The flaws in Intelligent design

[Audie]

It certainty goes against a loving caring god doesn't it. So we have an intelligent designer creating all kinds of new species to see them suffer. I think I will stick with the evolution theory at least natural forces are not their just to cause suffering.

I figure that suffering is just part of the conditions of life,
and those who find in it cause for anger and dismay
are just fools for expecting any better.

 

[Bear Wild]

But there is no clear evidence for evolution. And the only pope I know of who made any case for evolution is Pope Francis, and that was only an informal ill-planned answer to an on-the-spot question asked by some news reporter.

As for a literal reading of Genesis, maybe you are referring to the six days of creation. In case you're interested, the Catholic Church does not insist that anyone believe that these are six consecutive solar days. For one thing, the sun was not created until the fourth day, so that rules out the solar. More importantly. in the original Hebrew as Moses wrote it, the days are not expressed as consecutive days, but as subsequent, unspecified time periods beginning with day one and followed by "on a second day," "on a third day," etc. The more common belief in Catholicism is that the period of creation was a very long time.

And the term "lying God" is out of line.

It is amazing how many ways you can interpret words to fit what you want. We have ribs that are actually chromosomes. Days that can represent billions of years. Glossing over where all the people came from after adam and eve. Now matter how it words are used in the bible there is always a new way to twist their meanings. So with that light when native Americans long ago talked about turtle island the true meaning of that word is a continental plate made of igneous rock instead of basalt moving slowly to the west. Lets get creative.

 

[Bear Wild]

Ha. YOU try making a grasshopper.

I have made a snowman but he or she (not sure which) went extinct when the day got to warm.

 

[Audie]

It is amazing how many ways you can interpret words to fit what you want. We have ribs that are actually chromosomes. Days that can represent billions of years. Glossing over where all the people came from after adam and eve. Now matter how it words are used in the bible there is always a new way to twist their meanings. So with that light when native Americans long ago talked about turtle island the true meaning of that word is a continental plate made of igneous rock instead of basalt moving slowly to the west. Lets get creative.

What is the opposite of "literalist"?

 

[dianaiad]

Objective proof is asking a bit much.
How about one datum point re objective evidence?

Subjective works just as well for yes or no, this
god or that, which is to say, not very well at all.

What part of 'we cannot prove or disprove the existence of deity empirically" seems to have gone whoosh?

Why are you all insisting that we prove a deity exists, when you all seem to require any scientist examining any part of the universe simply accept you guy's position that one does not?

................and neither belief has anything at all to do with examining the universe as it is.

As for viewing science through the lens of 'God did this..." how is that different from viewing it from the lens of "there is no chance at all that a deity had anything to do with this?"

Either way one is coming to conclusions based on one's suppositions, and that's supposed to be a 'no-no,' correct?

Got news for you. There are a great many scientists who manage to believe in a deity AND be great scientists at the same time.

And there are a few atheistic scientists who have let their utter unbelief color their science so completely that if anything seems to support the idea of a deity, they run screaming.

Consider why the "Big Bang" was labeled that; by Fred Hoyle in mockery...partly because he thought that if it were 'true,' it would tend to support the idea of a Creator.

He remained a supporter of the 'solid state' theory of the universe until he died....decades after the 'Big Bang" was pretty much proven true. ....and that was in large part because of his own absolute belief in the utter lack of deity.

So cut it out, the lot of you. Whether there is a God or not is religion, a subjective opinion...faith.

..........and so is this insistence that there absolutely positively cannot be a deity.

Just...let science look at the universe, let believers handle a 'cause' and if the two run into each other, it will only be a coincidence.

 

[Audie]

What part of 'we cannot prove or disprove the existence of deity empirically" seems to have gone whoosh?

Why are you all insisting that we prove a deity exists, when you all seem to require any scientist examining any part of the universe simply accept you guy's position that one does not?

................and neither belief has anything at all to do with examining the universe as it is.

As for viewing science through the lens of 'God did this..." how is that different from viewing it from the lens of "there is no chance at all that a deity had anything to do with this?"

Either way one is coming to conclusions based on one's suppositions, and that's supposed to be a 'no-no,' correct?

Got news for you. There are a great many scientists who manage to believe in a deity AND be great scientists at the same time.

And there are a few atheistic scientists who have let their utter unbelief color their science so completely that if anything seems to support the idea of a deity, they run screaming.

Consider why the "Big Bang" was labeled that; by Fred Hoyle in mockery...partly because he thought that if it were 'true,' it would tend to support the idea of a Creator.

He remained a supporter of the 'solid state' theory of the universe until he died....decades after the 'Big Bang" was pretty much proven true. ....and that was in large part because of his own absolute belief in the utter lack of deity.

So cut it out, the lot of you. Whether there is a God or not is religion, a subjective opinion...faith.

..........and so is this insistence that there absolutely positively cannot be a deity.

Just...let science look at the universe, let believers handle a 'cause' and if the two run into each other, it will only be a coincidence.

No news at the glance I gave it. Just snark. You wanted your time,
I wont waste mine.

 

[dianaiad]

No news at the glance I gave it. Just snark. You wanted your time,
I wont waste mine.

That is generally the "well, I can't argue with that, but heaven (or not heaven) forbid that I admit it, so I'll exit stage left, throwing an insult over my shoulder as I go" method of debate.

I'm sorry, but this whole thing is frustrating.

 

[Timothy Spurlin]

You are absolutely correct. We cannot give you objective proof of deity. YOU can't give us objective proof that there is no possibility of a deity.

Did you have a point in that?

I have prayed to God, God didn't answer.
I ask God to reveal itself, God remains hidden. Therefore I'm an Atheist.

Why does God hide from those that seek it? If God reveal itself, I would no longer be an Atheist.

 

[Jollybear]

When it comes to the God, people believe in the same God because of the bible. There are 2 kinds of people.
They are grouped as..
A: those that believe in God
B: those that don't believe in God
Which are you? And why?


Lol. Without the Bible, a book written by men, you would not know of the God you believe in.

Then how did the bible authors know of the God they believed in?

 

[Jollybear]

Then your God giving cancer and disease to innocent children is for what reason, to make them suffer? Dude think it through. A book written by men has you duped. But I will gladly take a look at any scientific evidence you can produce for your God.

Disease happens because the design breaks down. Just like cars break down. It dont mean there not designed. Its the same with kids or anyone.

If God seperates himself, then things break down.

 

[Jollybear]

Where is heaven and hell located? I bet you don't know because your bible doesn't tell you. Heads up, eternity isn't a location.

Its a demention, not a location.

 

[Jollybear]

Are you saying all of life is corrupt? Bees, trees, bears, tigers, fish, dogs, elephants, etc. They die and have disease as well.

You see a fish as designed to live in the water when in reality it evolved to live in the water.

Do you believe in Zeus? Why or why not.

Just because design breaks down dont mean its not designed. Cars break down, computers break down. By your logic these things therefore must not be designed.

As far as animals go, no, there not corrupt, but again, wer getting into theology. God gave dominion to adam over the animals. His decision caused havoc. God alows it to teach what happens when power is used wrong.

As far as zues goes, i believe there are many gods or spirits within the spirit realm. Zues may be one.

 

[Jollybear]

Interesting, I have not even offered my own opinion, all I have done is offer effective evidence that has pointed out the folly of your opinion. Do you respond like an adult and engage on the issues? No, you excoriate me and swear ... cute ... but no cigar, you remain wrong as wrong can be.

No IDers do not do science the same way. They claim that their beliefs are scientific hypotheses even though their pronouncments are not couched in falsifiable terms. Thus they do not do science but rather just preach a religious sermon whilst pretending to deliver a rational scientific lecture. This fools those with insufficient knowledge and perspecity to know the difference. My ten year old neighbor is knowledgeable enough to know that you can not see a black hole and she can even spell "event horizon." It does matter how a seed is planted. Fairy tales like the bible do not provide a base that can be built on to make accurate and dependable predictions. Science does a much better job than prophecy.

Read it ... a major fail on all fronts. Here's an accurate review that parallels my conclusions well: Skepticblog » Stephen Meyer’s Fumbling Bumbling Amateur Cambrian Follies

As explained above a religious view is most definitely NOT A HYPOTHESIS, lacking as it does a framework for falsification. As Sir Karl Popper observed in Conjectures and Refutations: "... the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability."

Define religious belief and then define hypothesis?

Also ID is falsifiable. If you can prove naturalism did it without intelligence then youd falsify ID.

Also it appears naturalism is unfalsifiable.

But in anycase, something is either true or false. People need to take a break from this "what would it take for you not to believe thus and thus" and address actual issues and evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I assume Design because I believe in a Creator God. I also do not think that has anything at all to do with the examination of the universe through science. They are two entirely different...as someone awhile back in a different forum said, "magesteria."

That is an unjustified assumption. And if there was a creator we should be able to judge him by his work. At best we have a rather incompetent designer since evolution followed a path that indicates it worked on "good enough". An unjustified assumption results in irrational beliefs.

Whether it is deliberately designed or not, the universe is as it is. Science is how one examines it. One does NOT have to prove a Creator, or disprove one, in order to examine it.

If someone believes in something that belief should be based upon reliable evidence. Change the word "Creator" to "Pixies" in your above sentence and you should be able to understand.

In fact, I'll turn this around. YOU are assuming that there is no Creator. You can't prove that there is none. Should I insist that you do so before you are allowed to study the universe?

No, I don't. Why did you assume that? I lack a belief in a creator, that is not the same as assuming that One does not exist.

Indeed. But one does NOT have to define the term "event horizon" to study plate tectonics. One does not have to define "Creator" in order to study stars. You are demanding that one come to an unprovable conclusion before one can examine the data.

No, I am demanding that if someone uses terms in an argument that they need to be defined. You keep trying to use the word"design" but cannot define it. No one uses the term "event horizon" when discussing plate tectonics. That is a failed analogy.

 

[Jollybear]

Can NDE'S and ESP be tested for objectively?
Can you provide objective evidence that your god made DNA?
Atheism doesn't require faith to believe there is no god. Theist have failed to provide objective evidence of a god.

A lack of faith in God IS an active faith in an unintelligent forces having created the universe.

This is a fact whether you admit it or not.

 

[Jollybear]

Weird - DNA is my objective evidence for evolution.

Oh? How did DNA evolve?

 

[Jollybear]

I have read every post in this thread so far and seen nothing remotely resembling evidence.

Can you point it out to me?

Just as theres such a thing as physical blindness, theres also such a thing as intellectual blindness.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But there is no clear evidence for evolution. And the only pope I know of who made any case for evolution is Pope Francis, and that was only an informal ill-planned answer to an on-the-spot question asked by some news reporter.

What!? You have to be joking. If a person has no education in the sciences it may seem that way, but I can assure you that there is endless evidence for evolution. And the Catholic church accepted it long before Frances. Pope Pius XII first said there was no conflict between evolution and Catholicism in the 1950's. As a Catholic I am surprised that you did not know this:

Catholic Church and evolution - Wikipedia

As for a literal reading of Genesis, maybe you are referring to the six days of creation. In case you're interested, the Catholic Church does not insist that anyone believe that these are six consecutive solar days. For one thing, the sun was not created until the fourth day, so that rules out the solar. More importantly. in the original Hebrew as Moses wrote it, the days are not expressed as consecutive days, but as subsequent, unspecified time periods beginning with day one and followed by "on a second day," "on a third day," etc. The more common belief in Catholicism is that the period of creation was a very long time.

Not just the creation myth, and no I am not limiting that myth to YEC's. We know that there never was a worldwide flood of a Tower of Babel. And Moses is mythical too.

And the term "lying God" is out of line.

No, it illustrates how wrong it is to believe the myths of Genesis. It is why Christians should look for some other meaning to that book.

 

[Jollybear]

Here is some DNA:

1 gatcacaggt ctatcaccct attaaccact cacgggagct ctccatgcat ttggtatttt
61 cgtctggggg gtatgcacgc gatagcattg cgagacgctg gagccggagc accctatgtc
121 gcagtatctg tctttgattc ctgcctcatc ctattattta tcgcacctac gttcaatatt
181 acaggcgaac atacttacta aagtgtgtta attaattaat gcttgtagga cataataata
241 acaattgaat gtctgcacag ccactttcca cacagacatc ataacaaaaa atttccacca
301 aaccccccct cccccgcttc tggccacagc acttaaacac atctctgcca aaccccaaaa
361 acaaagaacc ctaacaccag cctaaccaga tttcaaattt tatcttttgg cggtatgcac
421 ttttaacagt caccccccaa ctaacacatt attttcccct cccactccca tactactaat
481 ctcatcaata caacccccgc ccatcctacc cagcacacac acaccgctgc taaccccata
541 ccccgaacca accaaacccc aaagacaccc cccacagttt atgtagctta cctcctcaaa
601 gcaatacact gaaaatgttt agacgggctc acatcacccc ataaacaaat aggtttggtc
661 ctagcctttc tattagctct tagtaagatt acacatgcaa gcatccccgt tccagtgagt
721 tcaccctcta aatcaccacg atcaaaagga acaagcatca agcacgcagc aatgcagctc
781 aaaacgctta gcctagccac acccccacgg gaaacagcag tgattaacct ttagcaataa
841 acgaaagttt aactaagcta tactaacccc agggttggtc aatttcgtgc cagccaccgc
901 ggtcacacga ttaacccaag tcaatagaag ccggcgtaaa gagtgtttta gatcaccccc
961 tccccaataa agctaaaact cacctgagtt gtaaaaaact ccagttgaca caaaatagac
1021 tacgaaagtg gctttaacat atctgaacac acaatagcta agacccaaac tgggattaga
1081 taccccacta tgcttagccc taaacctcaa cagttaaatc aacaaaactg ctcgccagaa
1141 cactacgagc cacagcttaa aactcaaagg acctggcggt gcttcatatc cctctagagg
1201 agcctgttct gtaatcgata aaccccgatc aacctcacca cctcttgctc agcctatata
1261 ccgccatctt cagcaaaccc tgatgaaggc tacaaagtaa gcgcaagtac ccacgtaaag
1321 acgttaggtc aaggtgtagc ccatgaggtg gcaagaaatg ggctacattt tctaccccag
1381 aaaactacga tagcccttat gaaacttaag ggtcgaaggt ggatttagca gtaaactaag
1441 agtagagtgc ttagttgaac agggccctga agcgcgtaca caccgcccgt caccctcctc
1501 aagtatactt caaaggacat ttaactaaaa cccctacgca tttatataga ggagacaagt
1561 cgtaacatgg taagtgtact ggaaagtgca cttggacgaa ccagagtgta gcttaacaca
1621 aagcacccaa cttacactta ggagatttca acttaacttg accgctctga gctaaaccta
1681 gccccaaacc cactccacct tactaccaga caaccttagc caaaccattt acccaaataa
1741 agtataggcg atagaaattg aaacctggcg caatagatat agtaccgcaa gggaaagatg

Show me the "code of instructions".

Show you? You just showed me the instructions. Its not my fault i nor you can read or speak DNA language.

Can you read and speak ancient greek? Just because you cant dont mean its not a language.

 

[Audie]

Then how did the bible authors know of the God they believed in?

Same way that every other phony "god". They
made it up. Like, is that really so hard to figure?

You think Joseph Smith REALLY found the Book of Mormon
written in an unknown language on gold pages, in a cave in
Upstate New York?

Mohammed really got his book from god?

Your question is as naive as your little bunny "evator"!!