The flaws in Intelligent design

[dianaiad]

Does the man have the meteorite? If he has the meteorite, he has objective evidence it exist.
If an experience can be reproduce in front of a camera then there would be objective evidence for it.

All we have of this is his word.

Does that mean that it didn't happen?

BTW, most such minor 'strikes' don't leave identifiable meteorites behind, unless one has specialized equipment and know exactly what to look for.

 

[dianaiad]

No, it shows the flaws in what you call evidence.


Hard to say. Perhaps I could learn more if you did not constantly misrepresent the views of others. And you broke up my post to soon. The explanation was in the next sentence.<snip to end>

Well, that went the way most of our conversations do. You completely misread and misrepresent what I write, and then when you get frustrated, you head right for the personal insults.

BTW, while I DO think that God created the universe, attempting to prove that is silly. If He created it, then He is also the creator of all the laws that run it. ALL we can do is examine His work in view of those laws.

..........and that's all we should do. If we run into proof that "God did it," somewhere down the line, that would be nice, but I sure don't expect that will happen. Nor is that something any of us should be attempting to prove...or DISprove. The universe is what it is, however it came into being. It is sufficient for us to try to figure out how it works, not "Who did it," or proving that Nobody did.

And what made you think that I was a proponent of Intelligent Design? this is what I mean by you misreading and misrepresenting what I write. I have spent a great amount of wordage explaining why "Intelligent design" belongs in church...and NOT in the scientific investigation of the universe.

It would be nice, SZ, if you would stop assuming my positions before I make them, or instead of what I write. Indeed, I quite often think that in conversations with you, I should simply stand aside and let you invent both sides of the conversation; you do anyway and it would save me ever so much frustration.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, that went the way most of our conversations do. You completely misread and misrepresent what I write, and then when you get frustrated, you head right for the personal insults.

BTW, while I DO think that God created the universe, attempting to prove that is silly. If He created it, then He is also the creator of all the laws that run it. ALL we can do is examine His work in view of those laws.

..........and that's all we should do. If we run into proof that "God did it," somewhere down the line, that would be nice, but I sure don't expect that will happen. Nor is that something any of us should be attempting to prove...or DISprove. The universe is what it is, however it came into being. It is sufficient for us to try to figure out how it works, not "Who did it," or proving that Nobody did.

And what made you think that I was a proponent of Intelligent Design? this is what I mean by you misreading and misrepresenting what I write. I have spent a great amount of wordage explaining why "Intelligent design" belongs in church...and NOT in the scientific investigation of the universe.

It would be nice, SZ, if you would stop assuming my positions before I make them, or instead of what I write. Indeed, I quite often think that in conversations with you, I should simply stand aside and let you invent both sides of the conversation; you do anyway and it would save me ever so much frustration.

Whoa! Wait a second. What personal insults? You made errors. They were pointed out to you.

Let me make this very simple. ID is the thinly veiled creationism that you disagree with. When you mistakenly use that term to describe your beliefs you are saying that you are a creationist. You have made it clear that that is not the case so it would be wise to change your terminology. And please don't try to change your tune now. Your posts are still there. I can quote from them if needed.

You have also been more than guilty of what you accuse me of. You repeatedly strawmanned my position. Why did you do that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

All we have of this is his word.

Does that mean that it didn't happen?

BTW, most such minor 'strikes' don't leave identifiable meteorites behind, unless one has specialized equipment and know exactly what to look for.

Not even the Bible makes that error. One has to assume that the Bible is the word of God. To support this claim people have to take vague verses out of context that have to be about parts of the Old Testament only, at best.

Why not state that you get your beliefs from the Bible?

 

[dianaiad]

Not even the Bible makes that error. One has to assume that the Bible is the word of God. To support this claim people have to take vague verses out of context that have to be about parts of the Old Testament only, at best.

Why not state that you get your beliefs from the Bible?

Wait. What?

 

[dianaiad]

Whoa! Wait a second. What personal insults? You made errors. They were pointed out to you.

Let me make this very simple. ID is the thinly veiled creationism that you disagree with. When you mistakenly use that term to describe your beliefs you are saying that you are a creationist. You have made it clear that that is not the case so it would be wise to change your terminology. And please don't try to change your tune now. Your posts are still there. I can quote from them if needed.

You have also been more than guilty of what you accuse me of. You repeatedly strawmanned my position. Why did you do that?

Oh, do go ahead and do that.

.....and if you are honestly claiming NOT to have been personally insulting, I suggest that you go back and read the post to which mine was the reply.

 

[Timothy Spurlin]

All we have of this is his word.

Does that mean that it didn't happen?

BTW, most such minor 'strikes' don't leave identifiable meteorites behind, unless one has specialized equipment and know exactly what to look for.

Yes, all we have is his word.

But when it comes to claims of god revealing itself to someone, then all you have is a subjective experience. If the experience can be reproduce in front of witness and camera then it would be objective.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wait. What?

You used the phrase "word of God" .

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh, do go ahead and do that.

.....and if you are honestly claiming NOT to have been personally insulting, I suggest that you go back and read the post to which mine was the reply.

Corrections are not insults. You were the one that used the phrase "intelligent design" incorrectly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Now if you were to separate the groups...there are ID proponents who are thinly disguised creationists.

And then there are the ones like my father, who firmly believe in God, but who also believe that God wants us to figure out how He did it; to suss out the 'laws,' to figure out the processes, and NEVER accept 'God did it" as the final answer. He would never have thrown something out because it seemed to support 'no God,' and he certainly wouldn't have figured that he could prove that God existed through his own investigations.

Here is what I was talking about. In context it is quite clear that you state that your father is an ID proponent that does not try to force God into the equation. Please note how in your first paragraph you stated that some ID believers are thinly disguised creationist when it one knew the history and meaning of the term It clearly is a term by and for creationists. In the actions that you described he is not an ID proponent, but rather it appears that he does real work in the sciences.

 

[Forever_Catholic]

What objective evidence do you have for a designer/god?

No evidence means there is no reason to consider it as an answer.

Evolution is supported by the evidence. There is no evidence that supports intelligent design.

the theory of evolution is sound science backed by real evidence.

Every new trait, ability, genetic sequence, and species that we've ever seen arise has done so via evolutionary mechanisms

We could just say that evolution is the evidence, which is pretty much what is said already. But it isn’t. What we see for certain in every fossil ever discovered is a result. What we have not seen is the cause. Nobody has observed it.

If the evolution theory were a crime that generations of detectives had been investigating for 160 years, still with insufficient evidence for a conviction, we would probably conclude by now that it will never be solved.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We could just say that evolution is the evidence, which is pretty much what is said already. But it isn’t. What we see for certain in every fossil ever discovered is a result. What we have not seen is the cause. Nobody has observed it.

If the evolution theory were a crime that generations of detectives had been investigating for 160 years, still with insufficient evidence for a conviction, we would probably conclude by now that it will never be solved.

Once again you show that you do not understand the concept of evidence. Why not take a few minutes to discuss it? Fossils clearly are evidence for the theory of evolution.

 

[dianaiad]

Wait. What?

You used the phrase "word of God" .

Where and in what context?

BTW, I do get my RELIGIOUS beliefs from the bible...and from the book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price and from what I believe is personal answer to personal prayer.

I do not get my scientific knowledge from these sources, however. That's like getting one's knowledge about geology from research regarding cancer.

Why in the world to you keep insisting that I make claims that I don't?

And then come along leveling personal insults, excusing them by claiming that you are 'correcting' me regarding claims I never made. Conversing with you is very confusing.

 

[dianaiad]

Yes, all we have is his word.

But when it comes to claims of god revealing itself to someone, then all you have is a subjective experience. If the experience can be reproduce in front of witness and camera then it would be objective.

What makes the personal 'witness' of a meteorite strike...which cannot be reproduced in front of a camera, btw, more acceptable as evidence than the witness of someone who claims to have seen God...or any other sort of miracle?

I don't get it. The difference, at least to me, seems to be 'well, I believe in meteors so if someone says one landed in his back yard, it probably did. I don't believe in God, therefore anybody who claims to have seen Him is either lying or it's all in his head.."

Yes, we do have camera footage of meteorite strikes. We do not, however, have any camera footage of THAT meteorite strike.

....and the truth of it is not affected by whether you believe it or not, either way.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Where and in what context?

BTW, I do get my RELIGIOUS beliefs from the bible...and from the book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price and from what I believe is personal answer to personal prayer.

I do not get my scientific knowledge from these sources, however. That's like getting one's knowledge about geology from research regarding cancer.

Why in the world to you keep insisting that I make claims that I don't?

And then come along leveling personal insults, excusing them by claiming that you are 'correcting' me regarding claims I never made. Conversing with you is very confusing.

Where have I ever made a claim about you that was incorrct? Please quote, a link would be nice too but not 100% necessary. I am on a tablet and I know that links can be difficult.

calling the sources that you sites , "the word of God" is far from correct and would need far more substantiation than you could provide.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What makes the personal 'witness' of a meteorite strike...which cannot be reproduced in front of a camera, btw, more acceptable as evidence than the witness of someone who claims to have seen God...or any other sort of miracle?

I don't get it. The difference, at least to me, seems to be 'well, I believe in meteors so if someone says one landed in his back yard, it probably did. I don't believe in God, therefore anybody who claims to have seen Him is either lying or it's all in his head.."

Yes, we do have camera footage of meteorite strikes. We do not, however, have any camera footage of THAT meteorite strike.

....and the truth of it is not affected by whether you believe it or not, either way.

Events do not need to be reproducible to be scientific, it is the observations that need to be reproducible. That is why the conclusion of a meteorite strike is scientific. The observations can be reproduced in many places around the world.

 

[Audie]

That is absolutely incorrect. All of our understanding of comparative anatomy/physiology and all of the advances in our understanding of genetics with its amazing ability to create variations (without a shred of evidence of an intelligent designer constantly directing all lives genetic material all of the time) and all of the continuing finds in fossil record that continuously reaffirms the theory of evolution makes only one correct conclusion - the theory of evolution is sound science backed by real evidence.
Intelligent design - opinions, opinions and more opinions without evidence. The intelligent designer as much evidence as any mythical being be it Thor or Zeus or any deity male or female. You cannot give any evidence but then reject all of the evidence which would take years to read through.
Evolution - evidence based science Intelligent designer - imagination and opinion.

Well, you know, he just says things.

 

[dianaiad]

Where have I ever made a claim about you that was incorrct? Please quote, a link would be nice too but not 100% necessary. I am on a tablet and I know that links can be difficult.

calling the sources that you sites , "the word of God" is far from correct and would need far more substantiation than you could provide.

This is the last time I respond to you.

You have accused me of misrepresenting everything. You have told me that I am unable to understand, you have, basically, called me stupid and you are constantly accusing me of positions that I not only do not hold...but nobody else on this forum think I hold.

In the meantime YOU are guilty of moving the goalposts, insisting that "Intelligent Design" is restricted to a specific group that you identify...at the same time you are equivocating and commiting a 'fallacy of composition,' in that if someone tells you that s/he believes in a divine Creator, then OF COURSE that person is a biblical six day creationist who thinks the earth is a whole six thousand years old.

Most of us are not. There are a great many scientists who believe in a Creator God (meaning that the universe was designed by Intelligence) but who do not bring that belief into the study of, say, paleontology.

Or rocket science. As to whether you have ever made a claim about me that was not correct? When have you ever made a claim about me that WAS?

Enough already. When you figure out what your objection is to me and the claims I have actually made. let us know.

 

[Audie]

We could just say that evolution is the evidence, which is pretty much what is said already. But it isn’t. What we see for certain in every fossil ever discovered is a result. What we have not seen is the cause. Nobody has observed it.

If the evolution theory were a crime that generations of detectives had been investigating for 160 years, still with insufficient evidence for a conviction, we would probably conclude by now that it will never be solved.

What a completely weird thing to say

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is the last time I respond to you.

You have accused me of misrepresenting everything. You have told me that I am unable to understand, you have, basically, called me stupid and you are constantly accusing me of positions that I not only do not hold...but nobody else on this forum think I hold.

In the meantime YOU are guilty of moving the goalposts, insisting that "Intelligent Design" is restricted to a specific group that you identify...at the same time you are equivocating and commiting a 'fallacy of composition,' in that if someone tells you that s/he believes in a divine Creator, then OF COURSE that person is a biblical six day creationist who thinks the earth is a whole six thousand years old.

Most of us are not. There are a great many scientists who believe in a Creator God (meaning that the universe was designed by Intelligence) but who do not bring that belief into the study of, say, paleontology.

Or rocket science. As to whether you have ever made a claim about me that was not correct? When have you ever made a claim about me that WAS?

Enough already. When you figure out what your objection is to me and the claims I have actually made. let us know.

You have repeated the same errors even after they were clearly explained to you. You have been guilty of doing what you have accused me of doing multiple times. The main problem is that you have latched onto a term that does not describe your true beliefs. Like it or not intelligent design is creationism. Are you familiar at all with the Dover Trial? The history of that term was clearly shown there. When one uses terminology incorrectly that person is in a very weak position to claim that others have misrepresented him.

I can support my claims about ID. The origin of the term, how it was coined by creationists in an illegal attempt to get creationism back in public schools. Why didn't you ask for evidence for my claims? I already quoted you to show you using that phrase incorrectly. I could have done it again and again. That is why I said that you did not seem to understand the corrections.

I could also quote time and again where you misrepresented my claims. I will support my claims when asked.

And if you do not like a correction dispute it. Tell why you think it is incorrect. I know that " Intelligent Design " sounds good as a term, but it was invented by a dishonest group and it is tainted as a result.

And even here you make an incorrect statement about my beliefs. I never said or even implied that all believers of ID are YEC 's. Where did you get that from? You keep claiming that others misrepresent what you say, but cannot substantiate that claim and then clearly misstated others positions.