The Mystery Thread

[Earthling]

What questions are those? I must have missed them or they came earlier in your posts than I have read back to. I have read a lot of your claims. Forgive me for responding to you on a publicly available medium. I hope you don't claim I am stalking you (wink).

Seriously, what are some of your questions. I know SZ would have answered them. And certainly Christine, as well as some others I am becoming acquainted with.

Those questions are in the thread . . . for you have different questions.

1. Did Jehovah God create Adam and Eve. Male and female humans?
2. Was Jesus a real person and did he think that god created Adam and Eve. Male and female humans?
3. If God didn't create them, and they evolved, how did they sin and why would Jesus have been your savior since you were 12 years old?
4. If pine trees and elephants are related with a common ancestor what is that ancestor?

 

[Jollybear]

This is a meaningless series of questions. Why this comes up so often is the result of a misunderstanding of the theory of evolution and is not based on any real challenge to the theory. If some order did exist, my lack of knowledge of it would not refute the theory. What I am seeing is confusion over an understanding of many things, but they are your confusion and not mine.

Calling questions meaningless isnt good for your position on evolution. Answering questions empowers your position.

The implication here is your claim that there is an order, that not knowing that order is a condition of debunking a scientific theory and that implicit to this is that you understand the order or at least that an order existed in the manner you have contrived.

Say what? break that down more. I did not understand that.

Insects do not have lungs. They have a tracheal system that delivers air in direct contact with the tissues. Plants have no organs like ours. With just these two examples I show that concern with order is unfounded and is not your combination that shatters the theory of evolution or the facts of evolution that have been observed.

Trees and bugs have different designs. There still designs though. Different design dont equel no design.

I do not know what that means. It is a hearsay claim that has no additional evidence to support it from my perspective. I cannot state one way or the other what it is.

How do you know it was a spirit being

It walked through the wall.

How was the veracity of the younger witness determined?

My niece told me what she saw. My mom told me what she saw. Both of them saw the same thing. They both described it the same. Years later they hold firm to the story. I asked them detailed descriptions. They gave me it.

How do you know that the individuals were not really under the influence of drugs, whether by will,

My mom has no history of being a drug adict. My niece, well, if she got cought doing that my mom would woop her a s s, lol. No will for drugs was there. I know my mom and my niece. Normal people.

accident

Very unlikely. I dont even know how they both or even one of them could have accidentally taken drugs.

or the malign intent of others?

No, they wer alone in the country at there cabin.

What tests were performed so that I may become more confident? Is there a history of mental illness?

No mental illness. But hey, even still, 2 people mentally ill SEEING THE SAME THING? i dont buy it. But, no, no mentall illness either.

Is there a history of suggestibility?

Nope, aspeasaly not my hard headed mom. Complete opposite of sugestible. And, this was a one time event that did not re happen.

How were those conditions ruled out?

I just showed you how they are rulled out.

Is there other evidence that might suggest what this incident could be determined to be? How was alien visitation ruled out?

Well, unless aliens walk through walls, then perhaps so.

How about a mishap resulting from the actions of a time traveler?

Unlikely.

What evidence leads you to the conclusion it was a spirit?

Because of the way they described it. A man like figure, radiant with light all over, having features, but just glowed. The whole body. He stared at them, then walked through the wall and was gone after that. Just before he appeared, they heard a lightning bolt. After he left, they went outside and saw a hole in the ground from the lightning bolt. Oddly, the next day, morning, they went out and the hole was gone. Very strange, but, i firmly believe both of them are telling me the truth.

Both of us then believe in an afterlife. Neither of us know that an afterlife is real. Believing in something doesn't make it real.

You believe its real though. If you dont believe that then you dont believe.

I think we do have a partial knowledge through the study of NDEs and OBEs with there additional ESPs.

People have deluded themselves about evidence. Your words indicate to me that you do not understand the nature of evidence and the difference between belief and what can be substantiated by evidence. That is the major problem here.

Debating over whether design exists in the world, for me is like debating whether trees grow out of the ground, or whether the sky is blue, or whether im typing a message to you on my phone. Its not something i can "substantiate" anymore then simply to say design is apparent, self evident just like its self evident trees grow from the ground.

There is testimony that something occurred. We do not know what that means. I have not said that people are lying. I have demonstrated that we have no reason to accept someone's favorite explanation as "the" explanation when that explanation cannot be corroborated and all other explanations proposed cannot be eliminated.

Potentially anything. You must know this, since you have eliminated all of them. Would you mind explaining the elimination process you used and the significant points that eliminated the main possibilities? Even further, I would love to know how you came up with your list of possible causes to eliminate in the first place.

Actually, no, i did not know any other possibilities. Nor did i go through a process of elimination. ESP to me has a spiritual cause. I know no other cause for it, thats why i asked you what other cause could there be for it, since you say there could be many. Tell me one that is not spiritual?

Do you see what you have to do in order to turn your beliefs into something you can verify to another person?

Sure.....but, these experiences are as old as the human race and there not going away. I think there real. Doubt is healthy, but, there us such a thing as what i call hyper skepticism. It means, no amount of evidence is good enough. I knew a guy one time, his view on reality is that nothing is real, its one big illusion. I did not agree, but, how do you argue with something like that? No amount of evidence, no matter how rational will be good enough.

How did you determine the specificity and probabilities? How did you eliminate the influence of subtle ques and outside information? What controlled tests have you performed? Were these tests observed by unbiased and objective third parties? Was the work reviewed and determined to have been consistent with the scientific method and following established and vetted procedures? If you are reading about these things, the same questions apply to those that provided the reports.

It was simply a dream i had. There was no ques, no influence. I had no idea he was goung to get his passport, let alone that hed be given a waiting number, let alone what the waiting number would even be. You understand? Im not telling you this experience if i was not SURE and convinced by it myself.

There are numerous questions that need to be asked and answered before these sorts of claims can be considered, let alone verified.

How did you know about E708? Who have you been talking to?

How did i know? It was from the dream, like i told you. I was not talking to anyone who told me that number. I was not even TRYING to GET a number. The dream was for all intense and purposes, random to me.

I am exactly that that. There is no sin in doubting. It is people and their claims that I am doubting. I would be a fool, to accept without question, the unsupported claims and giant leaps to conclusion made by others.

Nothing is a giant leap IF ITS REAL.

You are trying to imply that I doubt the existence of God and somehow this is the sin that has aligned me against you. It is clear now, who I doubt and for what reasons.

To me "belief" isnt just out of thin air. Real belief has reasons for it, rational reasons. Belief should not be just because. Or just because you wer raised that way.

I uphold your rights to believe as you choose. The problem arises when people that have only belief decide that theirs is the right and proper belief for everyone only and their belief should trump rational thought, questions, objective review and knowledge gained through the ongoing work of science. That takes belief and puts it in a position where it is no longer about the rights of an individual.

You misunderstand. I uphold a persons right to believe or not believe. Also i uphold there right to hold stupid beliefs as well, such as atheism.

 

[Jollybear]

All existence could be evidence for the existence of God, but I know of nothing to demonstrate this or of no one that has demonstrated it.

This is confusion over what the role of chance is in our lives. Not going into the details, there were potentially 20,000,000 different children that could have been born in the union of my parents that lead to me. Chance played a part in my ultimate existence. I cannot comment on the part that God played in my existence, since no evidence was left that I could use to determine what or if God's role was. I suppose I could say it was the love and passion in my parents, but that too has no connecting evidence I can use. None-the-less, chance does appear to have played its part in my conception, but it was following rules that millions of years of evolution have provided and within the recognized laws of physics and chemistry. Even with chance in play, there is a limited number of possibilities, given those laws of nature. I was not born part canine and dolphin, for instance.

Science recognizes the role of chance and can determine probabilities that events will occur, but without evidence, science, nor anyone else, has been able to divine the nature of those chance events in hindsight or predict that a near zero probability event will strike and what the results will be.

The "God of the Gaps" argument is a logical fallacy that claims that since we don't know, the answer must be God. All that is necessary to show that this is wrong is to fill in one gap with knowledge. We have been doing that.

My question to you is, how do you know that God doesn't want us to do this. Why would we be given a brain and the abilities to ask questions and to reason? Why study and learn, if there was no reason to do so? Why discuss things with others and examine the logic they use and the evidence, if God does not want us to?

You just did it but i dont think you know you did. You just filled in the GAP with SOME "chance".

 

[Jollybear]

Why would God make all this evidence that can be interpreted in no other way than that evolution took place?

Actually it CAN be interpreted others ways, aspeasally the way of Intelligent Design. It can and it DOES.

The Bible does not speak of dinosaurs unless you take a generous and deliberately liberal interpretation of what is a poetic description of a hippo and try to force it to be a dinosaur. Not being in the Bible, these things must not exist, yet we have all these fossils of dinosaurs and not just fossils, but dated and in specific layers of rock in specific locations with successive layers containing fossils that show successive changes. Why is that evidence there in contrast to the story in Genesis? What do you think God is playing at by misleading us?

I read a story once of a fossilized dinosaur that was right on the surface of the ground. Still in the ground, but on it, somewhat protruded out. So, why wouldnt dinos have been in ancient times? There is not just bliblical depictions talking of "dragons" but also depictions elswhere.

You keep calling it evidence for God, but you have nothing that reveals it to be anything of the sort. You say God, but nothing that exists points to God. It just is and all the evidence says that it came about that way by natural means.

Design points to God. Again i feel like this is like that argument i had with a past friend who said everything that exists is an illusion. All i could say was, nah.....its not. In our case, i say design is there. Thats all i got for ya. Its not just a "religious motive" it is a science motive because it IS a thing I, along with many ID proponents see in nature.

ID is a claim. The significant tenants of any religion are claims. There is no evidence to back them up. Theory does not mean fact and I have not seen anyone with a knowledge of science state this.

I had someone state that to me once.

Theory is a more than just speculation, conjecture or a wild guess as most people use theory to mean colloquially, but in science, a theory is the best explanation that is known for evidence.

Well, if thats the case, then ID is a scientific theory. Because its a very solid explanation for the observed world. Design and order is apparent and obvious. As a Christian, you also believe its designed. Unless your model is that God threw dice and let the universe make itself? Thats akin to an artist splashing paint on a canvas and hoping it creates a lovely scene of mountains and trees, bunies and deer.

ID is just a religious claim hiding in scientific rags. It has no predictive power and explains nothing.

ID is not "hiding" in scientific rags, it IS a valid scientific theory even if some deny it. Its not just religion, its what we observe in the world around us.

I wondered how long it would take one of you to start questioning my religion. My religion has nothing to do with the facts that science uses, discovers and explains. I accept your claims about whatever religion you may follow. I have no way to challenge that. I do not have special knowledge that lets me tell a Christian from someone pretending to be Christian. I do not know of anyone that really has that ability. If you say you are, that is all I have. How do I tell a Christian that is sinning or imperfect, as we all are, from one that is pretending? How do you? Why do you find it surprising that a Christian would use his mind and be able to critically review scientific evidence?

Heres the thing, IF something is real, then its real, whatever it is. And that which is real, has halmarks, signs and evidences for it being real. Thats the nature of reality is that it has symptoms of such. I dont believe in God or a spirit world or ghosts or that we have a soul inhabiting a body JUST BECAUSE i want to believe this, i believe all this because the evidence is there and it does convince me of these realities. I dont "just believe because i just do". Again i got to ask you, why would God create everything and then deleberately make sure there was no evidence he made it? Whats your hypotheses answer to this? Remember, answering all questions empowers your position. Not answering weakens it.

If it was accepted for reasons to do with religion and not about science, then it should not have been accepted for publication in a scientific journal. ID is not science. Are you suggesting that I bear false witness and support a claim that I know to be false?

The reason it was accepted is because IT IS science. It was accepted because it deals with the obvious apparent design in the world. It does not go into christianity or islam or judaism or deism or whatever else. It merely deals with the apparent design in the physical world. Thats what makes it a valid scientific theory. This is not bearing any false witness, atleast its not on my part because im convinced of the apparent design in the physical world.

And the fact you question the motives of the accepters shows again the point i made before, that no amount of work or evidence produced will ever be enough for the hyper skeptics. They will always fish for something to criticize. And also, attacking the motive rather then the content of the peer reviewed ID journal is nothing short of ad hominum. I bet though you will respond back spinning a justification for it though.

Order can be found in the natural world. I understand that.

Im glad you do, that tells me your smart.

Show me how order implies a designer when there is no evidence a designer is needed and other explanations have been demonstrated to be sufficient for the existing order.

I dont think chance and time are enough or sufficient for explaining the existing order. I think a designer is needed.

Heres a story about isaac Newton

"Sir Isaac Newton was a famous mathematician and scientist who strongly believed in God. The story is told that he had an atheistic friend who did not believe in God. Sir Isaac devised a plan to try to convince his friend that God did exist and had created the Universe. One day, he went to a carpentry shop and asked the owner to make a model of our solar system. This model was to be to scale, intricately painted, and designed to resemble, as closely as possible, the actual solar system.

Several weeks later, Sir Isaac picked up the model, paid for it, and placed it in the center of a table in his house. Some time later, his atheist friend came over for a visit. When the friend arrived at Dr. Newton’s house, the model of the solar system caught his eye, and he asked Sir Isaac if he could inspect the model more closely. Of course, that was fine with Sir Isaac. As the atheist inspected the model, he stood in awe of the fine craftsmanship and beauty of the various pieces. After some time, the atheistic friend asked Dr. Newton whohad crafted this wonderful model of the solar system. Sir Isaac promptly replied that no one had made the model; it just appeared on his table by accident. Confused, the friend repeated the question, and yet Newton stubbornly clung to his answer that the model had just appeared, as it were, “out of thin air.” Finally, the friend became upset, and it was at that point that Sir Isaac explained the purpose of his answer. If he could not convince his friend that this crude replica of the solar system had “just happened by accident,” how could the friend believe that the real solar system, with all its complexity and design, could have appeared just by time and chance? Point well taken! Design always demands a Designer."

Design Demands A Designer

So far, design has only been found in human activity and in some animal activity perhaps. There is no design that can be definitively shown to exist without a human designer. What you call design can be explained by natural laws or at the very least demonstrates no reason that natural laws could not explain what is observed.

Natural LAWS are designed. How do you explain natural laws? Chance dont work. So, how do you explain natural laws?

 

[Jose Fly]

Yes, you understood correctly.

Then I hope you understand why ID creationism, as you've described it, is not science.

 

[Jollybear]

Then I hope you understand why ID creationism, as you've described it, is not science.

No, i understand it as science.

Let me ask you, do you see order and what LOOKS like design in the world? Yes or no?

 

[Jose Fly]

No, i understand it as science.

So your idea of scientific methodology is to merely assert "it's self evident"?

Let me ask you, do you see order and what LOOKS like design in the world? Yes or no?

No.

 

[Jollybear]

So your idea of scientific methodology is to merely assert "it's self evident"?

If its an assertion, then its just as much so as the assertion that its NOT designed. Also, its not an assertion. Its inference based on evidence. The evidence has patterms that look orderly and designed. So, its inference based on evidence.

No.

Thats odd, richard dawkins even admits things look designed. Of course he dont believe they actually are designed.

 

[Jose Fly]

If its an assertion, then its just as much so as the assertion that its NOT designed.

That depends on the methodology used to reach that conclusion.

Also, its not an assertion. Its inference based on evidence. The evidence has patterms that look orderly and designed. So, its inference based on evidence.

No, it's an assertion. I asked you to describe the methodology you used to determine that things are "designed". Your entire answer was "it's self evident".

That's the definition of "empty assertion".

 

[sayak83]

Well, based on this, i could just as validly say the same thing. Intelligent design is not proven, but theres evidence, inference and prediction for it.

No there is not. That is the reason why scientists reject it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Calling questions meaningless isnt good for your position on evolution. Answering questions empowers your position.



Say what? break that down more. I did not understand that.

Your question was meaningless, because it demonstrates that you do not understand evolution and the evidence for evolution and your demand for an order has no meaning in the context of what is known. Your question is based on the assumption that organs and structures came into existence fully formed with the function they have now. The evidence does not support this claim. You are extending and applying the debunked concept of irreducible complexity to everything in biology and even Michael Behe did not do that. IR as conceived by Michael Behe does not preclude evolution and even he has said so.

Trees and bugs have different designs. There still designs though. Different design dont equel no design.

I'll have to look back, but I believe I was using them as examples of living things that do not have some or any of the organs and structures you referenced and thus demonstrate that an order is your arbitrary construct. They show different functional pathways addressing the biological needs and this illustrates the unimportance of your demand for an order.

It walked through the wall.

Hearsay. Of course. One of the nine characteristics that clearly define a spirit is that it walks and the 10th is "through walls". I forgot. You cannot eliminate any of the few alternatives that I provided and have not even offered some you could probably come up with among the myriad of potential choices. Why did it have to walk?

My niece told me what she saw. My mom told me what she saw. Both of them saw the same thing. They both described it the same. Years later they hold firm to the story. I asked them detailed descriptions. They gave me it.

Hearsay. A small child is never impressionable and can always be relied on to provide independent testimony uncontaminated by the adults around her.

My mom has no history of being a drug adict. My niece, well, if she got cought doing that my mom would woop her a s s, lol. No will for drugs was there. I know my mom and my niece. Normal people.

I trust that you know your mom and niece, but that does not make their story evidence sufficient to demonstrate your claim. In a real test the subjects would have been evaluated. I realize that in a natural experiment, this may not be possible, but there is still tests that can be run and supporting evidence that can be provided. No one has any idea what is going on here and who knows that it all couldn't be from bad linguine?

Very unlikely. I dont even know how they both or even one of them could have accidentally taken drugs.

Again, this may be true, but no specific tests were conducted, so you really cannot even say with confidence needed to support the claim. Remember, you are the one claiming this happened, based on hearsay testimony of two people that you vouch for, but we know nothing about and in a situation that remains, at best, uncharacterized. You are not only claiming that some event happened, that you did not see yourself, but you are providing a conclusion, as definitive, that you cannot support.

No, they wer alone in the country at there cabin.

Accepted, even though this is also hearsay.

No mental illness. But hey, even still, 2 people mentally ill SEEING THE SAME THING? i dont buy it. But, no, no mentall illness either.

Admittedly, the more witnesses that independently tell the same story, the more believable it is, but you are offering a story and a conclusion that requires strong evidence. You are vouching for them and I would suspect it to be true, but to move me, I would need more than just this. Remember, anybody can come up to you and claim to have seen ghosts or aliens or Bigfoot.

Nope, aspeasaly not my hard headed mom. Complete opposite of sugestible. And, this was a one time event that did not re happen.

That may speak to the character of your family members, but it is not corroboration that a claimed event happened and it is what you claim it to be.

I just showed you how they are rulled out.

You have not ruled out anything nor demonstrated that you ruled out anything.

Well, unless aliens walk through walls, then perhaps so.

I forgot, aliens that have the ability to travel 10"s 1000's or even millions of light years couldn't possibly have the technology to walk through walls and no aliens exist that cannot transmute their forms to be insubstantial and pass through solid objects. It is my fault really. I didn't study the known traits of spirits, aliens, Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster.

Unlikely.

Once again, the abilities, technology and characteristics of time travelers is well known and I simply do not know them so well. When you have time, perhaps you would be so kind and please provide those so that the rest of us can rule them out of our next encounters with the unknown.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Because of the way they described it. A man like figure, radiant with light all over, having features, but just glowed. The whole body. He stared at them, then walked through the wall and was gone after that. Just before he appeared, they heard a lightning bolt. After he left, they went outside and saw a hole in the ground from the lightning bolt. Oddly, the next day, morning, they went out and the hole was gone. Very strange, but, i firmly believe both of them are telling me the truth.

From my position, all that can be said is an individual posting on an internet forum claims that some people in his family told him they saw a ghost. The poster does not claim to have been a witness. This is third party hearsay. The poster gave a description that was related to him. It is a familiar description from legend, folklore, books and movies. The poster believes the story. All that can be said is that it is a strange story. Any conclusions drawn from it are meaningless, since there as so many possible alternative explanations, the characteristics of many of the unsupported alternatives are unknown and so many contributing factors have not been eliminated.

You believe its real though. If you dont believe that then you dont believe.

Another Christianity test? I believe. That belief does not make it real other than to me. I cannot show that it is real or show another it is real. They would have to believe too and have equal ability to ignore it for lack of evidence.

I think we do have a partial knowledge through the study of NDEs and OBEs with there additional ESPs.

Unsubstantiated claims do not support claims.

Debating over whether design exists in the world, for me is like debating whether trees grow out of the ground, or whether the sky is blue, or whether im typing a message to you on my phone. Its not something i can "substantiate" anymore then simply to say design is apparent, self evident just like its self evident trees grow from the ground.

For you perhaps, but we are talking about what you claim and what you support. You claim it. Others claim it. No one can support it. Even you agree. Design is not self evidence. That something appears to have a design is not a signature of a designer. Natural processes have been demonstrated to result in apparent design. Humans have been demonstrated to design. Nothing else has. The fact is that ID is not science. It is religion. That is the argument. That design can be shown and by that, so to a designer. Even you agree with that here.

Actually, no, i did not know any other possibilities. Nor did i go through a process of elimination. ESP to me has a spiritual cause. I know no other cause for it, thats why i asked you what other cause could there be for it, since you say there could be many. Tell me one that is not spiritual?

How do you test your hypothesis? You would have to establish the existence of spirit. The properties of spirits. The association between ESP and these spiritual causes. You are not seeming to be able to separate what you believe with what can be demonstrated.

Sure.....but, these experiences are as old as the human race and there not going away. I think there real. Doubt is healthy, but, there us such a thing as what i call hyper skepticism. It means, no amount of evidence is good enough. I knew a guy one time, his view on reality is that nothing is real, its one big illusion. I did not agree, but, how do you argue with something like that? No amount of evidence, no matter how rational will be good enough.

The problem here is that you have provided no evidence or links to evidence or any corroboration of your beliefs at all that you claim are self-evident and real. You do not seem to understand the difference between beliefs, claims, evidence and the support of those claims using logic and evidence.

It was simply a dream i had. There was no ques, no influence. I had no idea he was goung to get his passport, let alone that hed be given a waiting number, let alone what the waiting number would even be. You understand? Im not telling you this experience if i was not SURE and convinced by it myself.

It is a mystery that you read a lot into and I can dismiss as coincidence just as easily and you cannot show that I would be wrong for doing so.

How did i know? It was from the dream, like i told you. I was not talking to anyone who told me that number. I was not even TRYING to GET a number. The dream was for all intense and purposes, random to me.

It was a joke.

Nothing is a giant leap IF ITS REAL.

The question is supporting and demonstrating that what you believe or have experienced is, in fact, real. You have not done that.

What you do is take a phenomenon and without benefit of review or examination and take it to the conclusion you want. You do not posit possible alternatives or test for them. You eliminate them with a wave of the hand. You base your conclusions on characteristics not in evidence and established by prior work other than to claim what others have claimed without substantiation.

To me "belief" isnt just out of thin air. Real belief has reasons for it, rational reasons. Belief should not be just because. Or just because you wer raised that way.

So, If I tell you I am Napoleon, that means that I am. Belief should not be blind and stupid either. I know a lot of things about biology and science and I still believe in God. Probably more now that I know. To me, it would be lying to myself and others to deny this knowledge. I would be denying the mental gifts and abilities that I believe God gave me. Are you suggesting that I bear false witness just to please someone that has less understanding?

You misunderstand. I uphold a persons right to believe or not believe. Also i uphold there right to hold stupid beliefs as well, such as atheism.

I agree that you hold all of these. I do not know "not believing" something to be a belief. It is the "not stamp collecting hobby" paradox.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Those questions are in the thread . . . for you have different questions.

1. Did Jehovah God create Adam and Eve. Male and female humans?
2. Was Jesus a real person and did he think that god created Adam and Eve. Male and female humans?
3. If God didn't create them, and they evolved, how did they sin and why would Jesus have been your savior since you were 12 years old?
4. If pine trees and elephants are related with a common ancestor what is that ancestor?

These are not the questions you previously asked and that I requested from you? Why did you post them?

I am a Christian. You can accept, because it is true. I am not going to submit myself to your tests, just because you do not like that I disagree with you and have something more than my belief to show in support of that.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You just did it but i dont think you know you did. You just filled in the GAP with SOME "chance".

No. I did not. And that still does not relieve you from supporting your assertions.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Actually it CAN be interpreted others ways, aspeasally the way of Intelligent Design. It can and it DOES.

Conjecture is not really interpretation. Interpretation requires something more substantial than biased belief.

I read a story once of a fossilized dinosaur that was right on the surface of the ground. Still in the ground, but on it, somewhat protruded out. So, why wouldnt dinos have been in ancient times? There is not just bliblical depictions talking of "dragons" but also depictions elswhere.

What would it matter to find out that creatures thought to be extinct were still alive now or at least a few thousand years ago? It would not change the facts of evolution or refute the theory. Creatures thought to be long extinct have been discovered.

The descriptions of anything in the Bible have to be stretched beyond reason to fit the idea of a dinosaur and fit with other animals that were actually alive at the time.

Stories of dragons could be based on some dinosaur, but I have never seen any evidence that supports it. That assertion still falls into the realm of unverified speculation.

Design points to God. Again i feel like this is like that argument i had with a past friend who said everything that exists is an illusion. All i could say was, nah.....its not. In our case, i say design is there. Thats all i got for ya. Its not just a "religious motive" it is a science motive because it IS a thing I, along with many ID proponents see in nature.

Everything that exists could be an illusion. Neither of us can demonstrate that it is not, even though we operate as if it is not.

You are not proposing anything in science by supporting ID. You are making assertions and claiming that supporting them is easy, yet you do not support them. You just repeat them.

If design was established, what is the evidence that God is the designer?

Are you familiar with circular arguments and unverified assumptions?

I had someone state that to me once.

They were wrong and obviously did not know anything about science or what a scientific theory is.

Well, if thats the case, then ID is a scientific theory. Because its a very solid explanation for the observed world. Design and order is apparent and obvious. As a Christian, you also believe its designed. Unless your model is that God threw dice and let the universe make itself? Thats akin to an artist splashing paint on a canvas and hoping it creates a lovely scene of mountains and trees, bunies and deer.

ID is not a scientific theory. There is no way to test the existence of a designer and all claims of ID so far have been eliminated. Only in the biased minds of people that wrongly fear their belief is under attack keep it alive as a belief.

ID is not "hiding" in scientific rags, it IS a valid scientific theory even if some deny it. Its not just religion, its what we observe in the world around us.

ID is religion hiding in scientific rags. It is not a valid scientific theory. It is a belief system. There are no observations from the world around us that support it.

Heres the thing, IF something is real, then its real, whatever it is. And that which is real, has halmarks, signs and evidences for it being real. Thats the nature of reality is that it has symptoms of such. I dont believe in God or a spirit world or ghosts or that we have a soul inhabiting a body JUST BECAUSE i want to believe this, i believe all this because the evidence is there and it does convince me of these realities. I dont "just believe because i just do". Again i got to ask you, why would God create everything and then deleberately make sure there was no evidence he made it? Whats your hypotheses answer to this? Remember, answering all questions empowers your position. Not answering weakens it.

So, saying that the universe is made up of a matrix of cotton candy is real? What if I believe it real hard?

The reality of the world or the universe is not in question here and never has been since I started responding to your posts. If the evidence is there, show it to me. Show the rest of the world.

There is no point to answer meaningless questions, since I am not questioning that you believe. I accept that you believe and what you have claimed you believe. I am challenging your assertions that step outside your belief. Assertions that you have failed to support and cannot support.

The reason it was accepted is because IT IS science. It was accepted because it deals with the obvious apparent design in the world. It does not go into christianity or islam or judaism or deism or whatever else. It merely deals with the apparent design in the physical world. Thats what makes it a valid scientific theory. This is not bearing any false witness, atleast its not on my part because im convinced of the apparent design in the physical world.

Is this a typo? Did you mean ID. Because IT is science, but that is IT as in Information Technology. ID as in Intelligent Design is not science and no matter what you believe, you cannot make it science. There is no obvious work of a designer in the world that can be pointed in support of the existence of that designer. Even you call it apparent design. That is what it is, until something else can be demonstrated to show that it is not just apparent and since we are discussing ID, which is in a framework of belief, that is not going to be demonstrated.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And the fact you question the motives of the accepters shows again the point i made before, that no amount of work or evidence produced will ever be enough for the hyper skeptics. They will always fish for something to criticize. And also, attacking the motive rather then the content of the peer reviewed ID journal is nothing short of ad hominum. I bet though you will respond back spinning a justification for it though.

You fit your own definition of hyper skeptic, which as near as I can determine is synonymous with denial. You do not seem to be able stay on point. The original assertion that I made regarded being able to demonstrate what you believe in some substantial way to another so that they could be convinced what you believe is real. It is not about your choices as to what you believe. Believe whatever you want. Clearly you are even in the face of evidence that says otherwise. My interest is in your assertions outside of belief that you claim are real, but are not established to be so.

Im glad you do, that tells me your smart.

My intelligence is not relevant to establishing that the order observed in the universe is the result of anything other than natural processes. Evolution is an orderly process to some extent. Variation in a population is naturally selected by the action of the environment and the variation is either eliminated or preserved within that population. All the evidence supports that continued variation and selection over time has resulted in the diversity of life we see.

I dont think chance and time are enough or sufficient for explaining the existing order. I think a designer is needed.

Heres a story about isaac Newton

"Sir Isaac Newton was a famous mathematician and scientist who strongly believed in God. The story is told that he had an atheistic friend who did not believe in God. Sir Isaac devised a plan to try to convince his friend that God did exist and had created the Universe. One day, he went to a carpentry shop and asked the owner to make a model of our solar system. This model was to be to scale, intricately painted, and designed to resemble, as closely as possible, the actual solar system.

Several weeks later, Sir Isaac picked up the model, paid for it, and placed it in the center of a table in his house. Some time later, his atheist friend came over for a visit. When the friend arrived at Dr. Newton’s house, the model of the solar system caught his eye, and he asked Sir Isaac if he could inspect the model more closely. Of course, that was fine with Sir Isaac. As the atheist inspected the model, he stood in awe of the fine craftsmanship and beauty of the various pieces. After some time, the atheistic friend asked Dr. Newton whohad crafted this wonderful model of the solar system. Sir Isaac promptly replied that no one had made the model; it just appeared on his table by accident. Confused, the friend repeated the question, and yet Newton stubbornly clung to his answer that the model had just appeared, as it were, “out of thin air.” Finally, the friend became upset, and it was at that point that Sir Isaac explained the purpose of his answer. If he could not convince his friend that this crude replica of the solar system had “just happened by accident,” how could the friend believe that the real solar system, with all its complexity and design, could have appeared just by time and chance? Point well taken! Design always demands a Designer."

Design Demands A Designer

http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=877A variation of the watch maker argument that continues to fail on the logic. The universe and all it holds has not been determined to be based on a design. If it were, then you would be left to demonstrate that our favorite designer was the Designer. Attempts at the first have so far failed, so the second surely has not been established.

The tale must be apochryphal, considering the size of a scale model and how large it would be. No wonder it would "catch the eye". If Mercury were scaled down to one mm, the sun would be one meter across. The earth would me kilometers outside of Newton's home.

Natural LAWS are designed. How do you explain natural laws? Chance dont work. So, how do you explain natural laws?

You make these assertions, but you do not demonstrate them. The world awaits your demonstration so that we can all know as well as believe. You claim it is easy, yet you do not do it.

You realize that demanding me to answer questions I do not have the knowledge to answer is you using "God of the Gaps" as an answer.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, i understand it as science.

Let me ask you, do you see order and what LOOKS like design in the world? Yes or no?

Then you do not understand science. Nor religion for that matter.

Any order in the world is not evidence of design or a designer. That assertion remains unsupported, but repeated.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If its an assertion, then its just as much so as the assertion that its NOT designed. Also, its not an assertion. Its inference based on evidence. The evidence has patterms that look orderly and designed. So, its inference based on evidence.




Thats odd, richard dawkins even admits things look designed. Of course he dont believe they actually are designed.

It is an assertion.

The key is "looks" designed, not is designed.

 

[Jollybear]

That depends on the methodology used to reach that conclusion.

The methodology is that everything looks designed, therefore its logical to infer actual design.

No, it's an assertion. I asked you to describe the methodology you used to determine that things are "designed". Your entire answer was "it's self evident".

That's the definition of "empty assertion".

It looks designed, the LOOK or APPEARANCE IS the evidence that its designed. So, the inference follows to say it is ACTUALLY designed.

 

[Jollybear]

No there is not. That is the reason why scientists reject it.

Not all scientists reject it.

And i disagree. ID does have evidence. I infer that design exists due to the evidence which is the appearence of design.