The flaws in Intelligent design

[Polymath257]

Abiogenesis was conclusively proven false a long, long time ago, sorry . . .

Really? When? Don't confuse abiogenesis with spontaneous generation.

 

[dianaiad]

Believing is claiming. Claiming is believing.
"I believe god exists", includes the claim "god exists".

No it doesn't. It includes one claim: I believe. To prove THAT claim, all I have to do is say "I believe."

Double standards are not logical.

After all, there is a difference between 'I don't believe a deity exists,' or "I see no evidence that a deity exists" and "no god exists." To prove the first to, all one has to do is say "I don't believe," or "I see no evidence," because the claim is about one's own beliefs. The statement 'no god exists" is about the deity. Now you have to go prove it.

The same thing goes for "I believe...(insert whatever here)."

Can't have one without the other.[/qyite[

One absolutely can.

The question "what justifies your belief?" is synonymous with "what evidence do you have to support that claim?".

That's a whole 'nuther claim. Belief is belief. It's all about what one thinks about evidence, not about the evidence itself. As soon as you start asking 'why,' or 'what evidence,' you have changed the subject.

UNLESS that subject is about something other than personal belief/opinion. "There is a god" and "there is no god" are both positive claims about the existence of deity and have nothing to do with belief.

That's neat.
But that's the same as saying that you have no rational justification for your belief.

Not if one defines 'rational' wholly in terms of empirical evidence, I suppose I don't. I don't care. Works for me. I don't expect anybody else to agree with that simply because I have declared something.

And as the Hitch so famously said: "what is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence".[/quote}

He's right. However, you are using invisible adjectives with 'evidence' there. You are assuming that all evidence is empirical and objective. It isn't. "Evidence' is anything that causes someone to make a conclusion about something. 'data points,' sort of. Simply because you dismiss certain types of evidence (subjective...), it doesn't make it 'not evidence.' It makes it "not objective evidence," and you'd be right. It's not...and things like attempting to find a murderer or proving a case in court do require objective evidence. Stuff like personal human feelings (love, hate, loyalty, belief in deity) can't be proven empirically, only subjectively. Doesn't mean those things don't exist, though.

Which is impossible to do, if there is no evidence.
YOU yourself didn't do that, because if you did, you would be able to justify your belief. But you can't. You just believe it. Just.... because.

No, I believe for very powerful subjective reasons. Personal answer to prayer, study...but you don't accept that sort of evidence so it's not pertinent to this conversation. You do NOT, however, have the right to dismiss the reasons I believe as...'just because."

You could also "just" believe that an undetectable monster is about to eat you.
So why don't you?
False. As I said: "i believe god exists", necessarily includes the positive claim that a god exists.

No. The only claim there is "I believe."

I agree.

Remind me again who is claiming that?




Falsely claiming that people claim that "no god exists", while they aren't, isn't exactly productive to discussion either.

The 'strong' atheists claim this. That's what makes them 'strong' atheists.

That's quite ironic. It seems to me that you are the only one here who is doing exactly that, by charging atheists with the position that they claim that no gods exist, which is just not true.

Fallacy of composition. You are accusing me of saying that atheists (implying the set 'all atheists") claim this. They do not, of course. Only that subset called 'strong' atheists do that.

...........and they certainly do that.

You, however ARE claiming a god exists, as explained earlier.
"i believe god exists" necessarily and literally includes the claim that god exists.

no. it only includes the claim 'I believe." Eisegesis is supposed to be a 'bad thing,' and you are certainly doing it a lot here.

Great. Do you also understand that your belief in an unsupported god, is the equivalent of believing that such an invisble rock on the road exists?

Nope. Not even close.

That's is not at all a problem for my example. You're actually making my point for me.

Those rocks are quite visible. There is good reason to be carefull. There is lots of evidence of these visible rocks falling down from visible mountains.
Now contrast that with my invisible rocks falling from this invisible mountain:

View attachment 27211





None of which seem to be part of this discussion. Weird.



Indeed.
Just like it is logical to say "I see no evidence of rocks blocking my way, so I'm not slamming my breaks".

But it IS illogical to say "I see no evidence of rocks blocking my way, but I'm slamming my breaks anyway because I believe the invisible rocks are blocking my way".

Just like it is illogcal to say "I see no evidence of gods, but I believe gods exist anyway".

Now you are equivocating empirical evidence with subjective evidence.
Don't do that.

I agree that saying "there is no god" as a truth claim, is something that one cannot justify.
Just like you can't justify saying "there are no invisible rocks on the road".

Well, not quite. We have empirical evidence of rocks....that they fall off of mountains, that they are not invisible, and that the odds are huge that on a flat plain where there are no mountains anywhere, that it is unlikely that one will appear in front of you.

Mind you, given the fact that rocks HAVE dropped down in the middle of flat plains before...though rarely and it's even more unlikely that one will hit the ground immediately in front of you while you drive down an Ohio (or wherever) road, hitting your breaks for fear of one isn't exactly logical.

But an invisible rock is NOT the same as a creator God who would, one would think, have control over His appearance or disappearance. A rock, invisible or not, cannot provide any subjective evidence. God would be able to do that.

HOWEVER, the complete lack of evidence to the opposite, still make that position more rational then saying that there ARE gods / invisible rocks.

Because you will off course not have evidence of things that don't exist.
If invisible rocks don't exist, then there won't be any evidence in support of invisible rocks.
So the data of reality is consistent with that view.

Y'know, there is an addage: Lack of proof does not equal proof of lack...which is what we have been talking about.

However, you are now accusing me of holding the opposite illogical position: that lack of proof for the existence of deity somehow proves that there is one.

That's a position I've never mentioned in here, and it's one I don't hold. Lack of proof is simply....lack of proof. One can't use it as 'evidence' either way. In fact, I talked about this in one of my very recent posts. Yesterday, I think.

I wrote that if lack of proof on your part was somehow proof that God DID exist, then it could be argued (and is, by some) that your lack of proof that there is no god proves that THEIR version of Him/Her/It is 'true,' by golly. So...which One is it, if any of 'em? Are the deists right? The Hindu's? The various polytheist groups? Any of the Abrahamic faiths? Problems, problems....

To say that invisible rocks DO exist, there could be evidence (being carefull not say SHOULD).
But, it might be that we just haven't found it yet, or that the evidence is not at our disposal.

Thinking about it...Perhaps they do exist. There is all that dark matter, after all. Could be rocks...but if they are, then they would be just as invisible to all our senses as dark matter in general, and we would simply drive through them, just like all the other dark matter in the universe. Being un-crash-in-able would mean that we really don't have to worry about them, right?

Hmnnn.

Pardon me. It was chemo day today, and my mind is going down weird paths....

Either way, making truth claims about things not in evidence - never a rational position.

Again. don't equivocate here. you are confusing 'evidence' with 'empirical,' or 'objective' evidence. If that is the only kind of evidence you will accept AS evidence for a conclusion or belief, I am truly sorry for you. You must live an extremely lonely, suspicious and paranoid life.

After all, one cannot prove that someone loves you empirically. Sure, s/he might do many wonderful things for you, tell you s/he loves you, live with you, suffer with you...all those 'fruits' that love would ordinarily produce, but none of those things prove that the REASON s/he does all those things is because s/he loves you. In fact, if all you will accept is empirical/objective evidence of stuff like that, you would have to assume that love doesn't exist, so all those things s/he does have ulterior motives; greed, perhaps?

 

[Bear Wild]

No it doesn't. It includes one claim: I believe. To prove THAT claim, all I have to do is say "I believe."

Double standards are not logical.

After all, there is a difference between 'I don't believe a deity exists,' or "I see no evidence that a deity exists" and "no god exists." To prove the first to, all one has to do is say "I don't believe," or "I see no evidence," because the claim is about one's own beliefs. The statement 'no god exists" is about the deity. Now you have to go prove it.

The same thing goes for "I believe...(insert whatever here)."

I believe is exactly the problem with intelligent design. No evidence needed. Criticize anything you want because believe is unprovable and requires no evidence. Scientific work is under intensive scrutiny not only by outrageous false statements by intelligent design advocates but by scientists who questions themselves. Despite this the theory of evolution is growing with support from actual evidence while intelligent design can only create imaginative models based not on science but on desire to believe. The double standard is simple. One view is I believe therefore it must be true the other is careful observation with critical evaluation of evidence subject to review and a careful building of a theory based on evidence. That is a true double standard. Then there is the misleading misinformation including websites that are evolutionnews.org. By the way it is against evolution despite its title.

 

[Bear Wild]

Abiogenesis was conclusively proven false a long, long time ago, sorry . . .

Sorry but I have already sited evidence to support the evidence of abiogenesis including purine formation in conditions found in earth before life and polymerization of purines with the same conditions. You clearly are not up to date on the new research.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No it doesn't. It includes one claim: I believe. To prove THAT claim, all I have to do is say "I believe."

Double standards are not logical.

After all, there is a difference between 'I don't believe a deity exists,' or "I see no evidence that a deity exists" and "no god exists." To prove the first to, all one has to do is say "I don't believe," or "I see no evidence," because the claim is about one's own beliefs. The statement 'no god exists" is about the deity. Now you have to go prove it.

The same thing goes for "I believe...(insert whatever here)."

Most atheists simply have a lack of belief since there is a lack of evidence. An atheist can as a result claim to be more rational in their beliefs. They do not believe without rational evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Abiogenesis was conclusively proven false a long, long time ago, sorry . . .

Really? When? I must have missed the peer reviewed article.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry but I have already sited evidence to support the evidence of abiogenesis including purine formation in conditions found in earth before life and polymerization of purines with the same conditions. You clearly are not up to date on the new research.

I am betting that he conflated abiogenesis with spontaneous generation.

 

[dianaiad]

Most atheists simply have a lack of belief since there is a lack of evidence.

True. Though you keep forgetting that very important adjective, 'objective.'

An atheist can as a result claim to be more rational in their beliefs.

Oh, anybody can claim anything. The problem comes in proving that claim.

They do not believe without rational evidence.

Wrong adjective. "Rational" means:

a : having reason or understanding
b : relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason : reasonable a rational explanation rational behavior

"reason" or "understanding," ...this adjective is about how one thinks and reasons about a previously arrived at hypothesis or conclusion. It has nothing to do with the evidence that one uses to arrive at the hypothesis. It is perfectly possible to be rational and logical about a faulty hypothesis. Shoot, the ancient Greeks...and the modern Jesuits...are perfectly rational about claims that the rest of the world might well think are nutty.

The adjectives you want are 'objective,' and/or 'empirical.'

 

[Subduction Zone]

True. Though you keep forgetting that very important adjective, 'objective.'

I did not forget that. The term I prefer when talking about evidence is "reliable evidence". I have yet to see any reliable evidence from a theist.

Oh, anybody can claim anything. The problem comes in proving that claim.

That is correct.

Wrong adjective. "Rational" means:

a : having reason or understanding
b : relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason : reasonable a rational explanation rational behavior

"reason" or "understanding," ...this adjective is about how one thinks and reasons about a previously arrived at hypothesis or conclusion. It has nothing to do with the evidence that one uses to arrive at the hypothesis. It is perfectly possible to be rational and logical about a faulty hypothesis. Shoot, the ancient Greeks...and the modern Jesuits...are perfectly rational about claims that the rest of the world might well think are nutty.

The adjectives you want are 'objective,' and/or 'empirical.'

All of your definitions demonstrated that I used the correct adjective. Rational thought is based upon objective or empirical evidence. What do you think that it is based upon?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If you want me to reply properly to your post, you're going to have to fix the quoting. I'm no going to dig into it.

No it doesn't. It includes one claim: I believe. To prove THAT claim, all I have to do is say "I believe."

And you believe a claim. A claim that requires evidence.
Your belief of said claim requires justification.

At least, if you care about holding reasonable beliefs.

Double standards are not logical.

What double standards?

After all, there is a difference between 'I don't believe a deity exists,' or "I see no evidence that a deity exists" and "no god exists." To prove the first to, all one has to do is say "I don't believe,"

But when asked for the justification of your belief, answering "because I believe" is clearly not sufficient.
Believing / agreeing with a claim is the same as making the claim, in practical terms.

or "I see no evidence," because the claim is about one's own beliefs. The statement 'no god exists" is about the deity. Now you have to go prove it.

The statement "no god exists", is the practical equivalent of "i believe no god exists".
Beliefs require justification. I agree.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Abiogenesis was conclusively proven false a long, long time ago, sorry . . .

When, and by whom?

 

[dianaiad]

I did not forget that. The term I prefer when talking about evidence is "reliable evidence". I have yet to see any reliable evidence from a theist.

Wrong. Reliable evidence is that which is relied upon, and is based upon the credibility of the source; it may not be proven to be demonstrably wrong, even if it is. You are still confusing "objective" with 'evidence,' when 'evidence' can be either objective and direct, or subjective. What makes evidence 'evidence' is what the observer gets from it, not from some intrinsic value. It's not 'evidence' until someone says it is, and when someone says something is evidence, then it is. It may be bad, lousy, irrelevant or totally fruitcake, but if someone comes to some conclusion as a result, it's evidence.

All of your definitions demonstrated that I used the correct adjective. Rational thought is based upon objective or empirical evidence. What do you think that it is based upon?

Rational thought...or logical arguments...are based upon the acceptance of a premise. False premises can, and very often do, result in rational and logical arguments.

One example used is this one:

Premise: if the streets are wet, then it rained recently.

Logical and rational argument:

The streets are wet.

Conclusion:

It rained recently.


Perfectly logical and rational argument...except of course that the premise is false. The streets could be wet because the river flooded, or the street cleaners came by, or a fire hydrant 'blew' and is blowing a fine and spectacular geyser...

"Rational thought" is not based upon objective or empirical arguments. Such evidence could easily result in rational thought, but not always, as many of the posts here have proven. On the other hand, subjective evidence may also result in rational thought...because the 'rational' part is about the people arguing, not the evidence itself.

"True" evidence (or you would call that empirical or objective evidence) can prompt rational thought and logical arguments...but not always.

Subjective evidence may also prompt rational thought and logical arguments...but not always.

The best term for the whole thing, I think, is 'begging the question." If, that is, the arguers figure out that there is something wrong with the premise in the first place.

 

[dianaiad]

If you want me to reply properly to your post, you're going to have to fix the quoting. I'm no going to dig into it.

oops....sorry about that. I I messed up the ending / quote. I usually catch that stuff.

And you believe a claim. A claim that requires evidence.
Your belief of said claim requires justification.

No it doesn't. Nobody has to justify personal belief. That is, a statement of "I believe that..." requires no justification to anybody.

At least, if you care about holding reasonable beliefs.

"Reasonable" to whom? Why do I have to justify any of my beliefs to anybody else in order to hold them myself?

Shoot, the very fact that I open myself up to ridicule by saying 'I believe" should indicate that I know what I'm doing here.

What requires justification is a positive claim about the belief. That is, "this thing is true and that's way I believe it."

A simple "I believe" claim requires no justification. IF the listener then asks "why?" and the speaker chooses to answer, then of course the whole thing changes, but "I believe?"

Nope.

What double standards?

The ones where atheists require us to justify our beliefs with empirical evidence or cease to believe, against their own inability to justify THEIR claim (the strong atheists, that is) that 'THERE IS NO GOD," and somehow figure that their mere declaration is enough to justify their own rationality and our lack of it....even though the problem is the same on both sides: we cannot prove that a deity exists through empirical evidence (though we all do have subjective evidence) and they cannot prove that there is no deity through any evidence.

But when asked for the justification of your belief, answering "because I believe" is clearly not sufficient.

It wouldn't be, but then I've never said that.

Believing / agreeing with a claim is the same as making the claim, in practical terms.

Only if one practices eisegesis with a vengeance. Parse the sentence. "I believe" is the claim. It's the only claim being made.

The statement "no god exists", is the practical equivalent of "i believe no god exists".
Beliefs require justification. I agree.

Beliefs have justification. All of them do. Or rather, they have reasons. Those reasons may not seem logical, or even possible, to anybody ELSE, but they obviouslyl do to the believer.

And nobody has to justify their beliefs to anybody else in order to be allowed to hold them.

If they make a 'positive claim' about the subject of their beliefs, then they have to justify THAT, but even if they cannot, or refuse to do so, that does not mean that they must cease to believe themselves.

Even the strong atheists who claim that there is not now, has never been, and never will be any sort of deity have that right. Shoot, it's not even a 'right.' It's a human characteristic that nobody has been able to stamp out of us.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wrong. Reliable evidence is that which is relied upon, and is based upon the credibility of the source; it may not be proven to be demonstrably wrong, even if it is. You are still confusing "objective" with 'evidence,' when 'evidence' can be either objective and direct, or subjective. What makes evidence 'evidence' is what the observer gets from it, not from some intrinsic value. It's not 'evidence' until someone says it is, and when someone says something is evidence, then it is. It may be bad, lousy, irrelevant or totally fruitcake, but if someone comes to some conclusion as a result, it's evidence.

Sorry, equivocation fallacy. You are trying to redefine the term. If it is only "reliable to you" then by definition it is not reliable evidence. Reliable evidence is trustworthy regardless of observer.

Rational thought...or logical arguments...are based upon the acceptance of a premise. False premises can, and very often do, result in rational and logical arguments.

One example used is this one:

Premise: if the streets are wet, then it rained recently.

Logical and rational argument:

The streets are wet.

Conclusion:

It rained recently.


Perfectly logical and rational argument...except of course that the premise is false. The streets could be wet because the river flooded, or the street cleaners came by, or a fire hydrant 'blew' and is blowing a fine and spectacular geyser...

"Rational thought" is not based upon objective or empirical arguments. Such evidence could easily result in rational thought, but not always, as many of the posts here have proven. On the other hand, subjective evidence may also result in rational thought...because the 'rational' part is about the people arguing, not the evidence itself.

"True" evidence (or you would call that empirical or objective evidence) can prompt rational thought and logical arguments...but not always.

Subjective evidence may also prompt rational thought and logical arguments...but not always.

The best term for the whole thing, I think, is 'begging the question." If, that is, the arguers figure out that there is something wrong with the premise in the first place.

And a nicely constructed strawman.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No it doesn't. Nobody has to justify personal belief. That is, a statement of "I believe that..." requires no justification to anybody.

That is somewhat true. It is at least the honest thing to do. But a person that does that has no grounds for complaint when others point out that their belief appears to be irrational. It is also not true if one is a Christian. I will have to see if I can remember the verse in the Bible that tells people that they do need to be able to justify their beliefs. This may take a while.

EDIT: 1 Peter 3 15 But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,

 

[dianaiad]

Sorry, equivocation fallacy. You are trying to redefine the term. If it is only "reliable to you" then by definition it is not reliable evidence. Reliable evidence is trustworthy regardless of observer.

No. You are doing the equivocating here. I have posted the definition of evidence. If you don't like my sources, find your own, but 'evidence' is a very broad category that encompasses all things used to support a belief. Only some of that evidence is direct and objective. YOU are claiming that ONLY direct and objective evidence is evidence at all...and that is not only equivocation, it's a fallacy of composition.

Here, yet again, is what you are doing.

Fallacy of Composition

and again, for you, the definition of 'evidence.'

the definition of evidence

Notice that there is no requirement in any of those definitions that evidence MUST BE objective, or can't be subjective. Notice especially the first definition, where it simply states that evidence is "ground for belief."

In other words, if it causes someone to believe something, it's evidence. It doesn't need to be objective. It doesn't need to be physical, or factual, or acceptable to anybody else.

And a nicely constructed strawman.

Your calling it a strawman doesn't make it so, and I do think you should do some research into the meaning of that term, as well. That was not a strawman. Not even close.

 

[dianaiad]

That is somewhat true. It is at least the honest thing to do. But a person that does that has no grounds for complaint when others point out that their belief appears to be irrational. It is also not true if one is a Christian. I will have to see if I can remember the verse in the Bible that tells people that they do need to be able to justify their beliefs. This may take a while.

EDIT: 1 Peter 3 15 But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,

and so, if someone asks me why I believe as I do, I'll answer them. Or not, depending upon the attitude of the questioner.

I do not see that I have to, however, support a claim I didn't make. it's a waste of time, mine and that of the questioners, takes the discussion on a really wild side track, and doesn't further the conversation actually in progress.

....and I am trying to be precise in the words I use and the claims I make.

Consider: if someone asks me why I believe, and I answer, I am STILL not in the position of making a positive claim that someone can say I MUST prove. You ask, I give you an answer...and you must then accept that my telling you of the reasons I believe isn't the same as making a claim that the evidence is 'true' and therefore YOU have to change your mind and believe it as well.

One can't really do that when one is talking about personal experiences, answers to prayer, personal scripture study and personal miracles. I interpret these things as support for my beliefs. Those who demand empirical evidence will either dismiss those things or attempt to explain them away as having different causes.

That's fine...you believe what you want to believe. However, you CANNOT prove that there is absolutely no possibility that there is any sort of deity that exists; the most you can logically do is say that you haven't found any evidence that would convince you that one does.

And THAT, SZ, is a statement of belief. Pretty much like mine. You interpret evidence your way, I interpret it mine.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. You are doing the equivocating here. I have posted the definition of evidence. If you don't like my sources, find your own, but 'evidence' is a very broad category that encompasses all things used to support a belief. Only some of that evidence is direct and objective. YOU are claiming that ONLY direct and objective evidence is evidence at all...and that is not only equivocation, it's a fallacy of composition.

Here, yet again, is what you are doing.

Fallacy of Composition

and again, for you, the definition of 'evidence.'

the definition of evidence

Notice that there is no requirement in any of those definitions that evidence MUST BE objective, or can't be subjective. Notice especially the first definition, where it simply states that evidence is "ground for belief."

In other words, if it causes someone to believe something, it's evidence. It doesn't need to be objective. It doesn't need to be physical, or factual, or acceptable to anybody else.





Your calling it a strawman doesn't make it so, and I do think you should do some research into the meaning of that term, as well. That was not a strawman. Not even close.

The problem is that you are not applying your definitions consistently.

I know The fact that your beliefs are not rational bothers you. Perhaps you might want to reconsider them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

and so, if someone asks me why I believe as I do, I'll answer them. Or not, depending upon the attitude of the questioner.

I do not see that I have to, however, support a claim I didn't make. it's a waste of time, mine and that of the questioners, takes the discussion on a really wild side track, and doesn't further the conversation actually in progress.

....and I am trying to be precise in the words I use and the claims I make.

Consider: if someone asks me why I believe, and I answer, I am STILL not in the position of making a positive claim that someone can say I MUST prove. You ask, I give you an answer...and you must then accept that my telling you of the reasons I believe isn't the same as making a claim that the evidence is 'true' and therefore YOU have to change your mind and believe it as well.

One can't really do that when one is talking about personal experiences, answers to prayer, personal scripture study and personal miracles. I interpret these things as support for my beliefs. Those who demand empirical evidence will either dismiss those things or attempt to explain them away as having different causes.

That's fine...you believe what you want to believe. However, you CANNOT prove that there is absolutely no possibility that there is any sort of deity that exists; the most you can logically do is say that you haven't found any evidence that would convince you that one does.

And THAT, SZ, is a statement of belief. Pretty much like mine. You interpret evidence your way, I interpret it mine.

Pretty much just a long excuse.


Let me.remind you that the burden of proof lies upon the person making a positive claim.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Ok, so its like a cipher. What IS it though in a literal sense? What IS it, not what is it LIKE?

In a literal sense? In a literal sense it is a polymer, with the monomer composed of a phosphate backbone, a sugar group and one of four nucleotides; adenine, thymine, guanine or cytosine. You did ask.

The key point is that it is not a language.

What is evidence to you?

Everything.

All the facts that support a claim is a nice general idea. They must be objective and allow another to arrive at the same conclusion unambiguously. Evidence must fit the explanation of the evidence. Pretty trees, mountains, lovely sunsets and babbling brooks are evidence of something, but they are not objective evidence for a designer in a way that anyone could come to the same conclusions. It does not matter what I believe about those things, but only what I can demonstrate with them.

Im not a crazy person. And my claim of ID in the religious community is quite popular. Are all those people crazy?

I was speaking in the general sense. Are you saying that crazy people cannot be Christians or that Christians cannot be crazy?

I only have your word on it, but that's nice.

Popularity of an idea does not make that idea correct. There are a lot of people that do not accept the claim of ID either. You mix the intelligent design movement up with a claim of the existence of God as an intelligent designer. You do not seem capable of keeping the two distinct. I have no issue with someone thinking God is an intelligent designer. I do have issues with the intelligent design movement and their claims that their religious views are science. It is not science. It is religion.

Oh yes it does......you believe God created the universe and life, yet you argue like you dont believe that. So, yes, it is relavent. You also believe Jesus did miracles and rose from the dead too. Or was all that metaphor?

No. It absolutely is not relevant to the discussion. I would be against the intelligent design movement regardless of my belief. It is only of interest to you, since you cannot develop a cogent argument that intelligent design is science, so you want to use whatever you can about your opponent to attack them. That is not very Christian.

I am not a fool and know that I cannot objectively support a claim of the existence of God. No one can. No one ever has. This does not mean that people have not had experiences that are divine or felt God. But those people cannot show that they have. I cannot show it. I can believe and I do, but unlike many that cannot differentiate between what is supportable and what is not, I recognize that my belief is not supported by any evidence that does not have an alternate explanation.

You do not understand that. I do not think that you ever will. You are entirely operating on your emotions, with little input from your intellect when it comes to belief.

The truth is in the introduction and the conclusion. A body is just details of the introduction and the conclusions.

The paper explained why DNA is not a language. You did not seem to get very much out of any of it.

But the way that body was is not my style of readibility. Im very childlike, so, thats the kinda reading i need.

Thank you for that confession. It explains a lot. I will modify my future posts following this one to more appropriately address you.

But, hey, you said you could comprehend the body. Ok, break it down for me, whats it saying?

Were you not the one claiming that DNA is a language? You were. Where is your defense of that? I provided you with the information, you figure it out and then come back with your defense of your claim. How about that? You think you can help the rest of us out here fella? Give it a whirl. Do not go too fast, so that you can get a feel for what defending your position with a reasoned, logical, well supported argument is like.

No, its not your fault, its there fault because they wrote it. Its there fault i dont understand them. So, that means they need to talk in layman language or street language.

It is a scientific paper. It is not the authors fault that you do not have the requisite background to understand it. If you were in Italy, you would be whining about how it was the Italians fault you could not understand them. That is a very, very lame excuse.

No, it dont bolster your ego, it bolsters there ego because they wrote it. They used a style that gives an appearence of professionalism without truly knowing much.

How. They are probably completely unaware of my use of it in this one instance. How do you know they did not know much? You said you did not understand it. Were you lying about that? How do you arrive at these conclusions that are completely at odds with your other previous statements. You have been ranting about how you did not understand it and begging me to read it to you like a child. Which is it? You cannot have it both ways.

Its still true. Theres two kinds of incomprehention. Theres incomprehention of the truth and this is caused by a few different things. It could be caused by a bias blocking the mind from conprehending. I think this is called cognitive dissonance. Its also caused by stupidity sometimes, but not always.

Let us see. There is reading comprehension, which you are having a lot of trouble with. Then there is comprehending what you see. We can call that visual comprehension. We should include comprehension of what is heard. Call that auditory comprehension. How about what we feel by touch. Tactile comprehension? Sure. Why not. How do you think blind people read? You have something aginst them too? We could probably associate it with taste and smell as well. Sounds like there is more than one kind of comprehension and thus more than one kind of incomprehension associated with those.

I am having trouble seeing that you can comprehend the truth.

As fare as comprehending a falsehood. Its IMPOSSIBLE to comprehend a falsehood because its....well....false

You can comprehend if a statement is true or false. I do not think you comprehend the definition of comprehend.

Ok, well break down the body because i dont get it.

The intro and conclusion say they dont know.



Is like a cipher, well, ciphers also hold implications of intelligence.

Human intelligence. That is all we can say about that.

No, i understand that IT HAS validity. It has just as much validity as unguided forces having done it. And in my view, has more validity then that.

It has no validity in or as science.

There is evidence supporting natural causes. There is none for supernatural causes. It is that simple. You will never understand that.