Why mocking intelligent design believers scientifically is not fair

page: 4
10
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 15 2013 @ 02:54 PM
link   
Richard Dawkins' idea of the selfish gene is interesting in this context because it seems to imply some kind of intelligent design ala animism. I know that Dawkins would never admit this in a million years, and would fight it tooth and nail for the sake of philosophical materialism. But, the selfish gene that inspires altruism would not seem to arise from the mere competition between separate organisms. It would imply some kind of in-group altruism, the willingness of an organism to sacrifice themselves for the gene. That gene would actually precede the organism itself, a kind of computer program that operates non-locally.

Mind you it is not intelligent design the way that Behe believes in it, but it does seem to imply either irreducible complexity or else a complexity that is improbable. It probably implies the latter and not the former, but it is mysterious either way. Either way, however, it might imply some intelligence on the level of the gene itself. A selfish gene might have a quantum non-locality to it.

This view makes more sense than either Behe or Dawkins (although it synthesizes both of their positions). Evidence? I admit to being a non-scientist. I do believe that there are scientists who are discussing a Quantum view of life.

I am not ID in the sense that Behe is, or that the Discovery Institute would be. Irreducible complexity in the way that they believe in it ignores the possibility of intelligence being inherent in energy-matter itself.




posted on Apr, 16 2013 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
You do not understand me correctly. To me, the word God, means (potentially) a creator of the system we exist in and of; the universe.


We're discussing ID.....stop trying to change the subject.


I only offered the solution to suffering (if one is in such a state) is death, which fortunately is guaranteed, so noone will suffer eternally. So it seems we are given a chance to exist as ourselves for some time, and the rest is up to us and our environment. take it or leave it.


So you're answer is your God doesn't care about the suffering in the world because every-ones going to die eventually anyway?

Sounds like a swell guy



posted on Apr, 18 2013 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nightaudit
reply to post by ZeuZZ
 


The intelligent designers are against evolution. That is the reason why it is fair to mock them in a scientific context.

They could as well start to argue that the earth is flat.

Surely we do not know the answer to the big question yet, and I personally do believe in some form of deity behind all this.

But we shouldn´t forget scientific fact in the process.


I couldn't agree more. It is definitely fair to mock somebody who attacks an established foundation such as modern synthesis and uses all kinds fallacies in their arguments. There's nothing wrong with faith, but a lot of people have difficulty admitting that it is indeed faith, rather than fact, and they become so desperate to prove their side, that they ignore all facts and arguments against their misconceptions of science. I have no problem with people having beliefs, but when you start attacking a field of science that's been established for the last 150 years by experts in biology, you need more than simplistic arguments like "Why are there still apes, if we came from apes?" Nobody ever addresses the facts behind evolution, they find petty excuses to dismiss them, often just regurgitated nonsense from deceptive websites.
edit on 18-4-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 12:55 AM
link   
In his video Tyson goes over some "stupid design" arguments against God. He brings up human's not having a CO2 detector. He brings up we being practically blind, we can't see microwaves. We eat, speak, and breath through the same orifice.

He left out we can't fly, walk through walls, have unlimited takebacks, read people's minds, flicker like a lightning bug, sting like a scorpion, see the world in slow motion, whole body erotic zones, 50 more eyes, see in 4D, travel anywhere in seconds, freeze enemy's with our hands, print money out of the choking orifice, understand any and everything, create people, create souls, create universes.

Now you see what Neil is actually saying. He's saying If there was really a God, he, himself would be a God. Anything less is stupid design, in his eyes.

This is a Junior High argument. Seriously. I used to respect his vast knowledge of scientific questions, but how can any man, with an IQ over 85, logically use "stupid design" as an argument against God. What has he created? When he creates a scientist that gives lectures to other scientists that he created, and that scientist can contemplate whether they were actually designed "stupidly" or not, then I'm not impressed.

Just another mainstream TV character giving his own ego view on his religion.



posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 03:19 AM
link   
I believe in God AND I'm a scientist. What ever is to become of me?


Seriously though. Science is great for understanding quantitative things, but qualitative things not so much. I can find the utmost beauty and perfection in the infinitely complex systems which govern our planet, from the rock cycle to water cycles to predator/prey balance; so much so that my soul is filled with the most beautiful sense of knowing that there is a God who orchestrates this amazing dance.

Earth, left on it's own will always find balance. In that I find the most subtle and overwhelming divinity. This thing that brings joy to my heart, when stripped down, is a collection of scatterplots, timelines and spreadsheets. It can be defined, measured, counted, compared and contrasted. But yet there is something more, something which science is wholly ill equipped to define; the impression on one person's heart any particular thing can generate.

We can show which chemicals are released by the brain to "make" the feeling, but the why is unobtainable because each person's experience is uniquely theirs. Further it is the classic chicken vs. egg argument. Is a feeling an experience of dopamine and endorphines, or is a feeling the first neuron firing in the brain to command that biologic cocktail? Perhaps it is the very command from the subconscious telling the neuron to fire?

I feel God in the wilderness. Another may find God in music, art, children, service. The binding thread in all these diverse experiences is that these feeling come with an indescribable certainty that they do not originate from within oneself. The feelings are communication from God, unique to the individual and there is no way for any other person to prove or disprove the message.

So I concur with the thread title. It is unfair to mock intelligent design proponents. Granted the logic and credibility of the presenter may be questionable, but there are horrible geologists, chemists, physicists and others. We don't hear a presentation about ancient kraken making bone art and say, "Paleontologists are all a bunch of crackpots!"

And a final challenge: Could one of our modern science champions please explain exactly why the golden ratio is so completely and inextricably woven into the universe? There is data sitting on your keyboard right now (your fingers), in the way a hurricane spins in the sky, in the spiral of an extinct ammonoid, in the bloom of a flower, in the arms of the Milky Way...
Somewhere there is an answer to this, but science does not know it. Should we dismiss the possibility that there is a connecting factor and chalk it up to chance? Of course not. That is unscientific.

Just because we have grasped understanding of so many things, is it not unscientific and arrogant to dismiss the possibility of God purely out of spite, simply because He cannot be disproved?
edit on 19-4-2013 by blamethegreys because: I felt the pressing need to use more fancy words!



posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 04:13 AM
link   
reply to post by LewsTherinThelamon, et al, Regarding "God is a Piss Poor Designer"
 


There is a fundamental flaw in your reasoning regarding human imperfection:

You presume to have explicit understanding of the goal of the design. You base your arguments on your own concept of the optimal survival design. Even if we had separate tubes for eating, breathing, pissing and sexin' we'd still be sitting at our computers, and your argument would be that God should have included a secondary heart, or gills in case we fell into the water.

We are designed with a potential for incredible resilience, anecdotal stories describe the human body surviving inexplicable abuse. Yet at the same time a cherry pit can end us in a matter of minutes. In my mind, this range of frailty vs. resilience IS the perfected design.

We cannot debate the idea of God's human 2.0 (antediluvian man would be human 1.0
) without discussing the goals and purposes of the designer, right? You don't go buy a car w/o the salesman asking you about your driving habits, how fast you drive, etc.

God is not at the racetrack, betting on which of us will run the fastest in the most perfect physical shape. In fact, quite the opposite. God's goals for humans is based in experiences, emotions, challenges and trials. He wants us to grow in character, to love and serve one another, to have compassion and charity, to be humble and peaceful.
He weaves us like threads in a tapestry: Our physical challenges can build our spiritual strength, and at the same time provide opportunities for others to have compassion and serve. Untimely death has the potential to build humility and love for others. In the imperfections of our existence there are countless chances for us to grow as God desires us to.

In light of God's intended purpose for mankind, I think maybe the flaws ARE the perfection, as they provide plenty of challenges and trials with which He can provide us the means to grow as intended.
edit on 19-4-2013 by blamethegreys because: comma comma comma comma comma chameleon...



posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 04:22 AM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 04:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Y10H5W6H5
So Freaking Stupid....GOD Said, Let There be Light, and there was...


A perfectly formed sun all alone in a vast empty? A galaxy of stars, putting forth light? A universe filed with mature galaxies, all emitting light? A big bang, emitting arguably the largest amount of light ever?

And when you say light, I assume you're limiting it to the visible spectrum, right? So there might have been Gamma, UV, IR, microwave emmisions prior to the command for light?

I'm not mocking, I'm trying to illustrate how a scientific mind works. Rolling into this conversation and starting off with "So Freaking Stupid" adds nothing to the discussion, it does nothing to defend the faith, nor does it soften any hearts. I believe WWJD is pretty applicable here, no?



posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 04:53 AM
link   
When it's ok for 'Intelligent Design Believers' to classify someone like me as a 'baby sacrificing Hitler' I can only attribute that classification is coming from someone who despises ALL LIFE. You know, like burning midwives at the stake because they can bring forth a living, healthy child from a breach, or break a fever using what nature so abundantly provides, or who can bring forth they're own children, and help them understand what the great Geometer has cast, like oh, I don't know, Copernicus! ..Besides, there are "Intelligent Design Believers" still confused by that whole WW Eleven thing! Besides, I can't cast aspersions on people of faith, and that is all I can ask of those who lead a mundane life. To me, a person of faith is a person that has thought about it, and has doubt. A person who has faith can see the Mysterious Hand of the Divine in every day life, but can't follow the arc of it's perfection, or the mystery of the messages scribed on our souls.. When someone tells you a book will tell you the plan of the great architect, then you are witnessing the vanity of mankind it it's base form. The Mysterious hand doesn't need to leave post-it notes. Oh, but I forgot, those Pagans from days of old were SO STUPID, that they all had to be killed, by the Holy Roman Emperor! Pagans could NEVER fathom the idea of a trinity, or the sure and certain Love of a devoted Mother, or the Discipline needed to live an honorable life, learned from a caring Father. Or that life is the two trees, that we must all experience, the faith in renewal. Yeah, those Pagans sure were stupid! No one would EVER want to take after them. But Pagans believe one basic tenant above all else. When the Mysterious Hand designed THIS Universe, being the designer he was, he had the foresight to leave room for upgrades, and he made it plug and play, realizing at the beginning, the angry monkeys he left behind would spend a large part of they're 'formative' years killing each over which 'flavor' of Divine was best. Yeah, intelligent design doesn't hold up to when science runs out, things just keep on happening, and only the Mysterious Hand can guide us to those secrets. That is not 'design', that is majesty.



posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 05:05 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by blamethegreys
In light of God's intended purpose for mankind, I think maybe the flaws ARE the perfection, as they provide plenty of challenges and trials with which He can provide us the means to grow as intended.


So those 3,000+ deaths a year (mostly children) due to choking to death have failed the challenge/trial?

And those of us that have not choked to death while eating/drinking have passed?

What do we win? (ofc other than not dying)

Does passing these challenges/trials make us a better ghost/soul/spirit/whatever while we're in heaven? (or not)



posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Prezbo369

So those 3,000+ deaths a year (mostly children) due to choking to death have failed the challenge/trial?
And those of us that have not choked to death while eating/drinking have passed?
What do we win? (ofc other than not dying)
Does passing these challenges/trials make us a better ghost/soul/spirit/whatever while we're in heaven? (or not)



A) You see death as a cruelty, I see it as a door. If God chooses to bring someone through the door early, maybe it means that even at such a young age those individuals have learned what they needed here and have passed the challenge. My point was that in those situations, those of us left behind have more opportunity to grow from the pain of the loss. Hardship and tragedy accelerate our ability to grow if we choose positive over negative emotions. So the imperfections that can hold us back or kill us are by design, to create an imperfect and challenging life. Further, the imperfections in one can encourage multiple people to grow emotionally.

B) Those of who haven't choked to death haven't passed nor have we failed. We are still here, with further opportunity to grow.

C) Hmmm...what do we win? I guess in a nutshell I would say being in harmony with the universe? Perhaps being free (or nearly free) of anger, envy, hatred, lust, selfishness? No one wants to admit it, but generally speaking we choose how we face the world. In this debate we have to work with the supposition that God is the embodiment of these positive virtues. And additionally, he commands the universe. So mayhaps there's a direct connection between these positive virtues, the universe and God's power?

D) It's not a pass/fail/here's your grade thing. It's an effort thing. I could strive my whole life to improve my character. Another could drink and cheat and whore his way through life, but at some point realize he wants the positive and begin his work to improve. In the end, my reward is no greater than his reward. We both figured out what was important in this life, and were actively improving ourselves to the end.

But your questions are straying from the design debate. You're seeking a strawman in my theory, trying to disprove the premise that the purpose of the designed dictates the form. You can't turn on my answers and say my proposed "purpose" is invalid.
Discussing the validity of purpose is a philosophical debate, whereas the current debate is scientific regarding the design itself.



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by blamethegreys
You see death as a cruelty, I see it as a door. If God chooses to bring someone through the door early, maybe it means that even at such a young age those individuals have learned what they needed here and have passed the challenge.




I see you're from the WLC school of immorality, where the death of children is actually a good thing......


My point was that in those situations, those of us left behind have more opportunity to grow from the pain of the loss. Hardship and tragedy accelerate our ability to grow if we choose positive over negative emotions. So the imperfections that can hold us back or kill us are by design, to create an imperfect and challenging life. Further, the imperfections in one can encourage multiple people to grow emotionally.


You think the pain and loss of losing a child is also actually a good thing as it helps us 'grow emotionally'? I absolutely have to assume that you neither have any children nor have you ever suffered such a loss, it's the only way anyone could be that naive and unthinking.


Hmmm...what do we win? I guess in a nutshell I would say being in harmony with the universe? Perhaps being free (or nearly free) of anger, envy, hatred, lust, selfishness? No one wants to admit it, but generally speaking we choose how we face the world. In this debate we have to work with the supposition that God is the embodiment of these positive virtues. And additionally, he commands the universe. So mayhaps there's a direct connection between these positive virtues, the universe and God's power?


I'll agree that when we're dead we won't suffer any of those emotions, but ignoring the fact you actually didn't list any positive virtues I fail to see any connection whatsoever between said values, he universe and/or a God (certainly not the biblical one).


It's not a pass/fail/here's your grade thing. It's an effort thing. I could strive my whole life to improve my character. Another could drink and cheat and whore his way through life, but at some point realize he wants the positive and begin his work to improve. In the end, my reward is no greater than his reward. We both figured out what was important in this life, and were actively improving ourselves to the end.


So you'd get no more from this life than the other person, even though you 'strived' your whole life to improve? All that matters is that he/she tried in the end? Sounds like a contrived and completely pointless system tbh.


But your questions are straying from the design debate. You're seeking a strawman in my theory, trying to disprove the premise that the purpose of the designed dictates the form. You can't turn on my answers and say my proposed "purpose" is invalid.
Discussing the validity of purpose is a philosophical debate, whereas the current debate is scientific regarding the design itself.


No there's not a jot nor a tiddle of science in this thread, the debate is regarding theology or more specifically the claims made by intelligent design proponents.

The only purpose you've proposed has been 'emotional growth' in response to the flaws found in the human body and the subsequent deaths. And as I stated above, only the naive or green would make such an argument.

If anything, your reply has shown how such a worldview can leave you incredibly emotionally detached.



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Prezbo369

No there's not a jot nor a tiddle of science in this thread, the debate is regarding theology or more specifically the claims made by intelligent design proponents.


Firstly, you are right: I misspoke. This is not a scientific debate. It is a debate which I rebut using rules of logic. (See my toolbox in the signature area.) Here's the blow by blow for you: I challenged this argument from Lewstherinthelamon

Assertion 1: If there is a God, the imperfections of the human form prove he is a poor designer, since people die as a direct or secondary result of physical imperfection.
Assertion 2: God is perfect.
Conclusion: A perfect being cannot be an imperfect designer, therefore God is imperfect, or doesn't exist.
Assumed Supporting Data: That the design of humans is solely Darwinian, i.e. focused solely on individual survival and replication of the species.

My logic-based debate challenges the assumed supporting data, on which Assertion 1 hinges. By supplying an alternate, valid standard for the design of humans, I have logically invalidated Assertion 1. Without Assertion 1 being true, then Lewstherinthelamon's conclusion cannot stand, and is also invalidated.

It doesn't matter whether you like my alternate supporting data. One cannot include God in an argument, and then get mad when God is used in the rebuttal. It is valid, because it is a reasonable option for the frame of this argument; an argument in which God has been introduced by the antagonist.


The only purpose you've proposed has been 'emotional growth' in response to the flaws found in the human body and the subsequent deaths. And as I stated above, only the naive or green would make such an argument. If anything, your reply has shown how such a worldview can leave you incredibly emotionally detached.


Again, your opinion of my proposed purpose doesn't matter. Maybe I am naive and green, maybe not, but that has no bearing on the validity of my rebuttal.

My DISCUSSION with you was not an argument/counterargument. You posited a few theology-based questions, which I tried to answer in a civilized manner. I was pretty sure your questions were the set-up for pure theology arguments (which I do not do, b/c it is a circular trap, both sides leave pissed, and no one wins, except in their own minds)
We can all be nice even if we disagree. But sadly your response shows that you might need some emotional growth in the area of manners and maturity.

You accuse me of being from some "WLC (sic) school of immorality, where the death of children is actually a good thing...... " ( I don't get the reference, did you mean those Westboro Baptist Church cretins? )

You accuse me of being naive and unthinking.

You accuse me of being emotionally detached.

Let me reply as politely as I possibly can.

Just because I didn't explicitly say that loss of a child doesn't cause indescribable emotional pain, just because I didn't state that the loss of a child leaves you with an empty hole in your heart that never closes DOES NOT mean you should just assume I am some blithe imbecile spouting feel-goodies.

I have lived about half my life at this point. I have children. I know pain. I know loss. Intimately.

I assumed that the emotional growth I referred to when I graciously responded to your antagonistic questions wouldn't be ignorantly assumed to replace the grieving process. The growth I refer to comes after the wounds have closed (I don't know if they ever heal, really) I would explain further, but I sadly can't trust that you won't just twist and interpret my words into more vile and hurtful accusations.
edit on 20-4-2013 by blamethegreys because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by blamethegreys

My logic-based debate challenges the assumed supporting data, on which Assertion 1 hinges. By supplying an alternate, valid standard for the design of humans, I have logically invalidated Assertion 1. Without Assertion 1 being true, then Lewstherinthelamon's conclusion cannot stand, and is also invalidated.


Except it falls flat on its face when you consider that the 'imperfections' found in the design of the human body are also found throughout the natural world in an assortment of creatures that do not have the tools to 'grow emotionally'. This coupled with the fact that the 3,000+ people that do choke to death each year (mostly children) due to the 'design' of the larynx are in actuality a very small percentage of the human race which in turn only effect and allow very few to 'grow emotionally'. And what about those that never heal (as you mention), never get over the death of their children or loved ones? what about those who's whole lives are ruined due to this 'intended imperfection'?


You accuse me of being from some "WLC (sic) school of immorality, where the death of children is actually a good thing...... " ( I don't get the reference, did you mean those Westboro Baptist Church cretins? )


William Lane Craig, a delightful chap that spews the almost exact same argument as you have in regards to the deaths of children. Almost as bad as the WBC, but not quite.


Just because I didn't explicitly say that loss of a child doesn't cause indescribable emotional pain, just because I didn't state that the loss of a child leaves you with an empty hole in your heart that never closes DOES NOT mean you should just assume I am some blithe imbecile spouting feel-goodies.


Remember you said...........



You see death as a cruelty, I see it as a door. If God chooses to bring someone through the door early, maybe it means that even at such a young age those individuals have learned what they needed here and have passed the challenge.


and...


My point was that in those situations, those of us left behind have more opportunity to grow from the pain of the loss. Hardship and tragedy accelerate our ability to grow if we choose positive over negative emotions. So the imperfections that can hold us back or kill us are by design, to create an imperfect and challenging life. Further, the imperfections in one can encourage multiple people to grow emotionally.


It fits your description quite well.....


I assumed that the emotional growth I referred to when I graciously responded to your antagonistic questions wouldn't be ignorantly assumed to replace the grieving process. The growth I refer to comes after the wounds have closed (I don't know if they ever heal, really) I would explain further, but I sadly can't trust that you won't just twist and interpret my words into more vile and hurtful accusations.


I understand it's easy to become riled when someones argument leaves you feeling frustrated, but in this instance it's also left you contradicting yourself and not making much sense whatsoever....

Here's a pro tip that you could include in your 'Toolbox'.....think about your arguments before you present them. That way you'll become constant, you'll not have to completely change what it is you're attempting to say and in doing so lose all credibility in your arguments and above all you'll make sense...



posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Prezbo369
 



Except it falls flat on its face when you consider that the 'imperfections' found in the design of the human body are also found throughout the natural world in an assortment of creatures that do not have the tools to 'grow emotionally'. This coupled with the fact that the 3,000+ people that do choke to death each year (mostly children) due to the 'design' of the larynx are in actuality a very small percentage of the human race which in turn only effect and allow very few to 'grow emotionally'. And what about those that never heal (as you mention), never get over the death of their children or loved ones? what about those who's whole lives are ruined due to this 'intended imperfection'?


Sorry, but the constraints of the original argument made were the HUMAN design. Bringing addition species to the debate does not change the fact that I still invalidated the argument.

Whether 3000 or 300,000, my rebuttal relies in no way on volume or amount of 'emotional change'.

Your final questions has no bearing whatsoever on the argument, and is an attempt to drag me back into theologic discussion.

You appear to have visited my "toolbox" link, so maybe you should review the "fallacy fallacy", becuase your overall goal in continuing this argument is based on that logical fallacy. You are trying to find fallacy in my non-logic based theology discussion, and therefore dismiss my my logical rebuttal to the original argument.

Re: WLC, I have never heard of him before, and that clip from the David Pakman Show is all I have ever heard him speak. That being said, Pakman's claim that WLC says "God sent the shooter" is straight up false.
WLC is only saying that in the tragedy people can find inspiration. Nothing at all regarding God having sent the shooter.
Who did you listen to in that clip? WLC or Pakman? Pakman sounds like you, I bet you heard what he said, while the WLC clip sounded like adults in a Charlie Brown Special.



Remember you said...........


I don't see the point in the two quoted statements you used from my earlier post. I'm not sure exactly what the issue was there for you. It doesn't matter, because again, it has no bearing on the rebuttal I made that started this exchange. Again, reaching for a fallacy fallacy.


I understand it's easy to become riled when someones argument leaves you feeling frustrated, but in this instance it's also left you contradicting yourself and not making much sense whatsoever....

Here's a pro tip that you could include in your 'Toolbox'.....think about your arguments before you present them. That way you'll become constant, you'll not have to completely change what it is you're attempting to say and in doing so lose all credibility in your arguments and above all you'll make sense...


Sorry, I wasn't feeling frustrated, I was a little pissed that your would be such an ass as to accuse me of having no children, having not experienced death and loss of that scale. In retrospect, I shouldn't have been. This is the interwebz, where there's no face to connect to a voice, and people often post things they would hold back in a live conversation. But that's all beside the point.

The core problem you are having is that you are unable to see that there are two very different exchanges. The first is logic based, and uses my religious point of view only as a tool to invalidate the original argument. If the argument is a nail, and my tool needs to be a hammer, it doesn't matter if it is silver or blue, big or small. If it does the job, that is all that is required. You are arguing that the color & weight of my hammer matters.
The second exchange began when you asked my those questions regarding my philosophy on death and loss. My response was not in relation to the first exchange, but was an emotion-based writing to you. My intent was to clarify my beliefs to you, not support an earlier debate with another member. If you see contradictions and failings in my beliefs, so be it. The world keeps on spinning my friend.

edit on 21-4-2013 by blamethegreys because: forgetting one little backslash can mess up a whole post's format




posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 01:29 AM
link   
My view of evolution is closer to that of Teilhard than Darwin. I tend to think of evolution as spiritual. That can include natural selection as a material reality, valid on the Earth plane, but I tend to see material reality as ultimately illusory.

Unlike Teilhard I see the evolution of life as individual more than collective. As the soul needs new learning experiences, new forms of life will arise. We do not want to incarnate as animals forever. So, at some point humans arose.

Obviously I cannot prove this scientifically, so I won't bother putting it out there as a scientific idea. Natural selection fits the scientific evidence best, as understood in the empirical world of the five senses that most people dwell in. That is what should be taught in science class.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by blamethegreys

Sorry, but the constraints of the original argument made were the HUMAN design. Bringing addition species to the debate does not change the fact that I still invalidated the argument.


Lol right, and if everyone was able to exclude anything that completely invalidates their arguments no-one would ever have to concede an argument......


But the fact is I.D. describes the creation of the universe and everything contained within. And yes that includes animal species other than Homo sapiens.


Your final questions has no bearing whatsoever on the argument, and is an attempt to drag me back into theologic discussion.


This is a theological discussion.


You appear to have visited my "toolbox" link, so maybe you should review the "[url= fallacy[/url]", becuase your overall goal in continuing this argument is based on that logical fallacy. You are trying to find fallacy in my non-logic based theology discussion, and therefore dismiss my my logical rebuttal to the original argument.


I have found massive gaping holes in your 'logical rebuttal', right from the very start. Intentionally flawed design leading to the death of 3,000+ people a year (mostly children) so that those involved can 'grow emotionally', a beneficial process. Except no-one benefits from such events, not the dead child who suffered greatly and who's last moments in life were incredibly terrifying and not the family and friends who are forever scarred.



Who did you listen to in that clip? WLC or Pakman? Pakman sounds like you, I bet you heard what he said, while the WLC clip sounded like adults in a Charlie Brown Special.


Good grief.....why bother to ask me a question if you're only going to answer it for me?

That 'toolbox', use it...



Sorry, I wasn't feeling frustrated, I was a little pissed that your would be such an ass as to accuse me of having no children, having not experienced death and loss of that scale. In retrospect, I shouldn't have been. This is the interwebz, where there's no face to connect to a voice, and people often post things they would hold back in a live conversation.


So I guess whenever your child/children has choked on some food, you've been very calm and collected and gently informed them that they shouldn't worry because death is just a 'door'.....

This is why I didn't think you have children (and still don't).


If the argument is a nail, and my tool needs to be a hammer, it doesn't matter if it is silver or blue, big or small. If it does the job, that is all that is required. You are arguing that the color & weight of my hammer matters.


If the argument's a nail, you're using a watermelon....



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Prezbo369
 


Alright, this can go on forever, round and round. There are more important things the both of us could focus our attention on. This is why I hate posting in these forums, because eventually you get pulled into a fight with some pissy atheist who's only goal is to tear you down. I don't think there is anything I could say pro-faith that you wouldn't find fault in. You might find this article, written by an atheist, interesting.

I am officially conceding the argument. I am wrong. You are right. You are smarter, wittier, better at logic, and probably more handsome than I am. You are better educated, exist in a higher social class and likely your legacy will last far longer through time than mine. If there is anything I missed in this fellatiating concession, please let me know so I can appease you completely.

I meant what I said, you disagree: great, it happens. The world keeps on spinning. I will not be returning to this thread. Go ahead and start typing your "Mission Accomplished" speech. You're the king of the atheists.



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 06:03 PM
link   
Not sure if this fits your post, but here goes.
Though not stating this is fact or even my belief,
But as far a creationism/intelligent design/evolution,
Can't it be all of it..? Ponder this : God creates man out of thought and willed
It so, how is that not intelligent design? If we are to get anywhere
My belief is that we an believe in the creator and still believe in intelligent
Design. We can relate to what we know through science and we have our
Beliefs, be it spiritual or religious it can all be so, we need to th





new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join