The flaws in Intelligent design

[Hockeycowboy]

There work in science, was based on evidence. Their religious claims were based on belief that they could not demonstrate. As long as they stuck to the evidence in their science, they could attribute the universe to Van Halen if they wanted to.

Belief in God that requires evidence seems like pretty weak faith to me.

Hebrews 11:1....faith is based on evidence.

 

[Forever_Catholic]

The fossil record is full of support and is clearly shows that intelligent design cannot be viable.

The fossil record is devoid of anything demonstrating a creature in transition from one species to another. On the contrary, even in the oldest layers of strata where fossils can be found, they are the remains of creatures fully specialized as the species they are.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

NDE'S are subjective.
ESP is subjective.
Aliens and UFO'S possible.
Ghost are subjective.
Bigfoot is possible.

I agree, but none of these are established in any where they are themselves evidence of a designer. We have no idea what ESP, NDE's and ghosts are, and the possibility of the other two is not evidence of the presence of them. Yet, some creationists use them as if they were established facts and their belief about what they mean is an established fact.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Hebrews 11:1....faith is based on evidence.

That passage does not say that. It says that having faith is the evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Hebrews 11:1....faith is based on evidence.

The evidence of hope.

 

[Bear Wild]

The fossil record is devoid of anything demonstrating a creature in transition from one species to another. On the contrary, even in the oldest layers of strata where fossils can be found, they are the remains of creatures fully specialized as the species they are.

Totally incorrect. We do not have a line up of each change step by step but there is more than enough fossil record to support evolution and the fossil record clearly shows that there is no intelligent design. The intelligent designer would have to exist of visit on the earth constantly making new species and the even more ridiculous claim of convergent traits being the result of an intelligent designer using different parts in new ways is even more ridiculous. Convergent evolution shows the adaptability of the genetic code to modify different designs into similar patterns. Great example is the cognitive development of birds who were visually dominant vs mammals that were olfactory dominant. The two different plans separately evolved to analogous structures when selected for. No intelligent designer needed.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Couldn't agree more.

Having grown up in a fundamentalist environment, I think it stems in part from what they're used to when it comes to "teaching". In their churches, where many spend much of their time, they learn from pastors giving sermons where there is no Q&A session afterward. They also learn during Bible study, where questions are allowed, as long as they're not from a place of doubt. IOW, it's acceptable to ask "What does that passage mean" but not "Is that passage true".

Spend enough time in an environment like that and it begins to seep into other areas of one's life.

This is a great example and one that I did not come up with on my own. I needed another perspective and a different set of experiences to bring it here.

I got in trouble for asking questions like that. If there were no other people besides Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel, then who did Cain find in the land of Nod? I have since heard many explanations, but the Bible is not clear on this and those explanations are mere speculation. It is odd that the information would not have been included in the Bible, considering that the story using the information is included. But there is a lot of that in the Bible.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

DNAs code of instructions.

Also, something we can all identify with, we all have noses on our face, just one, below the two eyes. We all have two eyes. We all have one mouth below the nose. We all have two ears on either side of our head.

Such order and precision. Each of these parts serve a DESIGN function.

Evidence my fine fox fellow.

Each of those can be traced through evolution without any evidence that they were placed where they are for a purpose. Why are some people born with vestigial tails? How come there are occasionally people born with the position of the organs swapped around?

The number and placement of external structures is controlled by the genes and those genes were selected and fixed in ancestral populations, so far back that many existing lines of different classes have a similar placement. The tuatara shows the evidence that once there was a third eye in its ancestral line.

None of this is evidence for a designer and none of it cannot be explained by existing science.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

That passage does not say that. It says that having faith is the evidence.

No...I don't know what version you're reading, but the context reveals differently. The faithful ones mentioned, their faith was built on what they'd experienced.

http://www.2001translation.com/Authenticity.htm

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You've never heard of a scientist being slammed by colleagues or blackballed for publishing material contrary to the accepted beliefs?

When they promote those beliefs as science, should other scientists just roll over and let them?

I thought they were good books with good science.

We will never know, since you have not stated what those books are.

No, I don't realize that at all. The theory is easy to refute, being that it is illogical, full of holes, impossibilities, and dead ends, and has no supporting evidence at all.

Yet it has never been done and the theory is more well supported and stronger today then it ever was. It is logical, it explains the evidence better than any other theory. Scientists may argue over the details, but none have presented a better theory or shown it to be full of holes and without support. Certainly, no creationist has come closer than just unsupported claims.

Evidence of Satan's influence is everywhere, much of it not even hidden anymore. Now we have a statue of Baphomet unveiled in U.S. cities, public desecrations of sacred images and a public black mass in Oklahoma City, Satanic lyrics in popular music, and on and on. Of course Satan's influence is a driving force in so-called science perpetuated for the purpose of disputing God's existence. He is the Father of Lies, as we well know.

I do not believe in a physical manifestation of Satan or that Satan is an extant, independent being. Satan is a metaphor for temptation and the evil that exists in people and a scapegoat for that evil or succumbing to temptation. It is easy to say the 'devil made me do it' rather than take personal responsibility.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No...I don't know what version you're reading, but the context reveals differently. The faithful ones mentioned, their faith was built on what they'd experienced.

http://www.2001translation.com/Authenticity.htm

I read the verse you linked and it is literally clear and in the context that I am correct.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No...I don't know what version you're reading, but the context reveals differently. The faithful ones mentioned, their faith was built on what they'd experienced.

http://www.2001translation.com/Authenticity.htm

I do not see what a link to circular arguments about the Bible does for promoting your view about faith.

 

[Jollybear]

That passage does not say that. It says that having faith is the evidence.

So you believe faith is evidence?

 

[Jollybear]

No humans gave us a code of laws. Humans created morals and all laws to control human behavior.

Yea, and God also gave us laws too. And freedom.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Hebrews 11:1....faith is based on evidence.

What you are saying is that those that have faith have had experiences that they cannot relate to others in any way they can verify those experiences as having happened. We cannot know the experience or if it was properly interpreted for what it really was.

Faith means believing without evidence. It means trusting the people that have witnessed to you, because you cannot share any experience they had or verify if it was real or imagined.

How do you differentiate your interpretation of evidence from someone that merely imagines that they experienced 'the evidence'?

If two people claim to have spoken with God and relate two opposing claims from that conversation, how do you know which is the correct claim? What evidence are you using or is it just that you believe one and not the other by the flip of a mental coin?

 

[Cooky]

His part? You mean her part. Yes that idea has now way to prove except for the fact that all knowing spirit would still have to do it through the changes in the genetic code for it to be sustained and does not explain all of the previous species unless they were considered mistakes. The most obvious response however is we do not need an all knowing spirit to explain our universe, the forces of nature have been shown to be creative even in our time. I will say if there is an all knowing spirit it time for that spirit to step in and correct what is going wrong in our world today before it is too late assuming the all knowing spirit even cares.

Yes, but is it alright with you if I believe that? Because for me to drop It would equal too great of a loss for me.

...I don't want to lose my faith. And in return, you can disbelieve if that's what's right for you. And I will respect that as well.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So you believe faith is evidence?

I do not know that you have any evidence and you have not presented any evidence. If you want to talk about following up on your claims about evidence, I would be interested in reading them, but so far it is just you claiming it is evidence without any substance.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You've never heard of a scientist being slammed by colleagues or blackballed for publishing material contrary to the accepted beliefs?

You need specific examples. Scientists slam each other when they do shoddy work.

I thought they were good books with good science.

Since you probably have almost no education in biology you were more than likely fooled.

No, I don't realize that at all. The theory is easy to refute, being that it is illogical, full of holes, impossibilities, and dead ends, and has no supporting evidence at all.

Now you just revealed that you do not have any science education at all. How is it "illogical"? How is it "full of holes" "Impossibilities" and "dead ends"? And your last claim tells us that you do not even understand the concept of evidence. No wonder you were fooled.

How about we take a diversion and discuss what is and what is not evidence so that you do not repeat these gross errors. I know that you cannot support any of them.

Evidence of Satan's influence is everywhere, much of it not even hidden anymore. Now we have a statue of Baphomet unveiled in U.S. cities, public desecrations of sacred images and a public black mass in Oklahoma City, Satanic lyrics in popular music, and on and on. Of course Satan's influence is a driving force in so-called science perpetuated for the purpose of disputing God's existence. He is the Father of Lies, as we well know.

The statue of Baphomet is not evidence for Satan. You do not even understand why it was erected. Your Satan is just another myth of the Bible.

 

[Jollybear]

Yes, but is it alright with you if I believe that? Because for me to drop It would equal too great of a loss for me.

...I don't want to lose my faith. And in return, you can disbelieve if that's what's right for you. And I will respect that as well.

We dont have much faith anyway, too much logic is on our side. Its atheists who have LOTS of faith. Faith that chance and nothing made it all. Thats REAL magic and that takes ALOT of faith.

 

[Jollybear]

I do not know that you have any evidence and you have not presented any evidence. If you want to talk about following up on your claims about evidence, I would be interested in reading them, but so far it is just you claiming it is evidence without any substance.

You said faith IS evidence. Do you really believe faith IS evidence? Im asking you a question, can you answer it?

"That passage does not say that. It says that having faith is the evidence." <your words.