The flaws in Intelligent design

[Subduction Zone]

Let's take an example that you understand. One can treat gravity as a testable hypothesis. Most people are only familiar with Galilean gravity, not with Newtonian. We can make a model and test that concept.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They stop at step two? Really? And how do you figure that?

They never form a testable hypothesis. The only one they made was refuted a long time ago.

 

[Jollybear]

I have said that you are in denial from the beginning. It is good to see you admit it. That is the first step in overcoming it.



No. That was what you posted.

But the evidence he is claiming would have no value in revealing God, because it is subjective. It could be interpreted to mean anything. Sorry. Nice try though.



Smoke screen. Diversion. Call whatever you want.

I think we have seen enough of this. Talk to him if you want to know his reasons. I am still very much like Francis Collins.



I am not an atheist, so I cannot have atheistic views to defend. False accusations are false witness. Not what Francis Collins would do.

Evidence tips in a certain direction more then another direction. Callins admits evidence for God. You dont.

Your not like callins.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Back to our lesson using gravity. Through observation we see that objects fall to the Earth .

 

[Jollybear]

They never form a testable hypothesis. The only one they made was refuted a long time ago.

What was the only one they made that was supposidly refuted?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evidence tips in a certain direction more then another direction. Callins admits evidence for God. You dont.

Your not like callins.

You really should at least try to spell his name correctly if you are going to refer to him. And why don't you post any of his supposed evidence?

 

[Jollybear]

No its not! But what would I expect from someone supporting ID. All you can say it that! That is the stance of someone without support and knows it and can only make meaningless exclamations. You cannot support ID so make ridiculous statements. That is the hallmark of intelligent design or maybe unintelligent design. Show the real support any support.

Its a load of crap because you dont support any of those straeman attacks on ID.

Thus its worthy of being called a load of crap.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Evidence tips in a certain direction more then another direction. Callins admits evidence for God. You dont.

Your not like callins.

Swing and a miss. That is Collins opinion. It is not a scientific fact. He is not expressing a statement that he can support. You do not seem able to understand that.

Recognizing that I cannot demonstrate God scientifically makes me rational, not atheistic.

I am still like Collins. Sorry.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What was the only one they made that was supposidly refuted?

No supposedly. It was an epic failure. They used to claim certain traits showed "irrefutable complexity". Every example was show to not be that complex.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Its a load of crap because you dont support any of those straeman attacks on ID.

Thus its worthy of being called a load of crap.

Please demonstrate your latest assertion that his statements are straw man arguments.

 

[Jollybear]

You really should at least try to spell his name correctly if you are going to refer to him. And why don't you post any of his supposed evidence?

I did spell callins right and i did quote his words above.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Its a load of crap because you dont support any of those straeman attacks on ID.

Thus its worthy of being called a load of crap.

Now you are using a term that you probably do not understand. How were any of the attacks strawman attacks?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I did spell cllins right and i did quote his words above.

Nope, there is no "a" in his last name.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Swing and a miss. That is Collins opinion. It is not a scientific fact. He is not expressing a statement that he can support. You do not seem able to understand that.

Recognizing that I cannot demonstrate God scientifically makes me rational, not atheistic.

I am still like Collins. Sorry.

And you know how to spell too!

 

[Jollybear]

No supposedly. It was an epic failure. They used to claim certain traits showed "irrefutable complexity". Every example was show to not be that complex.

Ok, lets go over one.

 

[Bear Wild]

Do you know the difference between acting honest and being honest? If so, tell me.

Also, no, i did not make up that francis callins said the evidence tips toward God.

Francis callins two quotes

"COLLINS: The gravitational constant, if it were off by one part in a hundred million million, then the expansion of the universe after the Big Bang would not have occurred in the fashion that was necessary for life to occur. When you look at that evidence, it is very difficult to adopt the view that this was just chance. But if you are willing to consider the possibility of a designer, this becomes a rather plausible explanation for what is otherwise an exceedingly improbable event--namely, our existence."

Also

"COLLINS: Certainly science should continue to see whether we can find evidence for multiverses that might explain why our own universe seems to be so finely tuned. But I do object to the assumption that anything that might be outside of nature is ruled out of the conversation. That's an impoverished view of the kinds of questions we humans can ask, such as "Why am I here?", "What happens after we die?", "Is there a God?" If you refuse to acknowledge their appropriateness, you end up with a zero probability of God after examining the natural world because it doesn't convince you on a proof basis. But if your mind is open about whether God might exist, you can point to aspects of the universe that are consistent with that conclusion.

One more

"Because I do believe in God's creative power in having brought it all into being in the first place, I find that studying the natural world is an opportunity to observe the majesty, the elegance, the intricacy of God's creation."

A hell one more

COLLINS: I don't see that Professor Dawkins' basic account of evolution is incompatible with God's having designed it.

Another

"COLLINS: Faith is not the opposite of reason. Faith rests squarely upon reason, but with the added component of revelation."

God vs. Science, Richard Dawkins and Francis Collins interviewed by D. Cray | Inters.org

Pointless argument not based on the current evidence but on opinion. Collins statement has no objective support. The natural worlds create forces created our living planet without the help of a god and the evidence supports it and you can only give opinions. You have to do better than that and give the evidence that supports your claim.

 

[Jollybear]

Nope, there is no "a" in his last name.

Oh, collins then. Who really cares. Im not weorried about being accurate spelling while debating. Im in a hurry to cut to the chase here. Youl waste so much time beating around the dam bush.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How does ID not test its ideas? Explain, dont preach

All we can say is that there are no valid tests. You could show us to be wrong by finding one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok, lets go over one.

They claimed that the bacterial flagellum could not evolve on its own since it you took out a part it would no longer work. That was wrong.

 

[Jollybear]

Pointless argument not based on the current evidence but on opinion. Collins statement has no objective support. The natural worlds create forces created our living planet without the help of a god and the evidence supports it and you can only give opinions. You have to do better than that and give the evidence that supports your claim.

The evidence for intelligence is in our world. It is there. You just dont see it. I see it. If you dont see it, oh well.