ID -Split from What God left out of the Bible

[Radrook]

None of which proves the inexistence of an ID.

[Hokulele]

None of which proves the inexistence of an ID.


It does point to less I in a D.

[Radrook]

It does point to less I in a D.


Possibly but not conclusively since the ID might be operating from criteria beyond our meager comprehension.

[Hokulele]

Possibly but not conclusively since the ID might be operating from criteria beyond our meager comprehension.


Ah yes, pure speculation, as opposed to following the evidence. I must have forgotten I was posting in R&P.

[Complexity]

Funny how 'god' is never more intelligent or knowledgable than the idiots that 'take dictation' (i.e. make it up).

[Radrook]

If Yahweh designed the Earth and its inhabitants, he did an awful job on the documentation. When he was having that little tête-a-tête with Moses up on the mountain, handing down laws about not wearing clothing with mixed fibres and not boiling a baby goat in its mother's milk, don't you think he could have also clued him in about contagious diseases, proper dental care, and delivering babies with much less risk of maternal mortality?

I mean, washing one's hands after tending to a sick person is certainly within our human comprehension. So why did he wait for more than three millennia after chatting with Moses before revealing the secret to Europeans in the 1800s?


You are approaching the subject from a biblical standpoint. I'm approaching it from a purely possibility standpoint.
So from that standpoint the criticism you offer doesn't disprove the possibilty of an ID.

[Cavemonster]

You are approaching the subject from a biblical standpoint. I'm approaching it from a purely possibility standpoint.
So from that standpoint the criticism you offer doesn't disprove the possibilty of an ID.

Because ID is unfalsifiable.

[Radrook]

Because ID is unfalsifiable.


Yet there are many things that are unfalsifiable and yet the possibility of their existence is accepted by physicists. Such as the existence of an infinate number branes which are said to be possibly colliding and causing Big Bangs.. The possibility of infinite number of alternate earths repleate with alternate histories but identical in every other way. The possibility of alternate universes some distant and some near where our laws of physics don't apply. All these are accepted as posibilities. Since they are, then the possibility of a denizen of one of those alternate realities being the ID must also be accepted.

[Cavemonster]

Yet there are many things that are unfalsifiable and yet the possibility of their existence is accepted by physicists. Such as the existence of an infinate number branes which are said to be possibly colliding and causing the big bang. The possibility of multiple Big Bangs. The possibility of infinite number of alternate earths repleate with alternate histories but identical in every other way. The possibility of alternate universes where our laws of physics don't apply. All these are accepted as posibilities. Since they are, then the possibility of a denizen of one of those alternate realities being the ID must also be accepted.

Of course, ID is possible in the broad sense of the word. So is an invisible dragon in my garage. The points in the OP make along with the many others made within this forum and elsewhere make it clear that the particular designer described within Abrahamic traditions is vanishingly unlikely.

You're clinging very hard to the idea of possibility, ignoring the fact that in the broad sense you're using it, almost nothing is impossible.

[not daSkeptic]

Yet there are many things that are unfalsifiable and yet the possibility of their existence is accepted by physicists.

And why is that?

[Radrook]

Of course, ID is possible in the broad sense of the word. So is an invisible dragon in my garage. The points in the OP make along with the many others made within this forum and elsewhere make it clear that the particular designer described within Abrahamic traditions is vanishingly unlikely.

Well, if the thread is restricted to the Abrahamic, as you call it, ID, then I guess I am out of line.

BTW
Actually, according to the multiple dimensions ideas that your physicists are tossing around, dinosaurs [dragons] might very well be rampaging through your living room undetected because they just out of reach in an adjacent dimension. So again, what you tag as ridiculous is a matter of serious discussion among some scientists. Or are you simply casting aside multiple dimensionality as silly in order to avoid the subsequent possibility of an ID residing in one of them--possibly?

You're clinging very hard to the idea of possibility, ignoring the fact that in the broad sense you're using it, almost nothing is impossible.

Well, that's the idea which some of your physicists are seriously tossing around these days. Aren't you aware of this? In fact, a Hadron Collider is being employed right now in an effort to confirm the extradiemensionality ideas. This concept is based on the apparent disapearance of electrons and their reapearance in unpredictable locations around the atomic nucleus. These has led them to hypotthesise that these electrons are doing infinite duties in other dimensions during the time that they leave our known universe.


Many-worlds is an interpretation of quantum mechanics that asserts the objective reality of the wavefunction, but denies the reality of wavefunction collapse. It is also known as MWI, the relative state formulation, theory of the universal wavefunction, parallel universes, many-universes interpretation or just many worlds.

The original relative state formulation is due to Hugh Everett [2][3] who formulated it in 1957. Later, this formulation was popularized and renamed many-worlds by Bryce Seligman DeWitt in the 1960s and '70s.[1][4][5][6]

Proponents argue that many-worlds reconciles how we can perceive non-deterministic events, such as the random decay of a radioactive atom, with the deterministic equations of quantum physics. Prior to many-worlds, reality had been viewed as a single "world-line". Many-worlds, rather, views reality as a many-branched tree where every possible quantum outcome is realised. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation

[Blue Mountain]

Yet there are many things that are unfalsifiable and yet the possibility of their existence is accepted by physicists. Such as the existence of an infinate[sic] number branes which are said to be possibly colliding and causing Big Bangs..[sic] The possibility of infinite number of alternate earths repleate[sic] with alternate histories but identical in every other way. The possibility of alternate universes some distant and some near where our laws of physics don't apply. All these are accepted as posibilities.[sic] Since they are, then the possibility of a denizen of one of those alternate realities being the ID must also be accepted.
Radrook, this thread is about what your god left out of the documentation he gave us about life on earth, not about Intelligent Design, branes, or the LHC. Please contribute to that discussion and take your creationist doggerel somewhere else.

[Aepervius]

Well, that's the idea which some of your physicists are seriously tossing around these days. Aren't you aware of this? In fact, a Hadron Collider is being employed right now in an effort to confirm the extradiemensionality ideas. This concept is based on the apparent disapearance of electrons and their reapearance in unpredictable locations around the atomic nucleus. These has led them to hypotthesise that these electrons are doing infinite duties in other dimensions during the time that they leave our known universe.


There is not many difference between ID and many world interpretation/probability collapse. But you see, this is why this is called Everett's interpretation or many world interpretation and not a theory, as in Quantum theory or Evolution theory.

ID is in our state of knowledge about as unfalsifiable as the other interpretation, or as unfalsifiable that my dragon "norbert" did create the world 7 minutes and 42 seconds ago. And gave you an illusion of your own memory and the world having started before those 7 minutes and 42 seconds.

In other word, it is about as useful as opening the entrails of a fish to predict anything. Zero. nada.

So. Yeah ID is utterly and fully useless, und unfalsifiable.

But you see, it is not up to *US* to demonstrate ID. it is up to you proponent to provide evidence for it. HIHIHI. HAHAHA (insert guffaw laugh). SNIRK. Good luck with that. I have about as much chance with my Dragon norbert.

[sgtbaker]

Yet there are many things that are unfalsifiable and yet the possibility of their existence is accepted by physicists. Such as the existence of an infinate number branes which are said to be possibly colliding and causing Big Bangs

Those are not universally accepted and in no way are they ever taught as fact. They are suggestions supported but not proven, mathematically.

[Cavemonster]

Well, if the thread is restricted to the Abrahamic, as you call it, ID, then I guess I am out of line.


Of course this thread is about an Abrahamic creator, how would a critique of the bible be otherwise.

I am very familiar with Many Worlds interpretations. You seem to have a science fiction based view of what it implies and no grasp as to why it is being explored.

Your post leaps right over what I stated before. EVERYTHING IS POSSIBLE.
I'm not interested in what is possible, I'm interested in what is probable and evidenced based. Your continued assertion that ID is not impossible isn't untrue, it's just irrelevant. You have no logical reason for clinging to ID that would apply to any other possible but unevidenced idea, which includes any ridiculous scenario that you could possibly think of.

[arthwollipot]

Possibly but not conclusively since the ID might be operating from criteria beyond our meager comprehension.Ah, the "mysterious ways" argument - which is the creationist's ultimate answer to anything. Why are there guinea worms? Mysterious ways. How come we suffer from back problems? Mysterious ways. Why are our retinas backwards while those of the cephalopods are the right way around? Mysterious ways.

[HansMustermann]

Well, that's the idea which some of your physicists are seriously tossing around these days. Aren't you aware of this? In fact, a Hadron Collider is being employed right now in an effort to confirm the extradiemensionality ideas. This concept is based on the apparent disapearance of electrons and their reapearance in unpredictable locations around the atomic nucleus. These has led them to hypotthesise that these electrons are doing infinite duties in other dimensions during the time that they leave our known universe.

Well, see, that's the difference between science and ID right there: a scientific idea

A) presents falsifiable predictions. If theory Y is correct and condition Z is met, then X should happen. If X doesn't happen, then you need to look for another explanation.

B) involves presenting some evidence.

Sorry, I don't see ID proponents doing the same with their BS as those guys are doing at the LHC.

[paximperium]

Name a single thing that ID predicted.
Name a single use for ID.

[Radrook]

Well, see, that's the difference between science and ID right there: a scientific idea

A) presents falsifiable predictions. If theory Y is correct and condition Z is met, then X should happen. If X doesn't happen, then you need to look for another explanation.

B) involves presenting some evidence.

Sorry, I don't see ID proponents doing the same with their BS as those guys are doing at the LHC.

It's their testable BS that causes all those claiming to know all the BS that goes on in all existence via claiming omnicience to look silly.

[Radrook]

Ah, the "mysterious ways" argument - which is the creationist's ultimate answer to anything. Why are there guinea worms? Mysterious ways. How come we suffer from back problems? Mysterious ways. Why are our retinas backwards while those of the cephalopods are the right way around? Mysterious ways.


I don't see people like you raising objections to films where the extraterrestrials are the ID. Why is that? Because they aren't referred to as God? Some scientists have even proposed the idea as a possibility with absolutely no reaction from staunch advocates of abiogenesis. Even films have been made which propagate that idea. So it's not the concept itself so much as it is your aversion to religion and the god or God concept. In short, logic flies out the window and reasoning is put on hold simply based on aversion. That modus operandi is the antothesis of cogent reasoning.

[paximperium]

It's their testable BS that causes all those claiming to know all the BS that goes on in all existence via claiming omnicience to look silly.
Strange. Why is an ID-er insulting Creationist?

[paximperium]

I don't see people like you raising objections to films where the extraterrestrials are the ID. Why is that? Because they aren't referred to as God? Some scientists have even proposed thei dea as a possibility with absolutely no reaction from staunch advocates of abiogenesis. Even films have been made which propagate that idea. So it's not the concept itself so much as it is your aversion to religion and the god or God concept. In short, logic flies out the window and reasoning is put on hold simply based on aversion. That modus operandi is the antothesis of cogent reasoning.
So "mysterious ways" argument is sound because other people have put forth arguments that you don't understand but seem outlandish to you? Talk about a common ID-iotic argument.

Edit: The possibility of alien intervention on the development of life on Earth is pretty irrelevant since it does not change the fact that abiogenesis still has to happen to this alien life to allow it to do something to Earth life. You don't seem to even understand the concept of Intelligent Design by aliens at all do you?

[sgtbaker]

I don't see people like you raising objections to films where the extraterrestrials are the ID. Why is that? Because they aren't referred to as God? Some scientists have even proposed the idea as a possibility with absolutely no reaction from staunch advocates of abiogenesis. Even films have been made which propagate that idea. So it's not the concept itself so much as it is your aversion to religion and the god or God concept. In short, logic flies out the window and reasoning is put on hold simply based on aversion. That modus operandi is the antothesis of cogent reasoning.

What objections should there be? If someone wants to make a film to share an idea, by all means. However, when they want to teach 'alien seeding' in schools as an alternate theory to evolution, you can bet I'm making a stink.

[Radrook]

What objections should there be? If someone wants to make a film to share an idea, by all means. However, when they want to teach 'alien seeding' in schools as an alternate theory to evolution, you can bet I'm making a stink.


So you are not opposed to an ID idea as long as it is subtly put forth with not too much bruaha.

[paximperium]

So you are not opposed to an ID idea as long as it is subtly put forth with not too much bruaha.
I'm not opposed to people believing in really stupid things keeping it to themselves.

[sgtbaker]

So you are not opposed to an ID idea as long as it is subtly put forth with not too much bruaha.

First off, don't ask me loaded questions. You, or anyone else on this planet are entirely free to believe what you want. I have absolutely no objection to different opinions than my own. My personal view on ID is that it is simply evolution with unnecessary fringes. Teach evolution because the evidence supports it. There is no evidence of a magic man, so leave that part for family reinforcement. People seem to have a hard time differenciating between warm and fuzzy opinion and supportable science.

I certainly would find it interesting to learn that we live in a multiverse system; that somewhere there is a duplicate of me, leading a much more interesting life. The program on The Science Channel was really entertaining and an interesting idea. To my best understanding, though, that's all it is and all it will ever be until we can find a way to prove that particles blinking in and out of existence really means that they are existing in more than one universe. Anyone honestly looking to further their knowledge and not just cherry picking the good stuff would not watch any program or listen to a really charismatic speaker and just accept it blindly.

[Radrook]

First off, don't ask me loaded questions. You, or anyone else on this planet are entirely free to believe what you want. I have absolutely no objection to different opinions than my own. My personal view on ID is that it is simply evolution with unnecessary fringes. Teach evolution because the evidence supports it. There is no evidence of a magic man, so leave that part for family reinforcement. People seem to have a hard time differenciating between warm and fuzzy opinion and supportable science.

I certainly would find it interesting to learn that we live in a multiverse system; that somewhere there is a duplicate of me, leading a much more interesting life. The program on The Science Channel was really entertaining and an interesting idea. To my best understanding, though, that's all it is and all it will ever be until we can find a way to prove that particles blinking in and out of existence really means that they are existing in more than one universe. Anyone honestly looking to further their knowledge and not just cherry picking the good stuff would not watch any program or listen to a really charismatic speaker and just accept it blindly.

Logic or cogent reasoning needs no other support but that it be logical or cogent. Rejecting a possibility simply because we can't refrain from tagging it as religious is fallacious reasoning. That's all I'm pointing out.

BTW
I don't like to be asked loaded questions either.

[paximperium]

Logic or cogent reasoning needs no other support but that it be logical or cogent. What logic or coherence? ID is the epitome of ignorance and bias.

Rejecting a possibility simply because we can't refrain from tagging it as religious is fallacious reasoning. It is rejected because it is based on ignorance and pretty useless and stupid; not because it is religious.

That's all I'm pointing out.You're not pointing anything out except to spout idiotic strawmen and play the victim.

[154]

What logic or coherence? ID is the epitome of ignorance and bias.
It is rejected because it is based on ignorance and pretty useless and stupid; not because it is religious.
You're not pointing anything out except to spout idiotic strawmen and play the victim.And on the other hand, the premise that life, essentially, in all its marvelous complexity, sprang into existence accidentally from a rock is so brilliantly logical, intelligent and not-idiotic.

[paximperium]

And on the other hand, the premise that life, essentially, in all its marvelous complexity, sprang into existence accidentally from a rock is so brilliantly logical, intelligent and not-idiotic.
Who's saying that? Oh yes, the ignorant Creationist and ID-iots who are so ignorant and smugly stupid about the basics of the processes involved that they think their retarded understanding of abiogenesis and evolution somehow equates to reality.

Why are you insulting yourself?

[154]

Who's saying that? Oh yes, the ignorant Creationist and ID-iots who are so ignorant and smugly stupid about the basics of the processes involved that they think their retarded understanding of abiogenesis and evolution somehow equates to reality.

Why are you insulting yourself?Alrighty then.
You give me your most simple and concise version of events accounting for life on earth
that clearly contradicts my point that your position is:
that life, essentially, in all its marvelous complexity, sprang into existence accidentally from a rock

[paximperium]

Alrighty then.
You give me your most simple and concise version of events accounting for all of creation and for life on earth.
Don't know. Now your turn.

[paximperium]

Alrighty then.
You give me your most simple and concise version of events accounting for life on earth
that clearly contradicts my point that your position is:
Oh? Changed your challenge?
Okay. Don't know. Now your turn.

Give me the most simple and concise version of events accounting for life on earth using Intelligent Design.

[154]

.. ignorant.. ID-iots..so ignorant..smugly stupid.. their retarded understanding

Why are you insulting yourself?

Yeah.

Yes, I changed my challenge only to remove "all of creation" to make it simpler for you so that your genius only had to account for life on earth.

We'll see if you can prove my simple but seemingly absurd statement in anyway incorrect. You cannot, because that actually is the absurdity you desperate God-deniers believe is most logical and most rational even though you folks go through contorted exertions to make it more acceptably complicated.

[paximperium]

Yeah.
But I don't know. I really really am so dumb that I don't know. Me stoopid. Evolution and abiogenesis has been completely 100% falsified and failed. It is all a lie. The veil has been removed from my eyes. I am ready to learn from someone who is smarter than all those stoopid biologists and chemists out there.

Please edumated me with your Intelligent Design "Theory". Come on. Do tell. You have an actual functional hypothesis and "theory", Don't cha?

[Hokulele]

Yeah.

Yes, I changed my challenge only to remove "all of creation" to make it simpler for you so that your genius only had to account for life on earth.

We'll see...


As pax said, "I don't know" is currently the correct answer. "Making stuff up" is not a reasonable response to "I don't know". And before one of you goes off on other hypotheses that have already been mentioned, there is a very big difference between weighing possibilities and claiming one of those must be true.

[paximperium]

We'll see if you can prove my simple but seemingly absurd statement in anyway incorrect. You cannot, because that actually is the absurdity you desperate God-deniers believe is most logical and most rational even though you folks go through contorted exertions to make it more acceptably complicated.
Come on.

Show me your all powerful evidence backed ID "theory". Show me the mechanism. Show me how it works. Show me a use for it. Show how it actually explains anything.

[paximperium]

As pax said, "I don't know" is currently the correct answer. "Making stuff up" is not a reasonable response to "I don't know". And before one of you goes off on other hypotheses that have already been mentioned, there is a very big difference between weighing possibilities and claiming one of those must be true.
What I despise about these wonderful IDiots and Creationists is that they have nothing. Zilch. They just have ignorance and incredulity to back up their claims.

Can't explain the Big Bang. Goddidit!!!
Can't explain abiogenesis. Goddidit!!!
Can't explain the diversity of life. Goddidit!!!
Can't explain the mind. Goddidit!!!
Can't explain the penis. Goddidit!!!

They haven't explained anything. They haven't done anything except to make a claim because they don't understand something therefore their magical Goddidit!!!

[154]

I have faith that God created. Period.

You have even more faith "that life, essentially, in all its marvelous complexity, sprang into existence accidentally from a rock."

You deny this? What is your third alternative? The aliens did it? That only moves the goalposts.


... and why is it that your type is always ultimately so insecure and threatened by mine that you immediately and repeatedly resort to insults, as if that makes your case stronger, even though it makes you feel better about your own position somehow?

[paximperium]

I have faith that God created. Period. So you have no theory, no hypothesis, just magic. How cool for you.
How useless for everyone else but hey some people like to read about flying saucers.

You have even more faith "that life, essentially, in all its marvelous complexity, sprang into existence accidentally from a rock."

You deny this? What is your third alternative? The aliens did it? That only moves the goalposts.My alternative?

Chemistry. Chemistry is really cool stuff especially things about self replicating molecules and self catalyzing enzymes. You should read up on it sometime. Oh yes, I think biology is really cool too.

Sorry, but magic is not my thing.

[Hokulele]

I have faith that God created. Period.

You have even more faith "that life, essentially, in all its marvelous complexity, sprang into existence accidentally from a rock."


No, I do not.

You deny this? What is your third alternative? The aliens did it? That only moves the goalposts.


Yes, I do deny this. My third alternative is "I do not know". Why are those four words so terrifying for you?

[154]

As pax said, "I don't know" is currently the correct answer. So then "I don't know" with the "I don't know-ers" means God could have created everything, right?

[paximperium]

Yes, I do deny this. My third alternative is "I do not know". Why are those four words so terrifying for you?
Why do you hate chemistry? :(

[154]

No, I do not.
Yes, I do deny this. My third alternative is "I do not know". Why are those four words so terrifying for you?

Was I "terrified" of my own posting last night?

[paximperium]

So then "I don't know" with the "I don't know-ers" means God could have created everything, right?
Which god? I kind of like the Titan Gaia but then Uranus is totally cool as well. I have a soft spot for Izanagi and Izanami as well.

[Hokulele]

So then "I don't know" with the "I don't know-ers" means God could have created everything, right?


Sure, so could your aliens. So could self-replicating molecules. I don't know simply means "I do not know, so it would be silly to assume any one conclusion without more information".

"I don't know" doesn't mean I can never know, or I have to believe any old crap in the meantime, or I should stop listening to the people who are doing their very best to find out. Keeping an open mind doesn't mean I have to accept other people's conclusions just to have a tick in the box marked "Origin of Life". I can leave that box empty until reliable evidence has been found.

And someone might just find it, one of these days.

[Hokulele]

Why do you hate chemistry? :(


I love chemistry, and of all the fields, that is the one most likely to find an answer. Some day. ;)

Was I "terrified" of my own posting last night?


I don't know.

[154]

That's funny, Pax. For all your preaching of evolution here, I don't think "I don't know" has ever been your point.

http://forums.randi.org/search.php?searchid=413211

[RoboTimbo]

So then "I don't know" with the "I don't know-ers" means God could have created everything, right?

Which god or gods? Do you have equal faith in every unevidenced possibility or do you find yourself leaning more towards one you may have been indoctrinated to believe in?

[paximperium]

That's funny, Pax. For all your preaching of evolution here, I don't think "I don't know" has ever been your point.

http://forums.randi.org/search.php?searchid=413211 But I've seen the light. I'm sooooo stoopid. Come on enlighten me with your knowledge...you do have knowledge right? You DO KNOW, don't cha? You do KNOW exactly what created life right? Do tell.

BTW: We know ALOT about evolution. We don't know too much about abiogenesis although we have several competing hypotheses at this point so your "point" is pretty much retarded.

[paximperium]

Which god or gods? Do you have equal faith in every unevidenced possibility or do you find yourself leaning more towards one you may have been indoctrinated to believe in?I lean towards the Om and Vishnu myself.

[RoboTimbo]

I lean towards the Om and Vishnu myself.

That's because they aren't raving loonies like that idiotic Christian god. Did you ever see such a mess of made up mythology as that?

[paximperium]

That's because they aren't raving loonies like that idiotic Christian god. Did you ever see such a mess of made up mythology as that?
The whole absurd range of Creationism ranging from Stundie Young Earth Creationism to this Old Earth Creationism oops, I mean Intelligent Design can't agree on their own nonsense.

[tsig]

Possibly but not conclusively since the ID might be operating from criteria beyond our meager comprehension.

Then how could we recognize it's handiwork?

[I Am The Scum]

So then "I don't know" with the "I don't know-ers" means God could have created everything, right?

Are you kidding me? Some random guys on the net do not have an answer for a given question, ipso facto God is a possible answer? You're joking, right?

[Hokulele]

Are you kidding me? Some random guys on the net do not have an answer for a given question, ipso facto God is a possible answer? You're joking, right?


And gals. :)

[Radrook]

Then how could we recognize it's handiwork?


The same way we detect the handiwork of any other mind.

[paximperium]

Are you kidding me? Some random guys on the net do not have an answer for a given question, ipso facto God is a possible answer? You're joking, right?
Not really. All of Intelligent Design is basically based on the premise that some biological functions are too complicated(for ID-iots anyway) that goddidit!!!

Argument from Ignorance and Incredulity is all they really have. Notice how he/she avoids providing any real mechanism, function or basically anything useful or coherent when it comes to ID. They have nothing. All they have is this smugness whenever science can't explain something(yet) as it this was evidence that their lazy claim would magically become more plausible.

[paximperium]

The same way we detect the handiwork of any other mind.
Such as?

[Hokulele]

The same way we detect the handiwork of any other mind.


How does one distinguish between patterns that were developed by "any other mind" and ones that were not?

[Brainache]

How does one distinguish between patterns that were developed by "any other mind" and ones that were not?

I think you've fallen into his trap... Because he can now say that if we see a pattern that we think is just a naturally occurring phenomenon, like the way pebbles are sorted on a beach, that it is evidence for the mind of God.
Just because our puny mortal minds have concocted a story about waves pushing similar sized pebbles similar distances, doesn't mean God didn't plan it that way. Or God planned the nature of chemical bonds in such a way that they would eventually produce some kind of precurser to RNA through a process which looks exactly like abiogenesis.

There is no natural explanation for anything which cannot be stupidly and unfalsifiably extended in this way to include the IDiot God thing.

[Hokulele]

I think you've fallen into his trap... Because he can now say that if we see a pattern that we think is just a naturally occurring phenomenon, like the way pebbles are sorted on a beach, that it is evidence for the mind of God.
Just because our puny mortal minds have concocted a story about waves pushing similar sized pebbles similar distances, doesn't mean God didn't plan it that way. Or God planned the nature of chemical bonds in such a way that they would eventually produce some kind of precurser to RNA through a process which looks exactly like abiogenesis.

There is no natural explanation for anything which cannot be stupidly and unfalsifiably extended in this way to include the IDiot God thing.


Exactly. I wasn't falling into a trap, but showing that if everything shows evidence of being designed, the hypothesis is worthless for describing anything. If one cannot distinguish between things that are designed and not designed, how do you know it is, after all, designed? Suddenly the whole argument becomes one giant tautology. "Everything looks part of a design because it is designed."

[John Jones]

Alrighty then.
You give me your most simple and concise version of events accounting for life on earth
that clearly contradicts my point that your position is:


I saw what you did.

[Foster Zygote]

I don't see people like you raising objections to films where the extraterrestrials are the ID. Why is that? Because they aren't referred to as God? Some scientists have even proposed the idea as a possibility with absolutely no reaction from staunch advocates of abiogenesis. Even films have been made which propagate that idea. So it's not the concept itself so much as it is your aversion to religion and the god or God concept. In short, logic flies out the window and reasoning is put on hold simply based on aversion. That modus operandi is the antothesis of cogent reasoning.

Such suggestions only move the question of abiogenesis a step away. What is the origin of these extraterrestrials?

[paximperium]

I saw what you did.
A donkey could see what he/she did.

Like I said, they have nothing, so all they have is a rather pathetic attempt at shifting the burden of evidence away from themselves since(surprise!) they have none to present.

[tsig]

The same way we detect the handiwork of any other mind.

Gods' mind is just any other mind? I thought it was beyond our understanding so it follows that gods' handiwork is beyond our understanding.

[154]

A donkey could see what he/she did.

Like I said, they have nothing, so all they have is a rather pathetic attempt at shifting the burden of evidence away from themselves since(surprise!) they have none to present.

I believe God created.

You believe you came from a rock by accident.

We have faith in our beliefs.

[Foster Zygote]

I have faith that God created. Period.
You are welcome to your faith. But faith is essentially belief without justification. Faith in the Abrahamic god is no different than faith in Vishnu or Santa Clause.

You have even more faith "that life, essentially, in all its marvelous complexity, sprang into existence accidentally from a rock."
This is called an argument from personal incredulity and it is a type of logical fallacy.

We can trace the evolution of hydrogen atoms to complex organic molecules, the very building blocks of life, in an unbroken chain of completely naturalistic steps. We also have an excellent understanding of the way in which environmental selection pressures act on random variations in individual self-replicating systems to change gene frequency within reproducing populations. What we do not yet know is exactly how the first and simplest self replicating molecules formed. But in a chain of evidence that goes naturalistic -> naturalistic -> ? -> naturalistic it is not, as you claim, an act of faith to search for a naturalistic answer to the unknown phenomena given that every other previously unknown phenomenon has turned out to have a naturalistic cause. It is not an act of faith to realize that the god hypothesis is less likely than a naturalistic hypothesis when everything we've learned so far has turned out to have a naturalistic cause.

You deny this?
I do. It is not faith to note that no supernatural cause has ever been observed, making supernatural explanations highly unlikely.

What is your third alternative? The aliens did it? That only moves the goalposts.
Given what we currently know, aliens are an unlikely explanation. However, this hypothesis still has one thing going for it that cannot be said for the god hypothesis - aliens are at least a naturalistic explanation. And the idea that life evolved elsewhere and then deliberately seeded life on another world is not itself logically impossible. Humans could, right now, probably seed Mars, and a number of other worlds within our solar system, with living organisms. In fact, NASA has taken great pains to sterilize their planetary probes to avoid accidentally doing just that. Aliens seeding worlds with life is an interesting speculation, but there is no evidence to support the idea and, as far as I know, no serious biologists are advancing the idea as the best way to explain the origin of life on Earth. But, again, we do at least have evidence of intelligent, space-faring civilization right here on Earth. We do not have any evidence of gods.

[RoboTimbo]

I believe God created.

You believe you came from a rock by accident.

We have faith in our beliefs.
Which god or gods? Do you have equal faith in every unevidenced possibility or do you find yourself leaning more towards one you may have been indoctrinated to believe in?

[154]

Which god or gods? Do you have equal faith in every unevidenced possibility or do you find yourself leaning more towards one you may have been indoctrinated to believe in?

Do you ever question your own assumptions and certainties?
So who do you suppose indoctrinated me when it is verboten in school and I don't go to church?

[RoboTimbo]

Do you ever question your own assumptions and certainties?
So who do you suppose indoctrinated me when it is verboten in school and I don't go to church?

That's why I said, "may have". I made no assumptions about who was responsible for your indoctrination.

[154]

That's why I said, "may have". I made no assumptions about who was responsible for your indoctrination.
Who's responsible for yours?

[RoboTimbo]

Who's responsible for yours?

Are you uncomfortable with these questions? Would you prefer to answer the ones about the fallacy of personal incredulity?

[temporalillusion]

The same way we detect the handiwork of any other mind.

How does one distinguish between patterns that were developed by "any other mind" and ones that were not?

Actually you can't since their point is EVERYTHING is the handiwork of another mind, there is no example of anything that isn't the handiwork of another mind, so it's impossible to evaluate if something is or is not the handiwork of another mind.

So it boils down to "we detect it's the handiwork of a mind by saying it's the handiwork of a mind".

Do you ever question your own assumptions and certainties?


That's how I came to accept evolution and reject the young earth creation stories.

[154]

Are you uncomfortable with these questions? Would you prefer to answer the ones about the fallacy of personal incredulity?

Are you uncomfortable with having your own questions asked of you?

That's how I came to accept evolution and reject the young earth creation stories.Have you ever questioned or challenged those authorities?

[RoboTimbo]

Do you ever question your own assumptions and certainties?

There is a forum full of former believers who did just that. You should try it sometime. Perhaps now you can gird up your loins to answer?

Which god or gods? Do you have equal faith in every unevidenced possibility or do you find yourself leaning more towards one you may have been indoctrinated to believe in?

[154]

I believe in the God of the Bible.
I believe in the God of Israel.
I believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
I believe Jesus Christ.

I believe it is no big challenge for the Creator of the Universe
to get The Book to us.

I searched for myself. I found to my satisfaction.

[Complexity]

I believe in the God of the Bible.
I believe in the God of Israel.
I believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
I believe Jesus Christ.

I believe it is no big challenge for the Creator of the Universe
to get The Book to us.

I searched for myself. I found to my satisfaction.


Well, whoopie for you!

Your beliefs are inane and childish.

You are far too easily satisfied.

Become a man and learn to think.

No one with integrity could hold your beliefs for long.

[temporalillusion]

Have you ever questioned or challenged those authorities?

Of course, I questioned and challenged all authorities.

I decided to ask myself the basic question of "why do I believe what I do?" And I let myself follow the questions to their answers, rather than avoiding the answers because they didn't line up with what I was told to believe by authorities.

And the end point (with respect to evolution anyway) is not incompatible with Christianity.

[Radrook]

Gods' mind is just any other mind? I thought it was beyond our understanding so it follows that gods' handiwork is beyond our understanding.

I didn't say that extraterrestrial minds are just like any other minds.
I didn't say God or god--please note that I said ID.
Neither did I say that an ID's mind is by default beyond our understanding.

[paximperium]

I believe God created.

You believe you came from a rock by accident.

We have faith in our beliefs.Why are you so embarrased by your faith that you have to equate your fantasy based belief system with scientific and evidence based beliefs?
Is your faith so weak and pathetic that you have to try to project it onto others?

I don't need faith. I have evidence on my side. Like I've said. You have:
I believe in the God of the Bible.
I believe in the God of Israel.
I believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
I believe Jesus Christ.

I believe it is no big challenge for the Creator of the Universe
to get The Book to us.

I searched for myself. I found to my satisfaction.
Basically irrelevance. Useless fantasy based irrelevance just like ID and Creationism.

How useless.

[RoboTimbo]

I believe in the God of the Bible.
I believe in the God of Israel.
I believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
I believe Jesus Christ.

I believe it is no big challenge for the Creator of the Universe
to get The Book to us.

I searched for myself. I found to my satisfaction.

Thank you. Finally. Having to drag answers out of believers makes me think that they are embarrassed by the answers.

Do you understand the difference between faith based belief and evidence based knowledge?

[John Jones]

I didn't say that extraterrestrial minds are just like any other minds.
I didn't say God or god--please note that I said ID.
Neither did I say that an ID's mind is by default beyond our understanding.

Then what ARE you saying? Your rejoinders don't seem to be consistent with any position.

[TraneWreck]

I believe in the God of the Bible.
I believe in the God of Israel.
I believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
I believe Jesus Christ.

I believe it is no big challenge for the Creator of the Universe
to get The Book to us.

I searched for myself. I found to my satisfaction.

This makes you a very silly, primitive person. Note, this doesn't make you a bad person, just someone who will not contribute to the advance of humanity.

Now, if you take this fantasy belief of yours and try to manipulate society into obeying your intellectual necrophilia, then you are a bad person.

[154]

Why are you so embarrased by your faith that you have to equate your fantasy based belief system with scientific and evidence based beliefs?
Is your faith so weak and pathetic that you have to try to project it onto others?
I don't need faith. I have evidence on my side. Like I've said. You have: You do not observe. You do not prove. You are faithful.


Basically irrelevance. Useless fantasy based irrelevance just like ID and Creationism.

How useless.Ok. Thus sayeth the almighty you.


Thank you. Finally. Having to drag answers out of believers makes me think that they are embarrassed by the answers.Do you even know how many times I've repeated that here already?

Do you understand the difference between faith based belief and evidence based knowledge?Do you understand how irritating such constant arrogant condescension is and why I will not even bother with such a premise?


This makes you a very silly, primitive person. Note, this doesn't make you a bad person, just someone who will not contribute to the advance of humanity.

Now, if you take this fantasy belief of yours and try to manipulate society into obeying your intellectual necrophilia, then you are a bad person.Imagine the surprise with some of you when, maybe 50 years from now or maybe tomorrow, you suddenly find yourself dead and your life is over, and you then are even more staggered to find yourself standing before Jesus Christ. Perhaps only then will you realize how utterly foolish your certainty was. What would you say directly to Him at that point?

[RoboTimbo]

Do you even know how many times I've repeated that here already?

Do you understand how irritating such constant arrogant condescension is and why I will not even bother with such a premise?

You were irritated previously at what you perceived as me making assumptions. I was trying to avoid that this time. I asked because it isn't always clear that strong believers do understand the difference. We can skip it for now if you like.

Do you think ID is faith based or evidence based?

[154]

You were irritated previously at what you perceived as me making assumptions. I was trying to avoid that this time. I asked because it isn't always clear that strong believers do understand the difference. We can skip it for now if you like.

Do you think ID is faith based or evidence based?Keep up, would ya?

The evidence we have is the evidence we have. We interpret it differently. We both cannot prove it. We both are left standing in our relative faiths. I admit it that much. None of you can.

[TraneWreck]

Imagine the surprise with some of you when, maybe 50 years from now or maybe tomorrow, you suddenly find yourself dead and your life is over, and you then are even more staggered to find yourself standing before Jesus Christ. Perhaps only then will you realize how utterly foolish your certainty was. What would you say directly to Him at that point?

Not nearly as surprised as I will be when maybe 50 years from now or maybe tomorrow a zombie triceratops with laser eyes decends from the heavens to rule mankind.

At least triceratops and lasers actually exist. That makes my story significantly more probable than yours...

[John Jones]

Imagine the surprise with some of you when, maybe 50 years from now or maybe tomorrow, you suddenly find yourself dead and your life is over, and you then are even more staggered to find yourself standing before Jesus Christ. Perhaps only then will you realize how utterly foolish your certainty was. What would you say directly to Him at that point?

I reckon Jesus is one rough ole boy when it comes to atheists and skeptics, huh?

[RoboTimbo]

Keep up, would ya?

The evidence we have is the evidence we have. We interpret it differently. We both cannot prove it. We both are left standing in our relative faiths. I admit it that much. None of you can.

Does it irritate you that you make assumptions?

What do you believe that I have faith in?

[John Jones]

Keep up, would ya?

The evidence we have is the evidence we have. We interpret it differently. We both cannot prove it. We both are left standing in our relative faiths. I admit it that much. None of you can.

There's nothing to keep up with. You keep making statements like that, but they're not valid.

[154]

Not nearly as surprised as I will be when maybe 50 years from now or maybe tomorrow a zombie triceratops with laser eyes decends from the heavens to rule mankind.

At least triceratops and lasers actually exist. That makes my story significantly more probable than yours...
Hypothetically then, humor me, and prepare yourself, if it is as I say
"What would you say directly to Him at that point?"

[TraneWreck]

Hypothetically then, humor me, and prepare yourself, if it is as I say
"What would you say directly to Him at that point?"

"Sir, why did you take such pains to hide yourself?"

Or alternately, "Why did you create the world such that those who understand the least about it seem to have the most to say about you?"

[154]

"Sir, why did you take such pains to hide yourself?"He has gone to great lengths to reveal Himself to any and every heart and mind that is willing to see.

You will be far too overwhelmed to attempt to express your own great wisdom.

Or alternately, "Why did you create the world such that those who understand the least about it seem to have the most to say about you?"And maybe at that point, when your understanding is inarguably revealed as undeniably and totally incorrect, you will be far too overwhelmed to assert yourself before The Creator.

[Foster Zygote]

Imagine the surprise with some of you when, maybe 50 years from now or maybe tomorrow, you suddenly find yourself dead and your life is over, and you then are even more staggered to find yourself standing before Jesus Christ. Perhaps only then will you realize how utterly foolish your certainty was. What would you say directly to Him at that point?

I imagine that would be surprising. I imagine that you would be very surprised to find yourself confronting God as he asks you why you did not follow the teachings of his final prophet, Mohamed. I also think that you would be quite shocked if the evil Emperor Xenu were to send his invading army to exterminate humanity. And just imagine your confusion to find yourself waking up in some sort of tank, hooked up to a sentient computer that has been creating in your mind the illusion of the world you thought was real.

[RoboTimbo]

He has gone to great lengths to reveal Himself to any and every heart and mind that is willing to see.

Do you understand the difference between faith based belief and evidence based knowledge?

[Hokulele]

And maybe at that point, when your understanding is inarguably revealed as undeniably and totally incorrect, you will be far too overwhelmed to assert yourself before The Creator.


So you assume.

[Foster Zygote]

Do you understand how irritating such constant arrogant condescension is and why I will not even bother with such a premise?

This doesn't address the question. Why should we reject empirical evidence for naked belief with no supporting empirical evidence? Why should we accept your naked belief over the great variety of other, mutually contradictory naked beliefs?

[TraneWreck]

He has gone to great lengths to reveal Himself to any and every heart and mind that is willing to see.

You will be far too overwhelmed to attempt to express your own great wisdom.

According to you, God is omnipotent. Thus anything that is, is as he wills it.

He gave all of us intellects. The most basic engagement of that rational capacity points away from nearly everything contained in the world's various religious books, especially claims that can be analyzed by science.

Additionally, when we abandon religious superstition and use rationality, we obtain results. We cure diseases, generate more food, and make life better.

This must be as he wants it, thus, "Sir, why did you take such pains to hide yourself?"


And maybe at that point, when your understanding is inarguably revealed as undeniably and totally incorrect, you will be far too overwhelmed to assert yourself before The Creator.

Or I might be right and you're going to look like a fool. I guess we'll have to wait and see. I'm not worried.

[Foster Zygote]

The evidence we have is the evidence we have. We interpret it differently. We both cannot prove it. We both are left standing in our relative faiths. I admit it that much. None of you can.

Did you read my earlier post in which I addressed your assertion that naturalistic explanations of the origin of life are not faith based?

[Radrook]

Now, if aliens were in the habit of hiding themselves the there would naturally have to be a logical reason. Substitute the word "aliens" with the word "God" or even a nondescript "ID" and suddenly the hiding becomes incomprehensible.

[Radrook]

Ah yes, pure speculation, as opposed to following the evidence. I must have forgotten I was posting in R&P.

There can be no evidence when we practice selective blindness.

[Foster Zygote]

Hypothetically then, humor me, and prepare yourself, if it is as I say
"What would you say directly to Him at that point?"

I'd ask him why he went to so much trouble to hide himself from his children and then resolved to destroy those who did not worship because he was no more evident than any other gods or mythical beasts.

I'd ask him how he could be a "him" when gender is a function of sexual reproduction.

I'd ask him why, if he truly is omnipotent, omniscient and infallible, he created such deeply flawed beings. How can a perfect creator create something that displeases it?

Depending on some of the answers I got I might even ask him if he is insane.

[Foster Zygote]

Now, if aliens were in the habit of hiding themselves the there would naturally have to be a logical reason. Substitute the word "aliens" with the word "God" or even a nondescript "ID" and suddenly the hiding becomes incomprehensible.

If life-seeding aliens were in the habit of hiding themselves beyond our ability to detect them, then there would be absolutely no reason to believe in these aliens.

And who is a more plausible suspect for the theory of a crime: An unknown human individual, or a magic unicorn?

[Hokulele]

There can be no evidence when we practice selective blindness.


Or when we define entities to be beyond evidence.

[Radrook]

Or when we define entities to be beyond evidence.

Or when we inconsistently use criteria.

[Hokulele]

Or when we inconsistently use criteria.


Or misunderstand criteria.

[Radrook]

Or misunderstand criteria.


Or make up criteria as one goes along.

[I Am The Scum]

Now, if aliens were in the habit of hiding themselves the there would naturally have to be a logical reason. Substitute the word "aliens" with the word "God" or even a nondescript "ID" and suddenly the hiding becomes incomprehensible.

If this is the route you want to go, then you lose. You are conceding that everything the non-IDers propose does appear to be true, exactly as they state, but it only appears to be that way because there is an unknown, unknowable entity that has deceptively arranged the universe to fit the explanation of a natural system. Essentially, you take the natural explanation, and tack an assumption on top of it, then declare victory. But as long as your assumption remains unjustified (and it is), you lose on Occam's Razor.

[Foster Zygote]

If this is the route you want to go, then you lose. You are conceding that everything the non-IDers propose does appear to be true, exactly as they state, but it only appears to be that way because there is an unknown, unknowable entity that has deceptively arranged the universe to fit the explanation of a natural system. Essentially, you take the natural explanation, and tack an assumption on top of it, then declare victory. But as long as your assumption remains unjustified (and it is), you lose on Occam's Razor.

Gravity fairies.

[sgtbaker]

Do you ever question your own assumptions and certainties?
So who do you suppose indoctrinated me when it is verboten in school and I don't go to church?

Society being predominantly faithful; the same reason why both my ex and I are atheist but our kids call themselves Christian.

[I Ratant]

This makes you a very silly, primitive person. Note, this doesn't make you a bad person, just someone who will not contribute to the advance of humanity.

Now, if you take this fantasy belief of yours and try to manipulate society into obeying your intellectual necrophilia, then you are a bad person.
.
These witnessing of faith are just one's ego suppressing one's intellect.
The idea that the magnificence that is me is merely a poorly assembled conglomeration of minerals and chemicals that found a way to kinda work isn't satisfying to one's self image as the pinnacle of creation.
It's painful to think of one's self as only that, so the thinking isn't done.

[I Ratant]

...

Imagine the surprise with some of you when, maybe 50 years from now or maybe tomorrow, you suddenly find yourself dead and your life is over, and you then are even more staggered to find yourself standing before Jesus Christ. Perhaps only then will you realize how utterly foolish your certainty was. What would you say directly to Him at that point?
.
Ya mean, after starting out with "You dumb ****, you ****** it up royally, you and Big Sky Daddy....." .
And guess what.
There'd be a line ahead of me saying the same stuff, only more better. :)
And a line forming behind, waiting their opportunity.
And it's a winning situation!
The yelling and cursing would acknowledge the existence of the sky thingies, so we'll be saved!
It is fair and just, after all. :)

[I Ratant]

...

Do you even know how many times I've repeated that here already?
.
And how has that worked out for you?
.


Do you understand how irritating such constant arrogant condescension is and why I will not even bother with such a premise?
...

.
Note the note on the ego.

[I Ratant]

Did you read my earlier post in which I addressed your assertion that naturalistic explanations of the origin of life are not faith based?
.
And many of the basic findings were accomplished by religious people who would look at the stuff in the earth, and ponder its origins.
Sufficient investigation by numerous unrelated observers have led to modern science and the rejection of revelation as fact.

[Radrook]

If this is the route you want to go, then you lose. You are conceding that everything the non-IDers propose does appear to be true, exactly as they state, but it only appears to be that way because there is an unknown, unknowable entity that has deceptively arranged the universe to fit the explanation of a natural system. Essentially, you take the natural explanation, and tack an assumption on top of it, then declare victory. But as long as your assumption remains unjustified (and it is), you lose on Occam's Razor.

I'm not seeking victory nor proclaiming it. I'm merely trying comprehend how certainty can justified in this area. I'm also trying to point out the inconsistencies which are used to support those certainties or unlikelihoods and striving to understand how such can be justified without a violation of cogent reasoning.

[TraneWreck]

I'm not seeking victory nor proclaiming it. I'm merely trying comprehend how certainty can justified in this area. I'm also trying to point out the inconsistencies which are used to support those certainties or unlikelihoods and striving to understand how such can be justified without a violation of cogent reasoning.

You seem to be confusing burdens of proof.

Is it possible that there is a designer? Sure.

Is there any good reason to think there is one, or is there any bit of evidence that necessitates one? Hell no, not even close.

Thus, ID is just a sort of fantasy musing. It's great fodder for fiction writing, but has no place in respectible scientific discussion.

And it's even worse when smuggled into schools.

[Radrook]

You seem to be confusing burdens of proof.

Is it possible that there is a designer? Sure.

Is there any good reason to think there is one, or is there any bit of evidence that necessitates one? Hell no, not even close.

Thus, ID is just a sort of fantasy musing. It's great fodder for fiction writing, but has no place in respectible scientific discussion.

And it's even worse when smuggled into schools.

But I'm, not advocating its teaching in school. Neither am I striving to make it a scientically proven fact via logic. I'm merely trying to understand how such certainty can be justified. You SEEM to be saying that the almost 100% certainty is based on lack of evidence. But I see millions of people who do perceive evidence in nature manyt of which are and have been highly educated. If indeed it's as you say, then educated persons shouldn't be able to see anything at all. Of course we could say that such persons aren't really educated. Yet that is not true.

Furthermore there is a genre for things considered absolutey impossible. It's called fantasy. The other genre, which includes novels dealing with the possibiliy of an ID such as 2001 a Space Oddysee are under the genre of Science Fiction which requires that we remain with the parameters of the likely or possible.

[TraneWreck]

But I'm, not advocating its teaching in school. Neither am I striving to make it a scientically proven fact via logic. I'm merely trying to understand how such certainty can be justified. You SEEM to be saying that the almost 100% certainty is based on lack of evidence. But I see millions of people who do perceive evidence in nature manyt of which are and have been highly educated. If indeed it's as you say, then educated persons shouldn't be able to see anything at all. Of course we could say that such persons aren't really educated. Yet that is not true.

Furthermore there is a genre for things considered absolutey impossible. It's called fantasy. The other genre, which includes novels dealing with the possibiliy of an ID such as 2001 a Space Oddysee are under the genre of Science Fiction.

Look, you have exactly the same amount of evidence that an Intelligent Designer exists as you have for a closet that leads to a magical world.

Both are technically plausible, we have no proof that Narnia doesn't exist. There's just no reason to believe in either.

Certainly a smart person may hold the belief that there is an Intelligent Designer, but if that person begins to advance the concept in scientific arguments, then the "smart" clause becomes debateable.

You just have to be clear about the context of the conversation. There is ZERO evidence for ID, there is nothing ID predicts, no problem it solves, it's just a useless fantasy concept (note fantasy and Sci-Fi are not mutually exclusive concepts--see Wars, Star).

[paximperium]

You do not observe. You do not prove. You are faithful. I'm sorry. Stating things that are false does not magic it into reality.

Ok. Thus sayeth the almighty you. No. So sayeth reality. Your beliefs are utterly worthless. It does nothing, explains nothing and stunts actual investigation.

Imagine the surprise with some of you when, maybe 50 years from now or maybe tomorrow, you suddenly find yourself dead and your life is over, and you then are even more staggered to find yourself standing before Jesus Christ. Perhaps only then will you realize how utterly foolish your certainty was. What would you say directly to Him at that point? Ah, the ever retarded Pascal's Wager. Falsified a billion times and still the favorite of stundies who fail to understand how hypocritically stupid this argument actually is.

[paximperium]

Keep up, would ya?

The evidence we have is the evidence we have. We interpret it differently. We both cannot prove it. We both are left standing in our relative faiths. I admit it that much. None of you can.
No. My interpretation of the evidence is falsifiable, testable and actually can be used to make predictions and do stuff.

Your interpretation of the evidence is self masturbation in public. You find pleasure in your pathetic beliefs. Other people just find disgusting and a tad bit pathetic.

[Radrook]

Look, you have exactly the same amount of evidence that an Intelligent Designer exists as you have for a closet that leads to a magical world.

Both are technically plausible, we have no proof that Narnia doesn't exist. There's just no reason to believe in either.

But I'm not advocating belief nor unbelief.

Certainly a smart person may hold the belief that there is an Intelligent Designer, but if that person begins to advance the concept in scientific arguments, then the "smart" clause becomes debateable.

You just have to be clear about the context of the conversation.


[quote]There is ZERO evidence for ID, there is nothing ID predicts, no problem it solves, it's just a useless fantasy concept (note fantasy and Sci-Fi are not mutually exclusive concepts--see Wars, Star).


Again, that's a matter of opinion since therte are educated individuals who would disagree.
True, fantasy and sci fi aren't mutually exclusive. But what is fantasy and what parts are sci fi is can be identified. One uses present scientific knowledge or theories as its basis. The other
couldn't care less.

BTW
The ones who propose advanced alien presence in the universe possible based on evolutionary probabilities are your atheist scientists. Based on those estimates Sci Fi writers like Arthur C., Clark consider earth being seeded with life as in 2001 Space Oddysee not utter fantasy but within the partameters of the possible. Why?
Because your evolutionist atheistic scientists say so.

[paximperium]

But I'm not advocating belief nor unbelief. No. You are advocating a false Argument for Moderation/False Middle Ground Fallacy.
Again, that's a matter of opinion since therte are educated individuals who would disagree. No. It is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of fact.

BTW
The ones who propose advanced alien presence in the universe based on evolutionary probabilities are your atheist scientists. Based on those estimates Sci Fi writers like Arthur C., Clark consider earth being seeded with life as in 2001 Space Oddysee not utter fantasy but within the partameters of the possible.Sure. So?

[RoboTimbo]

But Again, that's a matter of opinion since therte are educated individuals who would disagree.

It might be helpful if you were to share with us what evidence those educated people have based their belief on and we could discuss that.

[TraneWreck]

Again, that's a matter of opinion since therte are educated individuals who would disagree.

No it isn't. Please, show us an ID prediction. If there is one, then you can easily falsify my claim.



True, fantasy and sci fi aren't mutually exclusive. But what is fantasy and what parts are sci fi is can be identified. One uses present scientific knowledge or theories as its basis. The other
couldn't care less.

Yeah, that's just silly. Is a light-saber fantasy or sci-fi?


BTW
The ones who propose advanced alien presence in the universe possible based on evolutionary probabilities are your atheist scientists. Based on those estimates Sci Fi writers like Arthur C., Clark consider earth being seeded with life as in 2001 Space Oddysee not utter fantasy but within the partameters of the possible. Why?
Because your evolutionist atheistic scientists say so.

When writing FICTION...

[Wowbagger]

As long as Intelligent Design (when applied to biological origins) is thought of as a philosophy, I will usually not bother debating it. I only chime in when it is being presented as a "science".

I.D. may be a very intuitively appealing concept, but you would need some testable theory for isolating and independently measuring the properties of The Designer itself, before it is taken seriously as a science. Merely "deducing" or "inferring" I.D. is not good enough, anymore, since there are other ideas that explain more, predict more, and are much more useful to scientists.

One of the problems with pushing I.D. as a science, is that it potentially prevents you from understanding how and why life changes over time, from fundamental principles. And, as we develop more and more biological technologies, these sorts of issues will become more important over time.

[sgtbaker]

But I'm, not advocating its teaching in school. Neither am I striving to make it a scientically proven fact via logic. I'm merely trying to understand how such certainty can be justified. You SEEM to be saying that the almost 100% certainty is based on lack of evidence.

To answer your first paragraph, you have to be more clear. Are you saying we shouldn't be so certain that there is no god at all, or just no Christian god? The broad sense of the question, there are far too many versions of a creator out there to choose which one is correct and by which set of laws I should be living. In the Christian direction of the question, the only evidence of a god is the claim that that the claim is the evidence, which is a logical fallacy.

But I see millions of people who do perceive evidence in nature manyt of which are and have been highly educated.

The popularity of an idea give no credence to the accuracy of the idea. Also, even highly intelligent people can be incorrect. Just because a smart person believes in something, it doesn't mean I have to agree.

If indeed it's as you say, then educated persons shouldn't be able to see anything at all. Of course we could say that such persons aren't really educated. Yet that is not true.

No educated people can suffer misinterpretation just as easily as the uneducated; Newton's original ideas on gravity were incorrect, so if one of the smartest men to ever walk the planet is susceptible to being wrong, on occassion, why not the layman? However, there is an inverted correlation between IQ and belief.

In 2008, intelligence researcher Helmuth Nyborg examined whether IQ relates to denomination and income, using representative data from the National Longitudinal Study of Youth, which includes intelligence tests on a representative selection of American youth, where they have also replied to questions about religious belief. His results, published in the scientific journal Intelligence demonstrated that on average, Atheists scored 1.95 IQ points higher than Agnostics, 3.82 points higher than Liberal persuasions, and 5.89 IQ points higher than Dogmatic persuasions. [4] "I'm not saying that believing in God makes you dumber. My hypothesis is that people with a low intelligence are more easily drawn toward religions, which give answers that are certain, while people with a high intelligence are more skeptical," says the professor.[5]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence

Furthermore there is a genre for things considered absolutey impossible. It's called fantasy. The other genre, which includes novels dealing with the possibiliy of an ID such as 2001 a Space Oddysee are under the genre of Science Fiction which requires that we remain with the parameters of the likely or possible.

No, sci-fi doesn't have to remain the parameters of possibility. It is definitely more entertaining when the science can be identified with but in no way does; a giant monolith is the trigger for evolution, fall into the catagory of plausible. It's entertainment.

[temporalillusion]

He has gone to great lengths to reveal Himself to any and every heart and mind that is willing to see.

Except that people that are willing and do seek do not find and he does not reveal himself.

An omniscient god knows exactly what would convince each individual. You say god goes to great lengths to reveal himself. Those two together means that god knows what would convince some people but chooses not to do whatever would be needed to convince that person so it's not the person's fault, since god himself is basically choosing which person gets to believe and which doesn't. So there's no free will in the end.

[Radrook]

To answer your first paragraph, you have to be more clear. Are you saying we shouldn't be so certain that there is no god at all, or just no Christian god?

I'm not even using the word god or God, I'm simply referring to an ID in relation to life on earth.



The broad sense of the question, there are far too many versions of a creator out there to choose which one is correct and by which set of laws I should be living. In the Christian direction of the question, the only evidence of a god is the claim that that the claim is the evidence, which is a logical fallacy.

Again, I'm not referring to worship or religion. Just to the existence or nonexistence of an ID.




The popularity of an idea give no credence to the accuracy of the idea. Also, even highly intelligent people can be incorrect. Just because a smart person believes in something, it doesn't mean I have to agree.

I agree.



No educated people can suffer misinterpretation just as easily as the uneducated; Newton's original ideas on gravity were incorrect, so if one of the smartest men to ever walk the planet is susceptible to being wrong, on occassion, why not the layman? However, there is an inverted correlation between IQ and belief.

Does that mean that the educated cannot be indoctrinated from an early age to believe certain unproven ideas? In that case the educated might very well predominate in relation to that indoctrinated idea while their general intelligence as manifested in other nonindoctrinated matters would remain unnaffected.



No, sci-fi doesn't have to remain the parameters of possibility. It is definitely more entertaining when the science can be identified with but in no way does; a giant monolith is the trigger for evolution, fall into the catagory of plausible. It's entertainment.

Entertainment and fact are not mutually exclusive.
The ideas used in Sci Fi where extraterrestrial life is used is firmly based on the abiogenesis evolutionary ideas which propose that organisms can evolve far beyond our level of intelligence. I'm sure you are fmiliar with the Dawkins equation.

[Radrook]

To answer your first paragraph, you have to be more clear. Are you saying we shouldn't be so certain that there is no god at all, or just no Christian god? The broad sense of the question, there are far too many versions of a creator out there to choose which one is correct and by which set of laws I should be living. In the Christian direction of the question, the only evidence of a god is the claim that that the claim is the evidence, which is a logical fallacy.

No religion just an ID.



The popularity of an idea give no credence to the accuracy of the idea. Also, even highly intelligent people can be incorrect. Just because a smart person believes in something, it doesn't mean I have to agree.

I agree



No educated people can suffer misinterpretation just as easily as the uneducated; Newton's original ideas on gravity were incorrect, so if one of the smartest men to ever walk the planet is susceptible to being wrong, on occassion, why not the layman? However, there is an inverted correlation between IQ and belief.

Sounds like bandwagon. The educated can be indoctrinated to believe and come to predominate in a ceretain indoctrinated belief.

No, sci-fi doesn't have to remain the parameters of possibility. It is definitely more entertaining when the science can be identified with but in no way does; a giant monolith is the trigger for evolution, fall into the catagory of plausible. It's entertainment.

Sci Fi writers who write about alien civilizations in their majority are evolutionists who believe that live can and does evolve on other planets. Those are the parameters they are using to postulate possibilities. The laws of physics are acknowledged and explanations are put forth whenever one seems to be violated. Fantasy writers need not explain anything since magic isthe norm.

About the obelisk in
2001 Space Oddysee, Arthur C. Clark based his assumption on the probability of a civilizatiuon evolving and surpassing ours to the extent of becoming spreaders and designers of life. No magic is invoked here.

BTW
Entertainment and fact need not be mutually exclusive.

SPACE.com -- The Drake Equation to estimate intelligent ...
Oct 3, 2000 ... The Drake Equation to estimate intelligent extraterrestrial life ... The Drake equation is an attempt to estimate the number of ...
www.space.com/searchforlife/seti_drake_equation.html

[Bob Klase]

About the obelisk in 2001 Space Oddysee, Arthur C. Clark based his assumption on the probability of a civilizatiuon evolving and surpassing ours to the extent of becoming spreaders and designers of life. No magic is invoked here.

No. He based his assumption on the *possibility*, not probability, of "civilizatiuon evolving and surpassing ours to the extent of becoming spreaders and designers of life."

And then he wrote a book of fiction where he made up a lot of stuff based on possibilities, not probabilities.

Just like writers of the bible.

[sgtbaker]

I'm not even using the word god or God, I'm simply referring to an ID in relation to life on earth.


Okay, I am not even sure what your stance is, anymore. There is a difference between intentionally or unintentionally seeding a planet (which theoretically can be done by humans) with life and a designer.

Advocates of intelligent design seek to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations, arguing that intelligent design is a scientific theory under this new definition of science.[12] The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science.[13][14][15][16] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science."[17]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
*my bold*

Does that mean that the educated cannot be indoctrinated from an early age to believe certain unproven ideas?

No, it just means that the higher the education, the more likely they are to abandon ideas unsupported by evidence, or at the very least, admit that their ideas or beliefs are not supported.

SPACE.com -- The Drake Equation to estimate intelligent ...
Oct 3, 2000 ... The Drake Equation to estimate intelligent extraterrestrial life ... The Drake equation is an attempt to estimate the number of ...
http://www.space.com/searchforlife/s..._equation.html

Yes I am very familiar with The Drake Equation and I do agree that will all the stars and planets we can see in the visible universe, there is a good chance that there is life on other planets. Barring the exceptionally low number of civilizations advanced enough to communicate, the Drake Equation has absolutely nothing to do with the notion that they made it to our solar system and seeded our planet with life.

BTW, entertainment and fact need not be mutually exclusive, but Hollywood and fact tend to be.

[Radrook]

No. He based his assumption on the *possibility*, not probability, of "civilizatiuon evolving and surpassing ours to the extent of becoming spreaders and designers of life."

And then he wrote a book of fiction where he made up a lot of stuff based on possibilities, not probabilities.

Just like writers of the bible.

But the Drake equation deals it probabilities not possibilities and the Drake equation is taken very seriously by evolutionist, atheist Sci Fi writers.

BTW

Nice try but no cigar. The Bible has absolutely no bearing on this subject. But it can be argued that the difference is that the Bible is said to be based on inspiration while Sci Fi adheres to your cherished evolutionist ideas.

[Bob Klase]

But the Drake equation deals it probabilities not possibilities and the Drake equation is taken very seriously by evolutionist, atheist Sci Fi writers.

It deals with probabilities based on known factors along with openly acknowledged assumptions which may be wrong.

It's taken seriously as a possibility by Sci Fi writers whether they are "evolutionist", atheist or otherwise.

Nice try but no cigar. The Bible has absolutely no bearing on this subject. But it can be argued that the difference is that the Bible is said to be based on inspiration while Sci Fi adheres to your cherished evolutionist ideas.

It can be argued that much Sci Fi is based on inspiration. It can also be argued that a great deal of Sci Fi has nothing to do with "evolutionist ideas".

But nice try.

[sgtbaker]

But the Drake equation deals it probabilities not possibilities and the Drake equation is taken very seriously by evolutionist, atheist Sci Fi writers.

BTW

Nice try but no cigar. The Bible has absolutely no bearing on this subject. But it can be argued that the difference is that the Bible is said to be based on inspiration while Sci Fi adheres to your cherished evolutionist ideas.

The Drake Equation is a formula used to figure out how many alien civilizations could possibily exist. If you look it up, you would notice that there are different values plugged in. It more covers likelyhood than probability because you would need more accurate numbers before you can properly estimate anything. I urge you to watch the Carl Sagan video to understand it better. He does a lot if 'if this than that but if this than that' with the numbers. That equation does not tell you exactly how many alien civilizations actually exist. Even still, how does the equation tie in with ID or Seeding?

Sci Fi adheres imagination of the author. Because it involves such a wide array of stories, it's hard to define exactly what SF actually is. However, some of the markings of SF is not how it mirrors what actually is but how it explains the alternate possibilities.

[Foster Zygote]

...the Bible is said to be based on inspiration...

As are the Koran and the Gaghavad Ghita.

[John Jones]

I'm not even using the word god or God, I'm simply referring to an ID in relation to life on earth.





Again, I'm not referring to worship or religion. Just to the existence or nonexistence of an ID.





I agree.




Does that mean that the educated cannot be indoctrinated from an early age to believe certain unproven ideas? In that case the educated might very well predominate in relation to that indoctrinated idea while their general intelligence as manifested in other nonindoctrinated matters would remain unnaffected.





Entertainment and fact are not mutually exclusive.
The ideas used in Sci Fi where extraterrestrial life is used is firmly based on the abiogenesis evolutionary ideas which propose that organisms can evolve far beyond our level of intelligence. I'm sure you are fmiliar with the Dawkins equation.


I haven't heard of this Dawkins equation. Do you have a link to it?

[Foster Zygote]

As are the Koran and the Gaghavad Ghita.

Oops! Make that the Baghavad Ghita.

[TraneWreck]

Oops! Make that the Baghavad Ghita.

It's a reasonable mistake, your ventrilliquist dummy typed up the fist post...

[I Ratant]

As are the Koran and the Gaghavad Ghita.
.
And Scientology. Based on the certain inspiration that one can fool some of the people all of the time, and get rich doing it.

[Radrook]

No it isn't. Please, show us an ID prediction. If there is one, then you can easily falsify my claim.

Some claims are personally unfalsifiable.




Yeah, that's just silly. Is a light-saber fantasy or sci-fi?

You really don't know? There was a scientist on tv recently proposing how a light saber might be constructed someday.


When writing FICTION...

No. You see, the idea that the universe is teaming with life, some possibly superior to our own a consequence of your inevitable evolution wherever water is present is the basis for these ideas. That's why it comes up during serious discussions among cosmologists. Thought that was common knowledge. Guess I was wrong.

[Radrook]

The Drake Equation is a formula used to figure out how many alien civilizations could possibily exist. If you look it up, you would notice that there are different values plugged in.


Why do you assume ignorance of what the equation proposes on my part?

It more covers likelyhood than probability because you would need more accurate numbers before you can properly estimate anything. I urge you to watch the Carl Sagan video to understand it better. He does a lot if 'if this than that but if this than that' with the numbers. That equation does not tell you exactly how many alien civilizations actually exist. Even still, how does the equation tie in with ID or Seeding?

Never said that the Drake equation guaranteedit certainty. How does it tie in? It ties in because based on that equation the idea of an alien ID is made more tenable and its utter rejection as completely impossible becomes illogical..

btw
I have watched all of Carl Sagan's films. In fact, I watched the series and read his book "Cosmos" from cover to cover. One speculation that struck me as rather unconventional was his suggestion that our univerese might be the atomic structure of a larger one. That from a scientifically trained mind! Strange!


Sci Fi adheres imagination of the author. Because it involves such a wide array of stories, it's hard to define exactly what SF actually is. However, some of the markings of SF is not how it mirrors what actually is but how it explains the alternate possibilities.


I am a sci fi writer with three unsubmitted and unpublished sci fi novels under my belt and know the ins and outs of the genre. We use our imagination true. But science is always in the backround as a guiding factor. I'm not talking of the science fantasy mixes. I'm talking about hard science fiction which bases its themes on present day technologies extrapolated to their future potentials.

[tsig]

I believe in the God of the Bible.
I believe in the God of Israel.
I believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
I believe Jesus Christ.

I believe it is no big challenge for the Creator of the Universe
to get The Book to us.

I searched for myself. I found to my satisfaction.

From the hilites we can see what's important.

[Complexity]

Radrook, this thread is about what your god left out of the documentation he gave us about life on earth, not about Intelligent Design, branes, or the LHC. Please contribute to that discussion and take your creationist doggerel somewhere else.


:clap:

[tsig]

He has gone to great lengths to reveal Himself to any and every heart and mind that is willing to see.

You will be far too overwhelmed to attempt to express your own great wisdom.

And maybe at that point, when your understanding is inarguably revealed as undeniably and totally incorrect, you will be far too overwhelmed to assert yourself before The Creator.

Hey you're asking the question and answering if for us. This seems to be a soliloquy not a dialog.

[Complexity]

I'm really enjoying this thread.

:popcorn1

I don't think it is going as planned.

[Complexity]

I'm not even using the word god or God, I'm simply referring to an ID in relation to life on earth.


Yes, that's very clever of you. I see you got the memo.

Again, I'm not referring to worship or religion. Just to the existence or nonexistence of an ID.


Once again, very clever.

It won't work, but these Creation Institute tactics never do.

Most people aren't that dumb.

[Complexity]

If one isn't a naturally good speller ( :cool: ), perhaps one should make use of the spell checker.

[Bob Klase]

I am a sci fi writer with three unsubmitted and unpublished sci fi novels under my belt and know the ins and outs of the genre.

Is that really the best way to learn the ins and outs of a writing genre- to write three novels of that genre and then ensure that they remain unsubmitted and unpublished?

[sgtbaker]

Why do you assume ignorance of what the equation proposes on my part?


Because I can't understand how you can possibly know how it applies and still use it as a proponent in your argument.

Never said that the Drake equation guaranteedit certainty. How does it tie in? It ties in because based on that equation the idea of an alien ID is made more tenable and its utter rejection as completely impossible becomes illogical..

How do you go from it's end result of their being 2 to 10 (based on what ever numbers the mathematician plugs in) possible planets out there, in the known universe, with intelligent life to alien seeding becoming a plausible explanation without a giant leap of faith? You are still combining alien seeding with ID. ID applies to all of existance, not just life on Earth. Are you now suggesting that aliens existed before the universe, created it in a working order, and then seeded it with life? That sounds remarkably similar to theism. Define your argument; are you proposing that aliens in the universe seeded earth or ID?

btw
I have watched all of Carl Sagan's films. In fact, I watched the series and read his book "Cosmos" from cover to cover. One speculation that struck me as rather unconventional was his suggestion that our univerese might be the atomic structure of a larger one. That from a scientifically trained mind! Strange!

If you enjoyed that book, I strongly recommend Billions and Billions, Demon Haunted World, Pale Blue Planet, and Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors. While none of them, if I recall correctly, go into alien seeding, he does go in depth about alien contact. He makes some pretty compelling arguments. I believe in Demon Haunted World, he spends an entire chapter on the baloney detection process and it would certainly help you to understand the difference between ideas and theories. A perfect example would be the universe being a part of a larger structure. He did not invent that idea, btw. It is a cool idea, but again, unsupportable, unfalsifiable, and therefor, not a theory.

I am a sci fi writer with three unsubmitted and unpublished sci fi novels under my belt and know the ins and outs of the genre. We use our imagination true. But science is always in the backround as a guiding factor. I'm not talking of the science fantasy mixes. I'm talking about hard science fiction which bases its themes on present day technologies extrapolated to their future potentials.

Science is the backdrop for Sci fi and I don't see how you can understand that Sci-Fi does require a stretch of the imagination yet continue to use it.

Some claims are personally unfalsifiable.

Until they are falsifiable, claims are all they can really be.

You really don't know? There was a scientist on tv recently proposing how a light saber might be constructed someday.

You rely too much on tv. Last night I went to a lecture on BBT and one thing the Dr. giving the lecture kept saying and said his professors told his classes three times a lesson was to, "Never just trust anyone!"

No. You see, the idea that the universe is teaming with life, some possibly superior to our own a consequence of your inevitable evolution wherever water is present is the basis for these ideas. That's why it comes up during serious discussions among cosmologists. Thought that was common knowledge. Guess I was wrong.

No one is saying there is no life elsewhere; no one is saying there is, either, but I think most of us acknowledge the possibility. Your argument is not that there is a high likelyhood of life being elsewhere, your argument is; since there is a high likelyhood, it is equally likely that they are the designers of life on Earth. That's where your argument falls apart; again, that requires a giant leap of faith.

[John Jones]

I am a sci fi writer with three unsubmitted and unpublished sci fi novels under my belt and know the ins and outs of the genre. We use our imagination true. But science is always in the backround as a guiding factor. I'm not talking of the science fantasy mixes. I'm talking about hard science fiction which bases its themes on present day technologies extrapolated to their future potentials.

Those creditials ought to be good enough for anybody.

[TraneWreck]

Some claims are personally unfalsifiable.

Then they're not scientific claims.


You really don't know? There was a scientist on tv recently proposing how a light saber might be constructed someday.

Fantasy for one generation may be science fiction for another. See Verne, Jules.

You're trying to make a comical distinction. Is a "warp drive" fantasy or science fiction? Right now it's fantasy. Maybe someday we'll create something similar and any book/movie containing a warp drive will seem more like scientific extrapolation than pure fantasy.

I honestly don't understand why you think such a distinction is important.


No. You see, the idea that the universe is teaming with life, some possibly superior to our own a consequence of your inevitable evolution wherever water is present is the basis for these ideas. That's why it comes up during serious discussions among cosmologists. Thought that was common knowledge. Guess I was wrong.

You're having an amazing amount of trouble with this.

Sure, based on probability there should be some life out there somewhere. This helps stimulate creative minds. Interesting works are produced from that probability, but it's still fiction. It doesn't add to our knowledge of the world.

Using the musings of scientists to represent actual science is silly. There's peer-reviewed research investigating the world as it is, and then there's imagining possible ramifications.

You can't use fiction to make claims about the world of science.

[Complexity]

The only sci-fi author he reminds me of is L. Ron Hubbard.

I, for one, am dubious.

I suspect that his 'science fiction' has some peculiar religious agenda and content that utterly invalidates it as hard science fiction.

[Radrook]

Then they're not scientific claims.

Did I say they were scientific? Where? I merely said some claims are unfalsifiable.



Fantasy for one generation may be science fiction for another. See Verne, Jules.

You're trying to make a comical distinction. Is a "warp drive" fantasy or science fiction? Right now it's fantasy. Maybe someday we'll create something similar and any book/movie containing a warp drive will seem more like scientific extrapolation than pure fantasy.

You need to be better informed about the sci fi genre in order to prevent its making incorrect statements about it. Verns intended his stories about submarines, flying machines, and voyages to the moon as scientific predictions based on his constant reading of the latest scientrific innovatiuons. He was simply extrapolating as all sci fo writers do with the present science. Extrapolation is the modus operandi of hard Sci Fi.

I honestly don't understand why you think such a distinction is important.

You seem to be denying that sci fi writers base their extraterrestrial ideas on one very important and well-accepted idea-evolution. IUn fact, evolution bis a theme that runs through sci fi as a justification for most of the extraterrestrial concepts such as the one in 2001.
I'm not repeating this again. It's common knowledge.


You're having an amazing amount of trouble with this.

Not at all. It seems to me as if you are now arguing against evolution in order to weaken the ID concept which your very evolution idea makes possible.

Sure, based on probability there should be some life out there somewhere. This helps stimulate creative minds. Interesting works are produced from that probability, but it's still fiction. It doesn't add to our knowledge of the world.


That's irrelevant.

Using the musings of scientists to represent actual science is silly. There's peer-reviewed research investigating the world as it is, and then there's imagining possible ramifications. You can't use fiction to make claims about the world of science.

Strawman arguments only serve to weaken your case. Better silence than to self contradict.
Also, ignoring or twisting words such as "fiction" in order to justify a rejection of the possible
is too transparent to be effective and only undermines credibility by casting doubt on reading comprehension and creating suspicions of ulterior motives.

[Complexity]

Strawman arguments only serve to weaken your case. Better silence than to self contradict.


I absolutely agree! (this is a first)

Practice what you preach.

[TraneWreck]

Did I say they were scientific? Where? I merely said some claims are unfalsifiable.

If it's not scientific, there's no reason to think it's so. You won't convince anyone here about your inefficacious dangler of a designer. You've just added a hypothesis with no evidence. Just a pure waste of time--save for fiction.



You need to be better informed about the sci fi genre in order to prevent its making incorrect statements about it. Verns intended his stories about submarines, flying machines, and voyages to the moon as scientific predictions based on his constant reading of the latest scientrific innovatiuons. He was simply extrapolating as all sci fo writers do with the present science. Extrapolation is the modus operandi of hard Sci Fi.

A great deal of Verne is 100% fantasy. Whatever he was trying to do, he was wrong in much more dramatic ways than he was right. Take any novel and you will find comically incorrect notions.

This is the danger of thinking fiction is science.

In other words, a contemporary work of science fiction will likely have elements that turn out to be possible and elements that are pure fantasy. There's no way to know at the moment a book is penned, that's part of what makes them interesting.

But how do we determine that a submarine is science and breathing on the moon is fantasy? We do actual science. Thus, referring to a work of fiction, even if produced by someone who understands science, is comically misguided in an argument about what is.


You seem to be denying that sci fi writers base their extraterrestrial ideas on one very important and well-accepted idea-evolution. IUn fact, evolution bis a theme that runs through sci fi as a justification for most of the extraterrestrial concepts such as the one in 2001.
I'm not repeating this again. It's common knowledge.

Well, now I just question your reading comprehension abilities. Using scientific ideas as a seed to develop interesting fictional works is hardly a radical notion. Pretending like those completely fictional iterations of a concept are themselves scientifically meaningful betrays a sort of ingenuous view of reality.




Not at all. It seems to me as if you are now arguing against evolution in order to weaken the ID concept which your very evolution idea makes possible.

Haha. Wow. That was just embarrassing.

You said yourself ID wasn't a scientific concept. No non-scientific, inefficacious pipe dream will ever harm a theory developed through the scientific method.


Strawman arguments only serve to weaken your case. Better silence than to self contradict.
Also, ignoring or twisting words such as "fiction" in order to justify a rejection of the possible
is too transparent to be effective and only undermines credibility by casting doubt on reading comprehension and creating suspicions of ulterior motives.

I am just blown away, you really cut to the heart of me. The use of "strawman" and "self contradict," even though you failed to apply them to anything I've actually written, are so powerful as to rebuke me with their mere invocation. I am cowering in front of my keyboard.

Fiction is fiction. Science must be proven. You cannot prove ANYTHING about ID, so, like the ability to breathe on the moon, it's nothing more than a silly, useless concept that may generate some science fiction material.

[tsig]

Those creditials ought to be good enough for anybody.

They were good enough for L. Ron.

ETA: Good ideas bear repeating.:)

[sgtbaker]

Radrook, you are taking this thread way too personal. Take a step back and think about what you are trying to argue. I know it's difficult because you are conversing with multiple people at a time but read what is being said for mere words, not attacks on you, personally. No one is saying that you are not entitled to your ideas or your perception. You seem to be bothered that we reject ID/alien seeding or any other possible explanation. The predominant argument against either of those is simply lack of evidence. As of now, though it is not perfect and it is not complete, the theory of evolution serves as a great explanation and it conjures nothing at all; no deity or superior life form. It's predictable and falsifiable, and leave absolutely no need to take it further.

Yes there is a great likelyhood of life elsewhere and the idea is a popular one; so is the idea of multiverses, higgs boson, and gravitons. However, all of them are still considered hypothetical because there is just not enough evidence to say otherwise. What seperates those hypotheticals from ID and Alien Seeding is that higgs boson and gravitons, when added to an equation, can help resolve inconsistancies. Alien seeding and ID are fringes, which do nothing to add too or aid in closing the gap of our understanding of evolution; they fall outside the equation.

[154]

From the hilites we can see what's important.
To you.

[paximperium]

To you.
No. It's pretty obvious it's all about your beliefs no matter what any evidence is available. In fact you take pride in believing in something despite the contradictions and lack of evidence there is available. You believe in something that is essentially useless and actually harmful to human progress. You take pride in how your nonsense attacks science. You take pride in stealing credit from the hard work of others in the name of your fantasy.

It's all about you.

[John Jones]

To you.

Those first person pronouns were all yours.

[154]

Those first person pronouns were all yours.Far from fair, and even farther from deep critical thinking, this is juvenile, and then seconded...
Of course they were. Epic observation. And please show how my words make his point. Did I point to myself or away from myself?

[John Jones]

Far from fair, and even farther from deep critical thinking, this is juvenile, and then seconded...
Of course they were. Epic observation. And please show how my words make his point. Did I point to myself or away from myself?

Let's make it simple. What if any claims are you making WRT the existence of gods, or any supernatural manifestions thereof?

Your turn.

[154]

No. It's pretty obvious it's all about your beliefs no matter what any evidence is available. In fact you take pride in believing in something despite the contradictions and lack of evidence there is available. You believe in something that is essentially useless and actually harmful to human progress. You take pride in how your nonsense attacks science. You take pride in stealing credit from the hard work of others in the name of your fantasy.

It's all about you.

I am irrelevant.

Jesus Christ is Lord.


And just those words make some of you seethe.

[RoboTimbo]

I am irrelevant.

Jesus Christ is Lord.


And just those words make some of you seethe.

Do you understand the difference between faith based belief and evidence based knowledge?

[154]

Do you understand the difference between faith based belief and evidence based knowledge?Yes.

There is more than ample and abundant evidence to substantiate faith in Jesus Christ
even if it never crosses any thresholds of absolute "proof"

and you have nothing to teach me.

[RoboTimbo]

There is more than ample and abundant evidence to substantiate faith in Jesus Christ
even if it never crosses any thresholds of absolute "proof" and you have nothing to teach me.

Funny how you still refer to it as "faith" then. You should really give some thought to the implications of your belief in the bolded part.

[154]

Funny how you still refer to it as "faith" then. You should really give some thought to the implications of your belief in the bolded part.You should really give some thought to why you think I need your help in what to think about, all because I differ, and as if you offer new insight.

Let's see... should I believe Jesus Christ or you... hmmm... tough one...

[RoboTimbo]

You should really give some thought to why you think I need your help in what to think about, all because I differ, and as if you offer new insight.

Do you believe one of your gods is the intelligent designer of the universe?

[154]

There is One Creator

and it is only by His gracious permission that your heart continues to beat in your chest.

[RoboTimbo]

There is One Creator

and it is only by His gracious permission that your heart continues to beat in your chest.

So you believe. Do you also believe that your god is the intelligent designer of the universe?

[154]

No. I think he subbed it out to Fred.

[RoboTimbo]

No. I think he subbed it out to Fred.

Like I said earlier, your true answer is too embarrassing for you to say.

[Hokulele]

I am irrelevant.

Jesus Christ is Lord.


And just those words make some of you seethe.


Not so much seethe, as roll our eyes in resigned amusement. If you want Jesus to be your lord, that is fine with me. The fact that you seem to believe I do not take responsibility for my own decisions and have the desire to make those be fully informed decisions is what triggers the amusement.

Mind you, although the Golden Rule is fairly decent as stated, the fatalism shown by the Beatitudes and the concept of thought-crime as introduced in Matthew 5 are enough to convince me that Jesus probably would not have been the kind of person I would have wanted for my lord in the first place. Colin Firth, on the other hand...

Anyway, there is nothing in the New Testament to make me suspect that a naturalistic explanation of the universe is unlikely.

[Radrook]

Radrook, you are taking this thread way too personal. Take a step back and think about what you are trying to argue. I know it's difficult because you are conversing with multiple people at a time but read what is being said for mere words, not attacks on you, personally. No one is saying that you are not entitled to your ideas or your perception. You seem to be bothered that we reject ID/alien seeding or any other possible explanation.


It's not the rejection per se. It's the constant maliciouis twisting of everything I write to mean something else. It's the comments laced with snide remarks designed to blow off steam or elicit a rise. Unlike you who perhaps are blessed with superior patience, I find it distracting.

The predominant argument against either of those is simply lack of evidence. As of now, though it is not perfect and it is not complete, the theory of evolution serves as a great explanation and it conjures nothing at all; no deity or superior life form. It's predictable and falsifiable, and leave absolutely no need to take it further.

Yes there is a great likelyhood of life elsewhere and the idea is a popular one; so is the idea of multiverses, higgs boson, and gravitons. However, all of them are still considered hypothetical because there is just not enough evidence to say otherwise. What seperates those hypotheticals from ID and Alien Seeding is that higgs boson and gravitons, when added to an equation, can help resolve inconsistancies. Alien seeding and ID are fringes, which do nothing to add too or aid in closing the gap of our understanding of evolution; they fall outside the equation.

Again! Where have I stated that there is conclusive evidence?

[paximperium]

I am irrelevant.

Jesus Christ is Lord. Lord of what? An mythic dead preacher man can't be lord of anything.

And just those words make some of you seethe.
Seethe at what? An imaginary nothing?

I do seethe at your proud stupidity and ignorance. I find your beliefs harmful to humanity, a stone age superstitious throw back to a dark age. I pity your frail ego as your beliefs become more and more irrelevant in the modern world.

Yes. You are irrelevant to mankind except to retard it.

[Complexity]

It's not the rejection per se. It's the constant maliciouis twisting of everything I write to mean something else. It's the comments laced with snide remarks. Unlike you who perhaps are blessed with superior patience, I find it distracting.


:wave1

[paximperium]

There is more than ample and abundant evidence to substantiate faith in Jesus Christ
even if it never crosses any thresholds of absolute "proof" Funny how you're so embarrassed by your faith that you always have to claim evidence to back up your fantasy based beliefs.

and you have nothing to teach me.How about basic science? You seem awfully ignorant even of that basic.

[paximperium]

It's not the rejection per se. It's the constant maliciouis twisting of everything I write to mean something else. It's the comments laced with snide remarks designed to blow off steam or elicit a rise. Unlike you who perhaps are blessed with superior patience, I find it distracting.

Again! Where have I stated that there is conclusive evidence?
Here comes the whining and playing the martyr while ignoring an actual substantive post.

[Complexity]

In response to yet more silliness from 154...

Lord of what? An mythic dead preacher man can't be lord of anything.

Seethe at what? An imaginary nothing?

I do seethe at your proud stupidity and ignorance. I find your beliefs harmful to humanity, a stone age superstitious throw back to a dark age. I pity your frail ego as your beliefs become more and more irrelevant in the modern world.

Yes. You are irrelevant to mankind except to retard it.


:bigclap

[Foster Zygote]

Yes.

There is more than ample and abundant evidence to substantiate faith in Jesus Christ
even if it never crosses any thresholds of absolute "proof"

and you have nothing to teach me.

Could you point to some of this ample and abundant evidence?

[Foster Zygote]

There is One Creator

and it is only by His gracious permission that your heart continues to beat in your chest.

Do I need his permission to poop?

[John Jones]

There is One Creator

and it is only by His gracious permission that your heart continues to beat in your chest.

My dad can beat up your dad.

[fuelair]

Well, if the thread is restricted to the Abrahamic, as you call it, ID, then I guess I am out of line.

BTW
Actually, according to the multiple dimensions ideas that your physicists are tossing around, dinosaurs [dragons] might very well be rampaging through your living room undetected because they just out of reach in an adjacent dimension. So again, what you tag as ridiculous is a matter of serious discussion among some scientists. Or are you simply casting aside multiple dimensionality as silly in order to avoid the subsequent possibility of an ID residing in one of them--possibly?



Well, that's the idea which some of your physicists are seriously tossing around these days. Aren't you aware of this? In fact, a Hadron Collider is being employed right now in an effort to confirm the extradiemensionality ideas. This concept is based on the apparent disapearance of electrons and their reapearance in unpredictable locations around the atomic nucleus. These has led them to hypotthesise that these electrons are doing infinite duties in other dimensions during the time that they leave our known universe.







http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation

Just a nit for picking: they are not my physicists or other's physicists, they are most of the real physicists out there and the math works (they are also Your physicists). However, imagining that they are saying this universe HAS or is likely to HAVE and IDer behind it is not really any concept they have mentioned. And, not all of them agree with all of this anyway - it just works with the math.

[I Ratant]

There is One Creator

and it is only by His gracious permission that your heart continues to beat in your chest.
.
And those 50 people -per day- get blown to smithereens in Iraq, every day.
And those 3000 children, -per day- starve to death in Africa, every day.

[154]

I see. You do not thank Him for any good thing
but you blame Him for the evils of man.

That's your perogative.

[154]

Lord of what? An mythic dead preacher man can't be lord of anything.He lives, as many witnesses attested. You will meet Him.

Seethe at what? An imaginary nothing?Of course not. You wouldn't do that. Neither would I. Yet you seethe...

I do seethe at your proud stupidity and ignorance. I find your beliefs harmful to humanity, a stone age superstitious throw back to a dark age. I pity your frail ego as your beliefs become more and more irrelevant in the modern world.

Yes. You are irrelevant to mankind except to retard it.Kill me. I suck. I'm terrible.

YOU are goodness and wisdom.

Funny how you're so embarrassed by your faith that you always have to claim evidence to back up your fantasy based beliefs.I am not embarassed by my Faith in Jesus Christ. To your, and others, great chagrin, I declare boldly and without hesitation.
How about basic science? You seem awfully ignorant even of that basic.Because I reject the conclusions of men like you?! I disagree. Crucify me too. I will not recant.

[Complexity]

I see. You do not thank Him for any good thing
but you blame Him for the evils of man.

That's your perogative.


I'm afraid that you continue to miss the point. There is no 'god'.

[154]

Could you point to some of this ample and abundant evidence?
Evidence That Demands A Verdict by Josh McDowell
http://www.amazon.com/Evidence-That-Demands-Verdict-Historical/dp/0840743785/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1272210921&sr=1-3

The Case For Christ by Lee Stroebel
http://www.amazon.com/Case-Christ-Journalists-Personal-Investigation/dp/0310209307/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1272211029&sr=1-1

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/jesus/greenleaf.html

[154]

Do I need his permission to poop?
Yes. Without His allowance, even that is beyond your mighty control.

My dad can beat up your dad.I know all about your father.

[Complexity]

Evidence That Demands A Verdict by Josh McDowell
http://www.amazon.com/Evidence-That-Demands-Verdict-Historical/dp/0840743785/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1272210921&sr=1-3

The Case For Christ by Lee Stroebel
http://www.amazon.com/Case-Christ-Journalists-Personal-Investigation/dp/0310209307/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1272211029&sr=1-1

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/jesus/greenleaf.html


Once again, please provide the evidence that you claim is out there, not links to lies and idiocy.

[tsig]

Far from fair, and even farther from deep critical thinking, this is juvenile, and then seconded...
Of course they were. Epic observation. And please show how my words make his point. Did I point to myself or away from myself?

"I" always centers on self.

[154]

"I" always centers on self.
Then why do I declare faith, never in myself, certainly not in mere men like you, but in Jesus Christ?

Please explain, wise one.

[Complexity]

Then why do I declare faith, never in myself, certainly not in mere men like you, but in Jesus Christ?

Please explain, wise one.


Because you are a fool.

[I Ratant]

I'm afraid that you continue to miss the point. There is no 'god'.
.
But there are all too many people who will kill all the others because -their god- is the god.
That is not considered, by the lunatic faithful.

[154]

.
But there are all too many people who will kill all the others because -their god- is the god.
That is not considered, by the lunatic faithful.

Go to your local mosque and tell them.

No, no, of course not, you tell those Christians though...

[tsig]

I am irrelevant.

Jesus Christ is Lord.


And just those words make some of you seethe.

You believe in the power of Magic Words to arouse anger in others?

Christ is Lord, see I typed it too and I'm not seething.

[154]

You believe in the power of Magic Words to arouse anger in others?

Christ is Lord, see I typed it too and I'm not seething.

Good for you. Anything else?

[tsig]

To you.

I merely quoted your own words.

[Complexity]

Good for you. Anything else?


No. That is more than enough.

[tsig]

Yes.

There is more than ample and abundant evidence to substantiate faith in Jesus Christ
even if it never crosses any thresholds of absolute "proof"

and you have nothing to teach me.

I have been asking questions hoping to learn from you but so far all I seem to have gotten is a facefull of boot.

[tsig]

There is One Creator

and it is only by His gracious permission that your heart continues to beat in your chest.

I'll be sure to thank him for that whenever I meet him.

[154]

I have been asking questions hoping to learn from you but so far all I seem to have gotten is a facefull of boot.No you haven't. Stop lying.

[Complexity]

No you haven't. Stop lying.


Pot. Kettle.

[154]

Pot. Kettle.I didn't lie.

You're obsessed with me. You can't leave me alone. You can't ignore me.

I am nobody. I am nothing.

I speak of Christ.

That bothers you.

[Complexity]

I didn't lie.

You're obsessed with me. You can't leave me alone. You can't ignore me.

I am nobody. I am nothing.

I speak of Christ.

That bothers you.


Not just a river in Egypt.

You promulgate nasty ignorance. That bothers me.

[tsig]

I see. You do not thank Him for any good thing
but you blame Him for the evils of man.

That's your perogative.

Anything good happens the god gets the credit

Anything bad man gets the credit

This seems to put man co-equal with god.

[Blue Mountain]

I see. You do not thank Him for any good thing
but you blame Him for the evils of man.

That's your perogative.
There are a couple of shortcomings in approaching life with an attitude that "God" is (or several gods are) in control of it.

Primarily, it shuts down inquiry. Just ask any gay person. The Bible forbids homosexual acts, so the default position of Christian and Muslims (I'm not really sure where most Jews stand on this) is that it is wrong! But diligent inquiry into the nature of human relationships has shown us that sexuality is very much a core part of a person's personality. One can no more get a gay person to go straight than you can get a straight person into a long-term same-sex relationship.

In pretty much every major social issue of the last 2000 years--disease, poverty, slavery, racial separation, sexual orientation, personal liberty, same-sex marriage--the church that purports to be serving the God you're so infatuated with has been on the wrong side! Is it any wonder that once people start questioning the existence of God and thinking that He is the answer to everything that societies start to flourish? (Look up Quebec and Duplessis some time.)

Second, it abrogates personal responsibility. Why should I brush my teeth--isn't God going to take care of them? Why should I have to manage my type-1 diabetes? Isn't God going to do that for me? Hey, he can raise people from the dead--why can't he put a pancreas back into working order? Yet a believer who doesn't take his insulin will be just as dead as a non-believer who doesn't.

And why should I work for a living--isn't God going to take care of me? ("Therefore, take no thought of tomorrow, for tomorrow will take care of itself.") Wait--God tells me I should work. And yet people who don't believe in God and work do every bit as well as people who believe in God and work. Conversely, people who believe in God and don't work do just as poorly as people who don't believe in God and don't work.

I see this a lot: people who are good at making decisions and those who are bad at making decisions tend to have the same outcomes regardless of their belief in God. Don't know how to handle credit cards? Believer and non-believer alike get dunning letters from collection agencies. Pay yourself first and don't blow the money on entertainment? Both the theist and the atheist retire comfortably. Hop around from one low-paying job to another without ever gaining seniority or skills? God sure doesn't seem to take care of those people; they're still looking at too much month left at the end of the money.

At the end of the day, belief in God and praying to him works for exactly the same reasons that psychics, fortune-tellers, and purveyors of all kinds of medical woo seem to be successful: because we as humans are are prone to committing logical fallacies. We only think they work. It was only when we discovered how easily we fool ourselves that we began to make progress as a species.

[154]

My inquiry never stops. I'd be glad to compare libraries.
Abrogating personal responsibility? Not when you know you will stand before God and answer for every thought, word and deed.

But I know, your purpose is to oppose mine. That means you must make yours better and give no kind word to mine.

You will not acknowledge the originators of women's suffrage, of public education, the founders of science or the leaders of abolition or their motivations.

[RoboTimbo]

I am not embarassed by my Faith in Jesus Christ. To your, and others, great chagrin, I declare boldly and without hesitation.
No. I think he subbed it out to Fred.

lol

Do you believe your god is the intelligence that designed the universe?

[154]

Dude.

What a stupid, oblivious and obvious rhetorical question.

Of course.

Now make your point already.

[tsig]

My inquiry never stops. I'd be glad to compare libraries.
Abrogating personal responsibility? Not when you know you will stand before God and answer for every thought, word and deed.

But I know, your purpose is to oppose mine. That means you must make yours better and give no kind word to mine.

You will not acknowledge the originators of women's suffrage, of public education, the founders of science or the leaders of abolition or their motivations.

I'll happily acknowledge them but what that has to do with the topic rather escapes me.

Could you elucidate?

[154]

I'll happily acknowledge them but what that has to do with the topic rather escapes me.

Could you elucidate?Hint. Read the immediately preceding post.

Believe me, that post was not for you. Your fellows only tolerate you because you insist on the same positions. Otherwise, they would lance you quickly.

[Complexity]

Dude.

What a stupid, oblivious and obvious rhetorical question.

Of course.

Now make your point already.


Nothing more need be said.

Thank you for playing.

[154]

Nothing more need be said.

Thank you for playing.Then you'll stop, I trust?

[Complexity]

Hint. Read the immediately preceding post.

Believe me, that post was not for you. Your fellows only tolerate you because you insist on the same positions. Otherwise, they would lance you quickly.


Err... Are there no limits to your silliness?

[154]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsKO_r76kfQ

[Complexity]

Then you'll stop, I trust?


Oh, dear, I'm afraid you've misunderstood.

You played. You failed. I was letting you down in a nice way.

Can see now that nice way is wasted on you.

As I explained before, 154, I have been delegated to point out to the rest of the world the error of your ways. Must think of the children, etc.

It is important not to let the ridiculous beliefs of fundies go unchallenged.

I'm in for the duration.

[154]

Hugs and kisses, roomie.

[Complexity]

Hugs and kisses, roomie.


I've had a space reserved for you down here for many years.

Keeping it warm for you.

[I Ratant]

Hint. Read the immediately preceding post.

Believe me, that post was not for you. Your fellows only tolerate you because you insist on the same positions. Otherwise, they would lance you quickly.
.
Yes, the Christian response to thwartation.
Kill it.
The love just oozes from the pustules, dun't it.

[tsig]

.
Yes, the Christian response to thwartation.
Kill it.
The love just oozes from the pustules, dun't it.

That's why you have to lance them.

[tsig]

Hint. Read the immediately preceding post.

Believe me, that post was not for you. Your fellows only tolerate you because you insist on the same positions. Otherwise, they would lance you quickly.

I did read the preceding post hence my comment.

I've been lanced here a couple of times, generally when I let my opinions over run the facts but the wounded ego recovers and moves on.

[paximperium]

He lives, as many witnesses attested. You will meet Him.

Of course not. You wouldn't do that. Neither would I. Yet you seethe...

Kill me. I suck. I'm terrible.

YOU are goodness and wisdom.

I am not embarassed by my Faith in Jesus Christ. To your, and others, great chagrin, I declare boldly and without hesitation.
Because I reject the conclusions of men like you?! I disagree. Crucify me too. I will not recant.
Wow. No wonder.
You have internet martyrdom and masochism fantasies.

Can't have the balls to actually do something relevant or useful so you play a martyr on the internet. How does it feel like to be a nothing except in your fantasy world?

[tsig]

Err... Are there no limits to your silliness?

>Insert Eisenstein quote here<

[paximperium]

Go to your local mosque and tell them.

No, no, of course not, you tell those Christians though...
Ah, a bit of projection here. That's pretty funny since no, no of course not, YOU tell those harmless atheists on the internet though...

Great job. No balls to do what you actually want huh?

[tsig]

I've had a space reserved for you down here for many years.

Keeping it warm for you.

Get a room. Oh wait....what 154 said:blush:

[Complexity]

Get a room. Oh wait....what 154 said:blush:


He just wants to get within knifing range.

[paximperium]

My inquiry never stops. I'd be glad to compare libraries. Does a single one of them help you fix a toilet, cure cancer or launch a rocket?

Abrogating personal responsibility? Not when you know you will stand before God and answer for every thought, word and deed. You must be terribly afraid of all the lying you're doing and you keep speaking for your fantasy god.

But I know, your purpose is to oppose mine. That means you must make yours better and give no kind word to mine. Stop projecting your nonsense onto others. I'm more than willing to consider your claims the moment you present actual evidence.

You will not acknowledge the originators of women's suffrage, of public education, the founders of science or the leaders of abolition or their motivations.Really Do tell.

[tsig]

He just wants to get within knifing range.

maybe he's the St Teresa of Avila type believer.

“ I saw in his hand a long spear of gold, and at the iron's point there seemed to be a little fire. He appeared to me to be thrusting it at times into my heart, and to pierce my very entrails; when he drew it out, he seemed to draw them out also, and to leave me all on fire with a great love of God. The pain was so great, that it made me moan; and yet so surpassing was the sweetness of this excessive pain, that I could not wish to be rid of it...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theresa_of_%C3%81vila

Ah Catholic piety I remember it with such bitter-sweet joy that it pierces my heard and almost makes me forget the taste of the flesh of god.

Altar boys even got to drink the blood too if the priest didn't slurp it all up.:(

[Foster Zygote]

Evidence That Demands A Verdict by Josh McDowell
http://www.amazon.com/Evidence-That-Demands-Verdict-Historical/dp/0840743785/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1272210921&sr=1-3

The Case For Christ by Lee Stroebel
http://www.amazon.com/Case-Christ-Journalists-Personal-Investigation/dp/0310209307/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1272211029&sr=1-1

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/jesus/greenleaf.html

I am familiar with those apologetic sources, and I am familiar with their many shortcomings.

[I Ratant]

...
Altar boys even got to drink the blood too if the priest didn't slurp it all up.:(
.
Never happened with me.
The chalice was always empty.
I presume it helped wash down all the consecrated hosts left over from the communion, that he consumed.

[Foster Zygote]

Yes. Without His allowance, even that is beyond your mighty control.

You really can't discern how ridiculous that sounds?

All it would take, then, to convince me of the truth of Christianity and make of me a witness for the faith is for Jesus to prevent me from taking a dump until I accept him as my lord and savior. I guess we'll see just how earnest Jesus is about convincing me of his divinity.

I'll be sure to keep everyone updated.

[Foster Zygote]

Your fellows only tolerate you because you insist on the same positions. Otherwise, they would lance you quickly.

Really? Why do you believe this to be so?

[sgtbaker]

It's not the rejection per se. It's the constant maliciouis twisting of everything I write to mean something else. It's the comments laced with snide remarks designed to blow off steam or elicit a rise. Unlike you who perhaps are blessed with superior patience, I find it distracting.


It's amazing what ten years of marriage and 13yrs of raising kids can do to your perspective on communication. If I've come off as snide, I do apologize; everyone is susceptable to letting too much emotion get in the way of what they are trying to say. People (myself included) would do a lot better if we stuck to their point and left the personal insults at the playground. This could be a rational debate but it's sounding more like a "yo mama" fight.

I think a lot of it is frustration. ID and evolution do not defy each other, they just don't ask or answer the same questions. One deals with the viewable, knowable, and testable while the other deals in philosophy. One answers what caused, while the other answers what caused the cause. The ID solution is very similar to asking what happened before the big bang or what's outside of our universe. It's irrelavant because it cannot be answered. You can fill that answer in with god, aliens, or what ever you feel is correct and nobody has the right to tell you differently. You have to keep in mind, though, when dealing with people who accept natural explanations, do so because the questions are answered without going into the metaphysical and there is not need to defend our lack of belief in the absense of evidence, that stands fine by itself.

Again! Where have I stated that there is conclusive evidence?

Where did I say conclusive? I said there lacks any evidence at all. In a few of your responses, you supported your statements by referring to scientists that suggest the same thing. I was just trying to make clear that there is a difference between speculation and accepted theory. A person's intelligence or knowledge does not automatically add weight to their ideas. If we all took and rejected ideas based on the authority of who supported them, Big Bang Theory would be collecting dust.

[Complexity]

I first read that as "raising 13 kids".

Am quite relieved.

[sgtbaker]

I first read that as "raising 13 kids".

Am quite relieved.

I'm not, it feels like that sometimes :crowded:

[NavyPack]

Go to your local mosque and tell them.

No, no, of course not, you tell those Christians though...

154

This statement/sentiment is oft repeated on both the intertubes & boob tube.

It begs the question,
Do you doubt that there are followers of islam who are every bit as faithful & zealous for their beliefs, than you for yours?

If I may be so bold, we would both answer yes, w/out much hesitation.

Now imagine the perspective neutral observer/atheist.

We hear equal measures of certitude & cries of "ample" evidence from the respective adherents.

What is the evidence for which you can attest/point to, which would demonstrably eliminate the muslim faith, and at the same time, corroborate the christian faith, (and this must be denominationally specific, give or take 2 most recent schisms)?

I am honestly not being facetious, I would greatly appreciate a considered response.

P.S.
This does need to be something I could, in theory at least, verify for myself. i.e., taking no man's word alone, either living or dead.

Thanks,
NP

[RoboTimbo]

Dude.

What a stupid, oblivious and obvious rhetorical question.

Of course.

Now make your point already.

How is it stupid, oblivious, or obvious? It seems that pretty much everything irritates you. Are there any fundies close who you could ask to hold up your end of the discussion in a civil manner?

[devnull]

Sorry, just catching up, did another fundy just bust his dot cos we nasty afeists just won't bleeeeeve?

So much hate and anger over fairy tales. Crazy stuff.

[dafydd]

Dude.

What a stupid, oblivious and obvious rhetorical question.

Of course.

Now make your point already.

What do you say to all the Hindus who believed that Brahma designed the universe? To the Zoroastrians regarding Ahura Mazda.? To all the other believers in primitive myths?

[dafydd]

How is it stupid, oblivious, or obvious? It seems that pretty much everything irritates you. Are there any fundies close who you could ask to hold up your end of the discussion in a civil manner?

He's an undercover athiest working against Christianity,and he's doing a very good job.

[RoboTimbo]

Dude.

What a stupid, oblivious and obvious rhetorical question.

Of course.

Now make your point already.

Ok, I'll ignore your childish tantrum and continue:

Do you believe ID is a valid competing theory to a naturalistic explanation for the beginning of the universe? How about to the beginning of life and its succeeding evolution on earth?

[dafydd]

Ok, I'll ignore your childish tantrum and continue:

Do you believe ID is a valid competing theory to a naturalistic explanation for the beginning of the universe? How about to the beginning of life and its succeeding evolution on earth?

Gawd did it.

[Foster Zygote]

Go to your local mosque and tell them.
Are you one of those people who think that all Muslims are bent on killing people who don't think as they do?

No, no, of course not, you tell those Christians though...
I would like to point out that you are posting in a forum that was created specifically for the purpose of critically discussing religion and philosophy. It's not like anyone here sought you out or came to your place of worship, or anyone else's for that matter. If you really can't tolerate criticism and doubt regarding your religious beliefs then you may wish to consider that this forum might no be the place for you.

[Foster Zygote]

Gawd did it.

Which is the crux of the problem. The god of the gaps offers nothing in the way of an actual explanatory mechanism. How did god do it? Magic.

[Radrook]

It's amazing what ten years of marriage and 13yrs of raising kids can do to your perspective on communication.....If I've come off as snide, I do apologize;.... snip snip snip

No problem my finely feathered friend. Thanks for your avian feedback.

BTW


Congrats!

Your are now officially number 44 on ignore. Anyone wanna try for 45?


Slight numerical correction was needed. Sorry!

[Foster Zygote]

No problem my finely feathered friend. Thanks for your avian feedback.

BTW


Congrats!

Your are now officially number 44 on ignore. Anyone wanna try for 45?


Slight numerical correction was needed. Sorry!

You really put sgtbaker on your ignore list because of that post? I read it as rather gracious and polite while being honest at the same time.

[Radrook]

You really put sgtbaker on your ignore list because of that post? I read it as rather gracious and polite while being honest at the same time.


We have differing criteria.

[Foster Zygote]

We have differing criteria.

If I might ask, what, specifically, about sgtbaker's post met your criteria for placing him on your ignore list?