The flaws in Intelligent design

[SkepticThinker]

Alright, God could present Himself in such a way, so as not to interfere with our free will. He surely could. Apparently he does on a case-by-case basis. Many people have reported having had miraculous conversion experiences, but none of them were in a state of denial at the time. None of them reported calling him an "it" at the time.

Okay, so God could present him/her/itself in such a way as to not interfere with our free will.

What do you suggest I call an invisible, genderless entity?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't recall asking or seeing that question. But now that I know where you're coming from -- according to Catholic teaching, no one is held accountable by God for things beyond their control or knowledge. That does not mean that ignorance of God is any fault of His.

This is a quote of your post with the question:

"It would take no effort at all, but why would he bother? Would you expect God to show up and perform miracles for the amusement of a disrespectful disbeliever? He doesn't need your approval."

A just God has a duty to make himself known if he is going to punish people for not believing in him. Your weak attempt to change the argument to meeting my approval was not a good tactic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Alright, God could present Himself in such a way, so as not to interfere with our free will. He surely could. Apparently he does on a case-by-case basis. Many people have reported having had miraculous conversion experiences, but none of them were in a state of denial at the time. None of them reported calling him an "it" at the time.

According to your beliefs doesn't Satan understand how powerful God is? He has to since he knows him personally. That did not interfere with his free will.

What you are doing now is trying to make excuses for the bad behavior of your version of God.

 

[Forever_Catholic]

ETA: You earlier claimed that you were only aware of Francis' support of the theory of evolution. I showed that it goes back to at least Pius XII. He did not openly embrace it but he said it did not conflict with Catholic belief. John Paul II was the first to fully accept it. Francis merely made it clearer. When one looks logically at the Genesis myth it portrays God as incompetent and evil if taken literally. It harms Christianity, it does not strengthen it.

I said no other pope but Pope Francis "made a case" for evolution. Pius XII did not make a case for it. The Catholic Church does not stand in the way of people believing that God put some form(s) of evolution to work. This may be regarded as not conflicting with Catholic belief, but the Darwin theory is still not acceptable, except evidently in the current Pope's personal opinion. But he has not changed any doctrines. In my own opinion, it was a sell-out giving the green light to any acceptance of evolution theory, but I was especially disappointed in Pope Francis' ridiculous comment.

It's unfortunate that, at least in most English-language bibles, things get messed up in translation -- in some cases a little, in some a lot.

I guess the "evil" you are referring to is the wrath of God. The wrath of God is just and holy.

 

[Jose Fly]

Sounds okay so far.

I'm a bit pressed for time right now, so I'll just start with the most basic question....whether there are fossil specimens that evidence the reptile-mammal transition. We can start with Yanoconodon, a specimen that was found in China in the early 2000's.

Here is the paper in the journal Nature: A new eutriconodont mammal and evolutionary development in early mammals

And here is a more layperson friendly blog post about the specimen and its importance in the reptile-mammal transition: Yanoconodon, a transitional fossil | ScienceBlogs

There are many, many other specimens that evidence this transition, but this is a good place to start for now.

 

[metis]

I said no other pope but Pope Francis "made a case" for evolution. Pius XII did not make a case for it. The Catholic Church does not stand in the way of people believing that God put some form(s) of evolution to work. This may be regarded as not conflicting with Catholic belief, but the Darwin theory is still not acceptable, except evidently in the current Pope's personal opinion. But he has not changed any doctrines. In my own opinion, it was a sell-out giving the green light to any acceptance of evolution theory, but I was especially disappointed in Pope Francis' ridiculous comment.

It's unfortunate that, at least in most English-language bibles, things get messed up in translation -- in some cases a little, in some a lot.

I guess the "evil" you are referring to is the wrath of God. The wrath of God is just and holy.

The Church has long stated that the basic ToE was an acceptable belief as long as it was assumed that God was behind it all. Matter of fact, the first time I ran across this was from a Catholic priest back in 1962 when I was still in high school but was attending a fundamentalist Protestant church at the time. I left that church in 1968 but didn't convert to Catholicism until 1975. I taught the RCIA program in the 1980-90's for 14 years, and I did cover this there, btw.

BTW, let me add that Darwin was actually a theist and was a lay minister in the Anglican Church, but later became agnostic, quite possibly in reaction to the anger aimed at him from churches and other religious institutions. His entombment is in Westminster Cathedral, btw.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I wouldn't have thought there was anything unusual about this statement in this forum until I saw at the bottom of your post that you believe in God. I was not aware of that until now. If you believe in God, why do you need evidence? if He said He created everything, why don't you believe that?

I do not need evidence and have made that pretty clear in general. It is one of the reasons I find the entire intelligent design movement to be both humorous and a sign of weak faith.

I believe that God is the creator, I just do not subscribe to the claim that His creation follows the story of Genesis. Since the evidence indicates that the story of Genesis cannot be literal, it must therefore be an analogy to be read as an allegory. Following that practice changes nothing about my personal belief.

We were talking about birds, reptiles and fish. What else would I have meant by "category of creatures" other than something general like that. Probably doesn't call for an evaluation of my knowledge about taxonomy.

I am still not clear what you mean. Birds, reptiles and fish are different classes of vertebrates. Each of those classes contains species that are transitional and there are transitional species in the fossil record that can be placed in each of those classes. Placement in a classification does not eliminate the possibility of being a valid transitional form.

Not at all. My opinion is that God designed archaeopteryx with characteristics suited for survival in its given environment during its time on earth. The sheepshead fish has teeth that look remarkably similar to human teeth. Very odd looking, but It has nothing to do with non-sheepshead fish ancestry or a link to humans. It's all about cracking open the clams, oysters, crabs, and such that make up its diet.

How can you know that God personally designed it? I believe that God can enact His will, but He can also allow things to happen without interfering. All the evidence would indicate this is how He has allowed life on Earth to evolve. I do not bother to argue where God has engaged in the process, since I cannot read the mind of God or have any evidence indicating divine activity.

"Ancestral characters," as if the ancestry in knowable.

It is knowable, through the fossil record, through examination of extant species, through genetics. It turns out that some birds, including chickens have retained the genes for growing teeth. Recent experiments carried out in chicken embryos to re-activate these genes lead to embryos with theropod-like teeth.

"A single species away" -- it still comes down to speculation.

It comes down to observations, evidence and reasonable, logical conclusions based on that observation and evidence in light of sound theory.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Its not my fault the human genome projects own website calls DNA a code of instructions, is it? I gause code and instructions MEAN NO code and no instructions, right?

It is an easy metaphor. That is it. DNA is really more like a cipher. Changes are letter by letter and not whole words.

Oh my gosh. I didnt say they get it telepathically. If they can decipher it, well good. But, we can decipher human language too, ancient or modern.

I figured you would come up with some wild explanation that was based on unverified belief. Maybe it is alien NDE's that result in telepathy. I could be wrong about the whole ghost of Bigfoot thing.

We translate human languages and use dictionaries to define words. Theoretically any word can be any object in a language. Another feature found in languages, but not in the DNA code.

All you did was assert. Tell me how its not a language?

Francis callins who was the leader of the human genome project, he calls it a language. He actually calls it "the language of God".

Again, a metaphor that lay people can relate to and understand. Since, you are bent on arguing about things you are clearly not knowledgeable about, I did not think a full explanation was necessary.

Do a Google Scholar search for:

Tsonis, A. A., Elsner, J. B., & Tsonis, P. A. (1997). Is DNA a language?. Journal of theoretical Biology, 184(1), 25-29.

The pdf of this paper is available for download and it will provide the information about why DNA is not a language like English.

 

[Jollybear]

No. I don't think so, and I'm a TBM (that's True Believing Mormon, in case you are curious).

If you are going to make fun of other beliefs, you should at least try to get those beliefs right.

According to our beliefs, JS did not 'find' the plates. He was shown them. They were not in a cave. The only thing you got right was the 'upstate New York" part. If we are wrong, and he did NOT find/was shown, those plates, then they simply did not exist to BE found. Either way, they weren't in any cave and he didn't 'find' them.



Well, Muslims think so. A lot of them.



Well, one learns of God very personally. Those who believe in Him also do so personally.

Get her, get her! Lol

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That article itself even calls the DNA a code of information.

Yea, it talks of mutations that happen, some neutral, some harmful, but, how did DNA and its code arive in the first place?

That is what scientists are trying to find out.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I said no other pope but Pope Francis "made a case" for evolution. Pius XII did not make a case for it. The Catholic Church does not stand in the way of people believing that God put some form(s) of evolution to work. This may be regarded as not conflicting with Catholic belief, but the Darwin theory is still not acceptable, except evidently in the current Pope's personal opinion. But he has not changed any doctrines. In my own opinion, it was a sell-out giving the green light to any acceptance of evolution theory, but I was especially disappointed in Pope Francis' ridiculous comment.

It's unfortunate that, at least in most English-language bibles, things get messed up in translation -- in some cases a little, in some a lot.

I guess the "evil" you are referring to is the wrath of God. The wrath of God is just and holy.

How was Frances' statement ridiculous? Far too many Christians do see God as a magical character only lacking a wand in his execution of spells.

And no your mythical God's wrath is only evil. How does one justify worshipping an evil god?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Correction,the Bible says that. One does not have to believe all of the myths of the Bible to be a Christian, or even a Catholic.

Very correct.

Nothing to see there except wild hand waving.

Reminds me of Arnold Horshack.

And here you make a claim that you have to support . If you want to claim speculation the burden of proof is upon you.

I went and did his work for him on this one. I figured that someone aught just to get it out there.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Oh, I know. If anything, it will be a link to some PRATT list.
It is almost as if they think that repeating it over and over will make it true.

l believe they do. It worked for the apologetics site that told them what to think,so it is a model they know.

 

[Forever_Catholic]

Okay, so God could present him/her/itself in such a way as to not interfere with our free will.

What do you suggest I call an invisible, genderless entity?

I'd guess you have no real interest in communicating with God at all. But if you do, you couldn't go wrong with "Father." That's what Jesus calls him. That's what he gave us in the prayer. "Our Father who art in heaven..."

 

[Forever_Catholic]

A just God has a duty to make himself known

He did. You know who he is yourself, evidently well enough to prescribe what his duties are.

 

[Forever_Catholic]

What you are doing now is trying to make excuses for the bad behavior of your version of God.

And what you're doing now is throwing out a line of atheist BS.

 

[Forever_Catholic]

I'm a bit pressed for time right now, so I'll just start with the most basic question....whether there are fossil specimens that evidence the reptile-mammal transition. We can start with Yanoconodon, a specimen that was found in China in the early 2000's.

Thanks, I'll read those.

 

[Subduction Zone]

He did. You know who he is yourself, evidently well enough to prescribe what his duties are.

No, seriously he did not. Ask me, I know.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And what you're doing now is throwing out a line of atheist BS.

Please, now you are totally losing it. Let's get back to the topic of the thread. The biggest flaw with ID is that there is no scientific evidence for the belief. Why believe it?

 

[Timothy Spurlin]

And what you're doing now is throwing out a line of atheist BS.

An your not throwing out a line of theist BS?
You have failed to provide objective evidence that a god exist.