Intelligent Design is based on a logical fallacy; If one isn't true, the other must be. It is creationism in disguise.
-
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!
Scientific Evidence Supporting Intelligent Design
- Thread starter Kilgore Trout
- Start date
Intelligent Design is based on a logical fallacy; If one isn't true, the other must be. It is creationism in disguise.
Don Penguinoini
Modi.
It should be illegal to call it intelligent design. Replace intelligent with something else.
Any suggestions?
Any suggestions?
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Ringer
Jar of Clay
I'm not talking about evidence. I'm talking about possible forums where a majority of the forum members may hold to ID and not the ToE.
So, truth is now defined by how many people believe a proposition?
He's suggesting that they would have more luck doing their mocking at other forums. That's all.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
I try not to mock... I admit this can be hard at times. I also admit that many of the attitudes displayed can be detrimental to genuine discussion and education on the subject.
I would genuinely like to see ID scientists do some science to support their theory. Many of them do regular scientific work in other areas... at least once in a while. Though their productivity tends to drop to near zero as they become involved in ID promotion.
wa:do
I would genuinely like to see ID scientists do some science to support their theory. Many of them do regular scientific work in other areas... at least once in a while. Though their productivity tends to drop to near zero as they become involved in ID promotion.
wa:do
I.D. depends on two main things, logical fallacies, and the undermining of evolution. Thats all they really have. And both are easily dismantled. I.D. is creationism in a lab coat.
Don Penguinoini
Modi.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
And yet it should be so much more. There are genuine areas of research that could be explored and indeed ID has spurred genuine useful research into areas of evo-devo by credible scientists.
If they are going to wear the lab coat... they should use it.
wa:do
themadhair
Well-Known Member
I've got more bans from various forums than you can shake a stick at. They really do not like some of Judge Jones's quotes. I've been b& for quoting the pope. I've been b& for insisting that genes are part of the genome. I've got b& for questioning the inerrantness of the bible. I've been b& for being 'too technical' when I laid out the mathematics of information theory.
I do participate on other forums. Im thankful for my dynamic IP too.
yeah, the problem is, their looking at the bible and trying to understand the world through the bible. When they should be looking at the world and trying to understand it through the world.
themadhair
Well-Known Member
Seriously? I've heard the claim that it has applications in cryptography, fraud detection etc. but this is the first I've heard of any biology application. Any sauce?
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Shure... exploration into the immune system would have happened anyway, but perhaps not quite to the evo-devo depth it has been. Same with understanding the evolution and structure of things like the flagella, eye....
Nothing gets some people going like the challenge "science will never explain ______ "
wa:do
Nothing gets some people going like the challenge "science will never explain ______ "
wa:do
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
No doubt... but many scientists of faith do perfectly good work. They don't have the excuse not to do real science.
wa:do
themadhair
Well-Known Member
Not what I expected the answer to be....
The Voice of Reason
Doctor of Thinkology
ID is creationism in a threadbare disguise.
Actually, the people that repackaged creationism as ID have admitted that they did so for the sole purpose of trying to get it accepted into the public school system, since creationism has been completely and utterly rejected.
themadhair
Well-Known Member
Posting this here so as not to derail the other thread.
I actually have a deeper and more extensive understanding of evolutionary theory and its supporting evidence than I do for general relativity and its supporting evidence.
I actually have a deeper and more extensive understanding of evolutionary theory and its supporting evidence than I do for general relativity and its supporting evidence.
This is flat out false. If you really want to try this line of reasoning you would need to study something called evolutionary psychology which goes into how the emotions of empathy and altruism aid survival for the human species by preserving genetic diversity and using cooperation as a direct survival mechanism. In fact, an understanding of biological evolution as it applies to humans does not corroborate your interpretation sonic247.sonic247 said:
Why is sex between any consenting adults/animals and/or objects immoral if no person/animal is harmed or affected in any way?
I have seen people being deconverted from creationism. In most cases the person remained a Christian but no longer held to the literal interpretation of Genesis.
So full of holes that no creationist can seem to put together peer-review research to demonstrate that claim.
Please do. Some of the strongest evidence for common ancestry comes from genetics. I made a video on human DNA here - YouTube - Is DNA evidence of intelligence over evolution?
The Voice of Reason
Doctor of Thinkology
How about Unintelligent Nondesign?
Well, as they say, if you can't get in through the back door sneak in through the window.