Intelligent Design HAS to be wrong...

a reply to: randyvs

I could invoke a million different things to explain that, but just like your guess, they would be assumptions.

In fact the laws that
existence obeys must be infinite.

That is certainly not "in fact".

Laws and information
passing do not just occur. They are evidence of intent

Yep, just keep making things up as if they are true. I'd rather admit that I don't know the answer than to assume some unknown unverifiable entity did and use reasoning as horrible as that to justify it.

To believe the way I do
is perceived by many to be ignorant, nerdy or
uncool. When in fact, it's pretty bitchen.

It is not nerdy or uncool. It is illogical and god of the gaps fallacy.

a reply to: Barcs

That is certainly not "in fact".

Do you have any proof or examples said laws are not
infinite? The seasons, day into night, night into day,
time has proceeded faithfully since when? The beginning
and with no end in sight. I think infinite is a pretty factual
description.
And further more Barcs to be so prejudice against any
possibility of God is anything but scientific on your part.

originally posted by: randyvs
Do you have any proof or examples said laws are not
infinite?

Do you have any proof that they ARE infinite aside from guesswork? Burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim not the one who thinks your claim is wrong. The word fact indicates something that has been verified to be true, so no, your statement was definitely not "in fact". The proper term would have been, "In my opinion".

The seasons, day into night, night into day,
time has proceeded faithfully since when? The beginning
and with no end in sight. I think infinite is a pretty factual
description.

Jibberish. Time has proceeded faithfully? Time isn't a conscious being. It's our measurement of the movement of the universe. Infinite does not mean very big. Just because you can't imagine 13 billion years, doesn't make it infinite.

And further more Barcs to be so prejudice against any
possibility of God is anything but scientific on your part.

Non existence is the logical default when there is NO evidence and I'm agnostic. I just don't find it honest when folks refer to personal faith and beliefs as facts. I have no problem with you believing in god. It's your assertion of fact that I take issue with. Why are so many creationists afraid to admit that their faith is faith?

a reply to: Barcs

My faith is strong and what's wrong with pointing out
strong indications of truth? Are you afraid of my faith
being correct?

a reply to: taoistguy

If design was intelligent, then we would have 2 pairs of hands (and arms.)Just 1 pair is not enough as we have so many things to do and carry, and this has been the case throughout history. Ergo, intelligent design isincorrect.

I dunno four arms is not beautiful can you imagine driving your car into shiva's garage from Mortral Kombat...no thanks..I'll stick to two arms...

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Barcs

My faith is strong and what's wrong with pointing out
strong indications of truth? Are you afraid of my faith
being correct?

I'm open minded. If it turns out there is a god, then that would be cool. If it turns out there is not, I'm also cool with that. I don't pretend to know the answer and refer to it as a fact when it's clearly not. Faith by definition is blind belief. Facts are verified by various objective methods. Having strong faith does make the faith fact no matter how you try to rationalize.

a reply to: randyvs

My faith is strong and what's wrong with pointing out
strong indications of truth? Are you afraid of my faith
being correct?

if we were afraid of your faith being correct. we would be banning ladders, having all black cats spayed and neutered, making it illegal to mistreat mirrors, removed every number 13 in the country, and made it mandatory that all domestic entryways be copiously anointed in garlic juice. not to mention observing every superstition ever observed in any nation, culture, or branch of spirituality. because we would have to be sure to cover all corners and not just arrogantly assume that one flavor of superstition is more important than another. but you dont see us doing that. we administer tests and figure out that michievious fairies arent spoiling the milk, bacteria are. god isnt killing the crops, the compounds in the soil are. we arent catching ill because we did something immoral but because we are exposed to viruses on a daily basis. science gave us those answers. scientific investigative techniques gave us those answers. and they work a lot better than just praying for all these things to not happen, since prayer doesnt work nearly as well as medicine and refrigerators.

a reply to: Barcs

may want to edit that "does" part. lol

a reply to: tzarchasm

if we were afraid of your faith being correct. we would be banning ladders, having all black cats spayed and neutered, making it illegal to mistreat mirrors, removed every number 13 in the country, and made it mandatory that all domestic entryways be copiously anointed in garlic juice. not to mention observing every superstition ever observed in any nation, culture, or branch of spirituality. because we would have to be sure to cover all corners and not just arrogantly assume that one flavor of superstition is more important than another. but you dont see us doing that. we administer tests and figure out that michievious fairies arent spoiling the milk, bacteria are. god isnt killing the crops, the compounds in the soil are. we arent catching ill because we did something immoral but because we are exposed to viruses on a daily basis. science gave us those answers. scientific investigative techniques gave us those answers. and they work a lot better than just praying for all these things to not happen, since prayer doesnt work nearly as well as medicine and refrigerators.

So what's the connection?

The reason we don't have more than two sets of arms is that the arms are supported and work right off the shoulders. It's impossible for us to have an extra set of shoulders in between the stomach and chest, there wouldn't be room for internal organs.

Some basic common sense here confirms why we don't have two sets of arms. It's not a proof of intelligent design.

"God must love stupid people - he made so many of them"

If you're a supporter of intelligent design then you're a denier of the basic Christian ideal that God made us in His image.

There was no thought, no design, no improvements. According to The Bible, God created man in his image, meaning we were a copy with no thoughts towards improvement of any kind.

You say that a person of faith should believe in intelligent design? They're mutually exclusive.

originally posted by: tzarchasm
a reply to: Barcs

may want to edit that "does" part. lol

Oh woops. I'm usually so OCD that I read my post like 3 times before submitting it and then another 3-4 times after. Can't believe that I missed that one.

originally posted by: randyvs
So what's the connection?

There is no connection, it is a personal assumption that you make. Simply put, people are not disagreeing with your religion because they are afraid that it might end up being correct. They just don't agree it's the only way to live life. You seem to limit your possibilities to one absolute literal version of an ancient story. If you'd like to talk fear, then I'd like an answer as to why so many in your camp deny information obtained from the scientific method. They take "faith" to a whole new level by denying anything that conflicts with the bible, even scientifically verified facts. To me, there is no excuse for that, and it clearly shows that you and others in your camp are greatly afraid that you might be WRONG. Otherwise, why would scientific facts be treated as such a threat to your religion?

The truth is, it's only a threat because you make it a threat and insist on a 100% literal bible interpretation instead of upgrading your understanding of how god and science could work together and also how man could easily make mistakes in a book that old. You put very heavy faith in ancient man that knew nothing about the world, while having zero faith in modern scientists that know a HUGE amount in comparison and have verified most of it. It's downright silly. If god gave visions to the folks that wrote the bible, then why is he not doing the same for scientists today?

a reply to: randyvs

Please explain something to me: if God is so perfect and we are his creation, why did he create men with foreskin and then told men to cut it off? Is it because he is not as perfect as he wants us to believe? Or he likes to make his creation suffer?

originally posted by: Agartha
a reply to: randyvs

Please explain something to me: if God is so perfect and we are his creation, why did he create men with foreskin and then told men to cut it off? Is it because he is not as perfect as he wants us to believe? Or he likes to make his creation suffer?

The lack of replies to my question confirms my thoughts: creationism is a fairytale.

originally posted by: Agartha
a reply to: randyvs

Please explain something to me: if God is so perfect and we are his creation, why did he create men with foreskin and then told men to cut it off? Is it because he is not as perfect as he wants us to believe? Or he likes to make his creation suffer?

That's a good one actually. I've never thought about that one before. Today we do it mostly for health and hygiene reasons. It's funny, cutting off the foreskin prevents excessive bacteria from building up as well as slightly increases sexual pleasure. You'd think god would be against the pleasure part, or would have made us so we wouldn't need that in the first place. Why create something and then command for it to be chopped off. Back then they didn't even have antiseptics or Novocaine and I can't even imagine how many people got infected from the surgery after the fact.

a reply to: taoistguy

Because we were meant to work together with other people.

a reply to: Barcs

Hi Barcs! My question was answered here, page 12: www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: taoistguy
But you can't leave humans out of the equation, that's like making a toad in the whole but not using sausages.

Is that some kind of English sex act that Minot aware of?
Sounds, fun?

a reply to: taoistguy

If you have 4 arms how will you run? Would become inconvenient. Where is it going to come out of? Our ribs or shoulders would become sooooo different. Whether we can prove it seems highly unlikely due to us not being able to. We can already perform regular tasks. I have a feeling your extra 2 arms are going to go to bad use

a reply to: randyvs

Do you have any proof or examples said laws are not
infinite? The seasons, day into night, night into day,
time has proceeded faithfully since when? The beginning
and with no end in sight. I think infinite is a pretty factual
description.
And further more Barcs to be so prejudice against any
possibility of God is anything but scientific on your part.

we have no conclusive or even probabilistic evidence that the universe is infinite, either in proportion or longevity. again, you draw on presumption to fuel your hypotheses.