No, not because I say it is. Once again you are demonstrating that at least some Christians cannot be honest. One needs a basis for morality in the first place. A reasonable basis of morality is that of least harm to others. There is no such thing as an "objective morality". All morals are a human invention. But by any reasonable definition of morality the morals of the God of the Bible are reprehensible.

I'd settle for a subjective morality you feel you can prove is right. Until you can, you cannot say you or me or Hitler or the Bible is moral, immoral or amoral, logically.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
The universe shows immense evidence of being non-chaotic and organized. I don't want to argue subjective beliefs with you, but I believe you are in denial.


No it doesn't, unless of course you have objective evidence such as i supplied.

Denial of what? The facts like you are?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I did no such thing, I was challenged that atheists are more honest than believers and I gave an inflated example, ALL Christians are liars, to show the point was invalid.

I believe you are currently breaking multiple commandments, by the way. Pretty sure you are missing Jesus's points about planks in eyes, telling me over and again I've missed on thing in the decalogue when you live against multiple decalogue commandments!


You were misrepresenting the arguments of others and making false claims about them. That is breaking the Ninth Commandment. And you do not seem to realize, the commandments do not apply to me in the same way that they apply to you. In debating I don't lie because there is no need for me do to so. I can support my claims. The various claims about worshiping God are simply so much immoral nonsense to me. The immorality of the God of the Bible is what makes many people realize that Christianity is not very believable.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I'd settle for a subjective morality you feel you can prove is right. Until you can, you cannot say you or me or Hitler or the Bible is moral, immoral or amoral, logically.
There is no "objective morality". And depending upon one's standards one can come up with a consistent subjective morality. The subjective morality that makes the most sense is simply one that does the least harm to others. My right to swing my fist ends where it could hit others. The God of the Bible does not follow that simple rule.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
No it doesn't, unless of course you have objective evidence such as i supplied.

Denial of what? The facts like you are?

Our argument would go like this:

Me: The universe shows immense evidence of being non-chaotic and organized.

You: The universe shows immense evidence of being chaotic and disorganized.

Why is your argument factual and mine subjective? This is a typical double-standard that skeptics hold, here.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
The universe shows immense evidence of being non-chaotic and organized. I don't want to argue subjective beliefs with you, but I believe you are in denial.

Ever seen a black hole?

You win the "silliest answer of the month" award, considering that these immense, amazing places, thought to be possibly routes through visible space via wormholes/pulsars, are now thought to be in the center of all fully formed galaxies, holding the very galaxies together by their immense power.

And no, I've never seen the inside of a black hole, nor can I "see it" since it holds in all light. A second award may be forthcoming for you.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Our argument would go like this:

Me: The universe shows immense evidence of being non-chaotic and organized.

You: The universe shows immense evidence of being chaotic and disorganized.

Why is your argument factual and mine subjective? This is a typical double-standard that skeptics hold, here.

Because of the facts, measurements, observations etc. From the smallest quantum particle and atoms electron cloud, through planetary orbits, galaxies,
super clusters, filaments (as i posted as evidence), even the CMB is totally random in its temperature clusters, (more evidence)

WMAP_skymap.jpg


And as far as i can see you have provide nothing to support your claim other than subjective opinion.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
The universe shows immense evidence of being non-chaotic and organized. I don't want to argue subjective beliefs with you, but I believe you are in denial.



You win the "silliest answer of the month" award, considering that these immense, amazing places, thought to be possibly routes through visible space via wormholes/pulsars, are now thought to be in the center of all fully formed galaxies, holding the very galaxies together by their immense power.

And no, I've never seen the inside of a black hole, nor can I "see it" since it holds in all light. A second award may be forthcoming for you.

Only thought to be routes through space in science fiction. In reality one would pull you apart atom by atom before you even got near it.

As to seeing one, several are being observed, most notably, the one in the centre of our galaxy. They are observed via the interaction of nearby bodies and their emmisions.

starsorbitin.jpg


Milky Way's Monster Black Hole Unleashes Record-Breaking X-ray Flare
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Our argument would go like this:

Me: The universe shows immense evidence of being non-chaotic and organized.

You: The universe shows immense evidence of being chaotic and disorganized.

Why is your argument factual and mine subjective? This is a typical double-standard that skeptics hold, here.

When those on the side of science use terms they tend to be well defined. Theists not so much.
 
Top