Why do people say intelligent design is not scientific?

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


1 Corinthians 1:18,"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing,but to us who are being saved,it is the power of God. For it is written:'I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."

Jude 10,"Yet these men speak abusively against whatever they do not understand."

Ephesians 4:18,"They are darkened in their understanding and seperated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts."

1 Corinthians 2:14,"The man withhout the spirit does not accept the things that come from the spirit of God,for they are foolishness to him,and he cannot understand them because they are spiritually discerned."

Until you've experienced God in your life in a way that leads you to say,"I have seen the light!",it's normal for you to want to doubt and take a stand against faith. I used to be like that,too.

You shouldn't knock it til you've tried it!

reply to post by On the Edge

1 Corinthians 1:18,"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing,but to us who are being saved,it is the power of God. For it is written:'I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."

In other words, God will systematically destroy everything we have learned.

Jude 10,"Yet these men speak abusively against whatever they do not understand."

I tend to disagree, the monotheistic God is very understandable and leaves itself open to attack. Should we consider Saddam a good person for justifying his atrocities in the same manner God does his?

Ephesians 4:18,"They are darkened in their understanding and seperated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts."

No, more like because we question his actions in which he demands we don't do.

1 Corinthians 2:14,"The man withhout the spirit does not accept the things that come from the spirit of God,for they are foolishness to him,and he cannot understand them because they are spiritually discerned."

No, because we demand evidence for the spiritual world.

Until you've experienced God in your life in a way that leads you to say,"I have seen the light!",it's normal for you to want to doubt and take a stand against faith. I used to be like that,too.

I once prayed to a rain God and it rained. Is that proof enough for you to accept the existence of a rain God?

By your own admission,you "demand evidence".

I live by faith.

"For God so loved the world that whosoever believes in Him should not perish,but have everlasting life."-John 3:16

I cannot judge the actions of others. Only God knows what is in each man's heart.

reply to post by On the Edge

"For God so loved the world that whosoever believes in Him should not perish,but have everlasting life."-John 3:16

So, your immortal now too?

Originally posted by On the Edge
reply to post by TheWalkingFox

 

1 Corinthians 1:18,"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing,but to us who are being saved,it is the power of God. For it is written:'I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."

Jude 10,"Yet these men speak abusively against whatever they do not understand."

Ephesians 4:18,"They are darkened in their understanding and seperated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts."

1 Corinthians 2:14,"The man withhout the spirit does not accept the things that come from the spirit of God,for they are foolishness to him,and he cannot understand them because they are spiritually discerned."

Until you've experienced God in your life in a way that leads you to say,"I have seen the light!",it's normal for you to want to doubt and take a stand against faith. I used to be like that,too.

You shouldn't knock it til you've tried it!

I have tried it, thanks. I was raised on it. I had the idea of joining the clergy, even. I was your typical little church kid. I did a book report on Exodus (and got a B+! Yay for Alabama!) and witnessed for my friends all the way up into my teenage years.

Now contrary to a lot of claims from people such as yourself, it wasn't some sort of tragedy or rebellionsness that made me question god. I wasn't like "F YOU GOD I WON'T BELIEVE IN YOU, THAT'LL SHOW YOU!" - I simply studied scripture more, and it quite simply stopped making any sense.

I had accepted Jesus because i was "supposed to" but after getting older and reading up on what I thought I believed... it was nonsense. Let me line it up for you. I don't expect you to deconvert or anything, I'm just going to show you the process here.

In the beginning, god created four important things - Adam, Eve, the Serpent, and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and evil. Being omniscient, god absolutely knew what was going to result of this. Being omnipotent, he could have stopped it from happening. he didn't though. Serpent coerces eve to eat the fruit, eve shares with Adam, god punishes all three, and there we have the original sin - presumably defying god.

Now, unlike other sins, this one is carried in the seed - that is, every descendant of Adam and Eve - every human, by the bible - carries this sin in their veins. Now, at first, God tells the people that to cleanse this sin, they need to kill and incinerate all kinds of animals for him to enjoy the smell of. Apparently this doesn't work, so god comes up with a new game plan.

He finds a 14 year old Jewish girl in Roman Iudaea and impregnates her so that she will give birth to himself. Thirty-three years later, he will then sacrifice himself to himself to pay for the sin that he engineered in the first place, thereby absolving all humanity of that sin, provided that they acknowledge that they needed him to do this in the first place.

This became just so completely bizarre to me that I actually began to hate myself, figuring i was a freak of nature for thinking this story was weird. I mean everyone else bought it, why was I having trouble? There was even a time I considered converting to Islam - it lacks the original sin doctrine, and I could still be religions and could still give Jesus his props and all that.

Well, I got a little older, and eventually figured it out. it makes no sense because it makes no sense. It wasn't that I was defective, or a freak, it was that the very concept and the story is blatantly idiotic. I still had this hangup where I didn't want to not believe in god, though, so I started exploring other religions. And they're all pretty dang dumb. I kind of held out for a little, even as recently as last year galling myself a pagan, but, y'know, I've pretty much grown out of any need for imaginary friends.

There's a quote from [s]the devil[/s] Ronald Reagan, "A communist is someone who reads Marx and Lenin. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx and Lenin." While I don't agree with his specific example, the logic does actually work. I am not religious because I have studied, researched, and debated religions for years, On The edge. I know your book better than you do. I understand your denominations better than you do. And I have made a rational and adult choice that these things are not something I need to worry about, much less use to guide my life.

sorry to disappoint.

reply to post by sirnex


1 Peter 1:8,"Though you have not seen Him,you love Him;and even though you do not see Him now,you believe in Him and are filled with an inexpressible and glorious joy,for you are receiving the goal of your faith,the salvation of your souls."

Romans 6:23,"For the wages of sin is death,but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus,our Lord."

Does that answer your question?

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


I appreciate you taking the time to explain your beliefs.

Knowing what you know then,what do you think about all the biblical prophecy that has and is coming true?

By the way,I don't judge you for your faith or lack of it,since one's religious beliefs are deeply personal. I'm not "disappointed". You don't answer to me or any other individual on this earth,and we're free to believe whatever we choose!

Gday,

Originally posted by resonance
josephus was born 4-5 years after jesus' death.. the others 30-40 years and its obvious that they would have to talk about him after his life..

So, there are no contemporary records from anyone who ever met Jesus.

Originally posted by resonance
if i did a report on lets say amelia earhart, would it just be hearsay since i never met her? she existed bottom line many people did meet her

If you wrote a report on Harry Potter, what would that prove?

Originally posted by resonance
those people writing that long ago knew jesus existed they would not spread doctrine about a man knowing that people could easily just ask people who supposedly saw him that werent connected to the religion

Why did people spread beliefs in Bacchus?
Osiris? Krishna?
According to your argument, they must have existed too.


K.

Grr, all of the posts and links I've posted yesterday have been buried. It's a shame because I think those are probably as close to the truth as you can get.

Anyway, no proof of intelligent design? Once again, no one has answered my question, what is considered proof? If an event is too statistically impossible to happen by chance(yes, given an "infinite" amount of time, an event, no matter how unlikely, will happen, however, the universe is said to be "only" 14 billion years old), yet happens anyway, then doesn't that imply that someone must have designed it?

Let me construct a universe in which I think most would agree, based on our "known or previously accepted common sense," that is if we hadn't known how things work, and compare it to what we've learned. And feel free if you disagree.

I think most would agree that the most natural state of the universe would be that space has always existed and goes on infinitely. There would be no such things as space expanding, faster than light no less(sly Creator he is, because this makes it impossible for us to ever see what's outside of space). I think most would agree that matter should be made out of something solid and tangible, instead of energy and space. I think most would agree that the Earth should be flat, instead of it being round, with the reason we don't fall off at night is because some force(which we now know is not a force, but rather a curvature of space) that is holding us up.
I think most would agree that there should be no such things as curved space OR time.
I think most would agree that all of the elements of the universe should be distributed uniformly at any point. However, according to the Big Bang Theory, the universe was in a state of low entropy, which can be described as walking into a room, and seeing all the hot air on one side and cold ones on the other, right after the Big Bang. In other words, almost impossible statistically.

And of course, we have the beginning of life, where we can't explain WHY exactly these atoms keep having these chemical reactions that lead to amino acids, then protein, then cells, then organs, etc., before it ever developed the brain to interpret that these processes are advantageous.

You can see from all this that the reason we don't consider any of these events as miraculous is simply because we understand how they work. Yet the truth is, Jesus walking on water is no more a miracle than the fact that this universe started out as an atom.

Gday,

Originally posted by resonance
species do not change in to other species..that is what i disagree with
that has never and will never be proven no matter how many time you say it..sorry

It HAS been shown.
I linked you to a page showing the evidence.
www.talkorigins.org...

You refused to even read it, just like I said you would.


We can predict :
* you will NEVER check that page for the facts
* you will KEEP on preaching your false beliefs.


K.

reply to post by On the Edge


I addressed biblical prophecy earlier in the thread. Let me give you a summary.

Biblical prophecy states that Babylon will be uninhabited, except for - and I goddamn quote - "Satyrs, dragons, and unicorns"

You may not have noticed, but there's been a lot of news about Iraq lately, and none of it seems to have any footage of satyrs, much less unicorns and dragons.

Personally, I come from a people with a long tradition of prophecy, and as I said, I've studied plenty of religions, many of which are prophetic. There are two rules to a successful prophecy.

1) keep it vague.
2) if you must be detailed, make sure it's something other people can make come true

Gday,

Originally posted by np6888
Hello all, while I don't think that evolution and ID are necessarily mutually exclusive, I want to know, just what exactly is the proof for species to species evolution?

You can check the evidence here:
www.talkorigins.org...

Of course, you will ignore the facts just like resonance did.


K.

Well...thank you for making me look closer at "Intelligent Design"

en.wikipedia.org...

The term "intelligent design" came into use after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 1987 case of Edwards v. Aguillard that to require the teaching of "creation science" alongside evolution was a violation of the Establishment Clause, which prohibits state endorsement of a religion.

The idea was developed by a group of American creationists who reformulated their argument in the creation-evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science. Intelligent design's leading proponents – all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank – believe the designer to be the God of Christianity.

So essentially ID is Creationism dressed up in a manner to hopefully circumvent US Laws disdain for teaching Christainity in public schools.

Creationism...No. I dated a creationist/evangelical christian once who straight faced told me on several occasions that the world was created 5,000 years or so ago in accordance with the bible. According to her Dinosuars lived at that time and carbon dating was part of a conspiracy to combat Christainity...ditto with evolution...the history of Asia and other ancient civilizations etc. etc. all the scientists were lying...and people lived to be hundreds of years old. She had videos that she showed me of "scientists" claiming the same.

As far as there being some omnipotent being existing that is responsible for the beginings of the universe...Maybe...but ID doesn't help me with that much.

Gday,

Originally posted by resonance
i do know why i have denounced other gods, i have researched all the prominent religions, they all have major flaws christianity does not, its obvious through many things you have said that you do not do research in to a whole area before you come to a conclusion

Like I said -

You'll just completely IGNORE the evidence for macro-evolution :
www.talkorigins.org...

While repeatedly claiming there is no 'proof'.


K.

Gday,

Originally posted by np6888
Anyway, no proof of intelligent design? Once again, no one has answered my question, what is considered proof?

There is no 'proof' in science, there is only evidence.
Something creationists never grasp.

There have been MILLIONS of tests and experiments about evolution -
* MILLIONS support evolution,
* ZERO contradict evolution,
* ZERO support creationism.

Which is why you can't show a SINGLE test or experiment which proves evolution wrong - yes, that's right - science CAN 'disprove' with just ONE test.

Yet after MILLIONS and MILLIONS of tests and experiments, NOT ONE has shown evolution wrong.

If there was EVEN ONE, you creatinists would quote it in every post.

Originally posted by np6888
If an event is too statistically impossible to happen by chance(yes, given an "infinite" amount of time, an event, no matter how unlikely, will happen, however, the universe is said to be "only" 14 billion years old), yet happens anyway, then doesn't that imply that someone must have designed it?

What event?
What probability?
Please SHOW your CALCULATIONS.

Shuffle and deal 10 packs of cards - the resulting order is far far less probable than any calculation mentioned above - yet it happened.

The chance of YOU occuring is 1 in 4 ^ 3,000,000,000 - a vast number. Yet you exist.

This 'no chance' argument is a standard creationist trick, and it's meaningless.

Originally posted by np6888
And of course, we have the beginning of life, where we can't explain WHY exactly these atoms keep having these chemical reactions that lead to amino acids, then protein, then cells, then organs, etc., before it ever developed the brain to interpret that these processes are advantageous.

Wrong.
Amino acids form naturally in space from chemistry.
Cell walls form naturally from chemistry.

But creationists falsely claim it can't happen.

That's the real problem with ID and creationism - it's completely in contradiction to the observed facts.


K.

Your analogy is off. Yes, the possibility of me happening is small, but the event of me being born "is not unique." There's a difference between "me being born" and "all the hot air on one side and cold air on the other."

And yes, amino acids came from chemistry. The question is, did they happen randomly, or did a certain "nucleus intelligence" drive them to make those chemical reactions?

Well, I took a look at that link, and I see no evidence for macro-evolution. All I saw was different variations of the mammal skulls, a very different mammal skull and reptile skull, with no transitional skulls between the two. I'm sorry, but if this is evidence for species to species evolution, then I guess we have all been fooled.

It seems to me that the most evolution can claim is that certain traits will change within a species, depending on the environment.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox

Originally posted by Outlawstar

I mean the Olmecs for instance didint acquire their advanced mathematics from NOWHERE, whoever built the pyramids didint do so on a whim, shy did so many civilisations seem to pop out fo the woodwork, with their culture fully formed and then begin to decline, its contrary to what the average joe would consider history to depict.

These are serious questions that have not been anywhere near adequately answered!^______^

[edit on 4-11-2009 by Outlawstar]

If there's one thing that annoys me more than science-denial, it's pseudohistory. Especially pseudohistory of the "brown people can't stack rocks" variety.

First, the Olmecs didn't have advanced mathematics. The Maya did - sort of. To believe that you have to believe that having the concept of zero makes mathematics advanced. Their counting system was also base twenty. So I suppose they were more advanced than the Romans were, at least. However the Maya didn't have anything like what we would consider advanced math - They used addition, subtraction, division, and multiplication, but nothing advances that can be compared to math like algebra, trigonometry, calculus, or the like.

So, yeah. The Maya; better at math than Rome, worse than Baghdad.

And why weren't the pyramids built on a whim? Have you ever seen the ludicrous crap that gets built on a whim nowadays? No reason that a society that thinks the king is literally god itself (under pain of torture and execution of course!) wouldn't be more than happy to fulfil his whimsical building designs. The way it works is that some ancient Egyptian kings had small step-pyramids built for themselves. Later kings kept building bigger, better pyramids, until we get the ones at Giza. Think of it as a royal afterlife version of penis-measuring.

What civilizations "pop out of the woodwork"? I can understand the illusion of such, and there's a very good reason - most archaeologically interesting sites tend to be on top of whatever came before. Mohenjo-Daro for instance, is almost certainly hte product of at least hundreds of years of people living on the Indus. However the city is inevitably built on top of whatever villages, towns, tribal meeting places and the like that came before - we would have to destroy the place in order to find out what it's sitting on.

WHat are you talking about Pseudohistory, the MAYA inherited their Mathematics FROM the olmecs!

The rest of your points show a lack of knowledge, the Egyptians for instance did not build the pyramids, at least thats what the data suggest, and civilisations have for all intents and purposes popped up fully formed and then appear to digress, this is common knowledge.


Seriously just the fact that your using such terms as science denial, and pseudohistory in a derogatory manner is a shame and the kind of attitude that BREEDS dogma.

I will answer you more fully in the morning.

[edit on 4-11-2009 by Outlawstar]

Originally posted by Outlawstar
My question is this, why doesint evolution seem to apply to humans?
Where did Cro-Magnon man come from 35,000 years ago?

It is clear that they are not as conventionally was believed related, that is, Neanderthal ws not Cro-magnon's ancestor, they were completely different skeletally and physically, and why does it seem that Neanderthals became more primitive before abruptly dissapearing, why have we evolved way beyond the needs to survive

Oh, but it DOES apply to humans! Compared to modern humans, Cro-Magnons were blocky, flat-headed, prognathous goons with too many teeth. If we go back to Africa and look at anatomically modern humans (as contrasted to behaviorally modern humans) we find even more primitive features, even brow ridges. They're still homo sapiens, they're just a spectacularly non-pretty homo sapiens.

Why have we changed so much? Technology. Fire allows us to cook our food, meaning it's softer and needs less chewing - thus why our jaws are shorter and weaker than those of our H. sapiens forebearers - which is why wisdom teeth are such a problem for us. Projectile weapons, sturdy clothing, and the ability to build shelter meant that we developed a more gracile form - we didn't need to put so much of our energy towards grrowing muscle and bone mass, shed our hair, lost a lot of fat, etc.

No, H. neanderthalis was not H. sapiens' forbearer. They do however share a common ancestor. Currently this ancestor is thought to be H. heidelbergensis.

I thnk the answer of fire is more a shot in the dark than anything else, seems to be stratching it a bit imo, Ill be honest I dont buy it.

And do you want to know why neanderthals became "more primitive" looking? Inbreeding. The Aurignacian H. sapiens culture had pushed neanderthals to the extremes of their range - the very southern reaches of Iberia and the Italian peninsular, and there they sat, basically breeding among their own small families for a few thousand years before H. Sapiens was pushed southward by the last Glacial Maximum, and either killed or outcompeted the things.

Interesting, perhaps that is true.

And also, I really do think that natural selection is itself the greatest evidence of an intelligence,I mean it would be just as easy to call it intelligent selection would it not, no, Im not convinced.

I see the theory of evolution as very good, but not definite, hmm, is there a third variable were not looking at, perhaps something to explain modern mans explosion onto the scene and his unusual evolutionary traits?

Unfortunately just because you do not understand something doesn't mean it's flawed. Humans didn't "Explode" onto the scene. Like any other animal, we have a definite family tree, lots of species (now all extinct save for ourselves and, if you like the woo-woo, perhaps yetis and sasquatch). There is clear development between those species and within our own. We don't really have many "unusual" evolutionary traits. In fact we're pretty much what you'd expec

By mans explosin I mean modern man, his sudden embracing of a whole host pf previously neglected paradigms, a seeming boom in consiousness.

AND you say that just because I dont understand something doesint mean its flawed, just want to make it clear that even if you think you understand something, doesint mean its NOT flawed.

And our traits are NOT what youd expect at all, we have evolved far in excess of whats needed to survive.





Please excuse my grammar I am quite tired and will elaborate further when the sun rises, Im here to learn, not argue.^___^

[edit on 4-11-2009 by Outlawstar]

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


I don't know what you're quoting from.

(Does anything divide people as much as religious beliefs?!)

Deep down,I believe we all have the same needs,and we're all looking to fill that void in our life that only a spiritual belief can inhabit.

There are many paths to follow. In the end we shall know the truth!

I wish you peace!