Total Posts:131|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Objections to ID - #1 : ID is not science

Skeptical1
Posts: 697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2016 10:00:56 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
Intelligent Design (or Creationism Revisited) is the fundamentalist Christian sponsored attempt to ensure that religious dogma is represented in science classrooms throughout the US and elsewhere. Its proponents attempt to pass it off as science so that, at very least, it is taught alongside the established theory of evolution by natural selection. However, by "design", ID is not science (see below). As an aside, it seems somewhat absurd that ID advocates should claim "equal representation" in science classrooms for a "theory" which is accepted by less than 2% of scientists.

Science is the endeavour to observe, understand and explain the natural world. When there are gaps in our understanding of the natural world, science seeks to address these by finding natural explanations. Science does not address matters of religious belief. The entire point of ID is to find gaps in our understanding of the natural world, so that it can "prove" the presence of God (which it attempts to obfuscate by using the less tribal term "intelligent designer"). Where these gaps exist, ID claims "God did it".

To the best of my knowledge, ID "research" has not produced one single new natural explanation for any scientific problem. If I am wrong here, I would appreciate any reference to such a discovery. But I would think such a thing would be extremely rare. It is only by "demonstrating" that this organism or that could not have arrived through natural means that the IDer can support their hypothesis " that intervention by some intelligence had to occur. If a natural cause is found, then the discovery is of no use to the ID argument. This is the very antithesis of the scientific method.
Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2016 10:11:33 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/6/2016 10:00:56 PM, Skeptical1 wrote:
Intelligent Design (or Creationism Revisited) is the fundamentalist Christian sponsored attempt to ensure that religious dogma is represented in science classrooms throughout the US and elsewhere. Its proponents attempt to pass it off as science so that, at very least, it is taught alongside the established theory of evolution by natural selection. However, by "design", ID is not science (see below). As an aside, it seems somewhat absurd that ID advocates should claim "equal representation" in science classrooms for a "theory" which is accepted by less than 2% of scientists.

Science is the endeavour to observe, understand and explain the natural world. When there are gaps in our understanding of the natural world, science seeks to address these by finding natural explanations. Science does not address matters of religious belief. The entire point of ID is to find gaps in our understanding of the natural world, so that it can "prove" the presence of God (which it attempts to obfuscate by using the less tribal term "intelligent designer"). Where these gaps exist, ID claims "God did it".

To the best of my knowledge, ID "research" has not produced one single new natural explanation for any scientific problem. If I am wrong here, I would appreciate any reference to such a discovery. But I would think such a thing would be extremely rare. It is only by "demonstrating" that this organism or that could not have arrived through natural means that the IDer can support their hypothesis " that intervention by some intelligence had to occur. If a natural cause is found, then the discovery is of no use to the ID argument. This is the very antithesis of the scientific method.

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au...

This is from 2005 and people were aware that ID is fundamentally retarted.
YYW
Posts: 36,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2016 10:12:49 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
It amazes me that people are so dumb that they still think intelligent design is even worth debating.
Tsar of DDO
Skeptical1
Posts: 697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2016 10:15:42 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/6/2016 10:12:49 PM, YYW wrote:
It amazes me that people are so dumb that they still think intelligent design is even worth debating.

If you don't want children in your classrooms being told that the best explanation for everything is "God did it", it's worth debating.
YYW
Posts: 36,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2016 10:17:38 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/6/2016 10:15:42 PM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 11/6/2016 10:12:49 PM, YYW wrote:
It amazes me that people are so dumb that they still think intelligent design is even worth debating.

If you don't want children in your classrooms being told that the best explanation for everything is "God did it", it's worth debating.

Wrong. The best solution to the problem is to openly mock any person who supports intelligent design. There is no reasonable discussion about this. To support it is to indicate that that person is stupid and their opinion isn't worth listening to.
Tsar of DDO
Skeptical1
Posts: 697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2016 10:19:25 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/6/2016 10:11:33 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 11/6/2016 10:00:56 PM, Skeptical1 wrote:
Intelligent Design (or Creationism Revisited) is the fundamentalist Christian sponsored attempt to ensure that religious dogma is represented in science classrooms throughout the US and elsewhere. Its proponents attempt to pass it off as science so that, at very least, it is taught alongside the established theory of evolution by natural selection. However, by "design", ID is not science (see below). As an aside, it seems somewhat absurd that ID advocates should claim "equal representation" in science classrooms for a "theory" which is accepted by less than 2% of scientists.

Science is the endeavour to observe, understand and explain the natural world. When there are gaps in our understanding of the natural world, science seeks to address these by finding natural explanations. Science does not address matters of religious belief. The entire point of ID is to find gaps in our understanding of the natural world, so that it can "prove" the presence of God (which it attempts to obfuscate by using the less tribal term "intelligent designer"). Where these gaps exist, ID claims "God did it".

To the best of my knowledge, ID "research" has not produced one single new natural explanation for any scientific problem. If I am wrong here, I would appreciate any reference to such a discovery. But I would think such a thing would be extremely rare. It is only by "demonstrating" that this organism or that could not have arrived through natural means that the IDer can support their hypothesis " that intervention by some intelligence had to occur. If a natural cause is found, then the discovery is of no use to the ID argument. This is the very antithesis of the scientific method.

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au...

This is from 2005 and people were aware that ID is fundamentally retarted.

An excellent case for the affirmative. Unfortunately, if you actually live in Australia, you will know that a combination of conservative state and federal governments have attempted to increase the role played by religion in state schools. Thus this argument is not settled by any means - even here.
Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2016 10:20:34 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/6/2016 10:19:25 PM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 11/6/2016 10:11:33 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 11/6/2016 10:00:56 PM, Skeptical1 wrote:
Intelligent Design (or Creationism Revisited) is the fundamentalist Christian sponsored attempt to ensure that religious dogma is represented in science classrooms throughout the US and elsewhere. Its proponents attempt to pass it off as science so that, at very least, it is taught alongside the established theory of evolution by natural selection. However, by "design", ID is not science (see below). As an aside, it seems somewhat absurd that ID advocates should claim "equal representation" in science classrooms for a "theory" which is accepted by less than 2% of scientists.

Science is the endeavour to observe, understand and explain the natural world. When there are gaps in our understanding of the natural world, science seeks to address these by finding natural explanations. Science does not address matters of religious belief. The entire point of ID is to find gaps in our understanding of the natural world, so that it can "prove" the presence of God (which it attempts to obfuscate by using the less tribal term "intelligent designer"). Where these gaps exist, ID claims "God did it".

To the best of my knowledge, ID "research" has not produced one single new natural explanation for any scientific problem. If I am wrong here, I would appreciate any reference to such a discovery. But I would think such a thing would be extremely rare. It is only by "demonstrating" that this organism or that could not have arrived through natural means that the IDer can support their hypothesis " that intervention by some intelligence had to occur. If a natural cause is found, then the discovery is of no use to the ID argument. This is the very antithesis of the scientific method.

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au...

This is from 2005 and people were aware that ID is fundamentally retarted.

An excellent case for the affirmative. Unfortunately, if you actually live in Australia, you will know that a combination of conservative state and federal governments have attempted to increase the role played by religion in state schools. Thus this argument is not settled by any means - even here.

I never said it was settled, just showing that even 10 years ago scientists thought ID was not science(it's not even a valid theory at that)
Skeptical1
Posts: 697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2016 10:22:07 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/6/2016 10:20:34 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 11/6/2016 10:19:25 PM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 11/6/2016 10:11:33 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 11/6/2016 10:00:56 PM, Skeptical1 wrote:
Intelligent Design (or Creationism Revisited) is the fundamentalist Christian sponsored attempt to ensure that religious dogma is represented in science classrooms throughout the US and elsewhere. Its proponents attempt to pass it off as science so that, at very least, it is taught alongside the established theory of evolution by natural selection. However, by "design", ID is not science (see below). As an aside, it seems somewhat absurd that ID advocates should claim "equal representation" in science classrooms for a "theory" which is accepted by less than 2% of scientists.

Science is the endeavour to observe, understand and explain the natural world. When there are gaps in our understanding of the natural world, science seeks to address these by finding natural explanations. Science does not address matters of religious belief. The entire point of ID is to find gaps in our understanding of the natural world, so that it can "prove" the presence of God (which it attempts to obfuscate by using the less tribal term "intelligent designer"). Where these gaps exist, ID claims "God did it".

To the best of my knowledge, ID "research" has not produced one single new natural explanation for any scientific problem. If I am wrong here, I would appreciate any reference to such a discovery. But I would think such a thing would be extremely rare. It is only by "demonstrating" that this organism or that could not have arrived through natural means that the IDer can support their hypothesis " that intervention by some intelligence had to occur. If a natural cause is found, then the discovery is of no use to the ID argument. This is the very antithesis of the scientific method.

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au...

This is from 2005 and people were aware that ID is fundamentally retarted.

An excellent case for the affirmative. Unfortunately, if you actually live in Australia, you will know that a combination of conservative state and federal governments have attempted to increase the role played by religion in state schools. Thus this argument is not settled by any means - even here.

I never said it was settled, just showing that even 10 years ago scientists thought ID was not science(it's not even a valid theory at that)

Agreed.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2016 1:01:23 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
ID is a scientific theory. I'm reading a book on it right now. I'll get back to you in a few weeks.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2016 1:05:52 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/7/2016 1:01:23 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
ID is a scientific theory. I'm reading a book on it right now. I'll get back to you in a few weeks.

Name the book.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2016 1:58:24 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/7/2016 1:05:52 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/7/2016 1:01:23 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
ID is a scientific theory. I'm reading a book on it right now. I'll get back to you in a few weeks.

Name the book.

Signature in the cell
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2016 2:17:04 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/7/2016 1:58:24 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/7/2016 1:05:52 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/7/2016 1:01:23 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
ID is a scientific theory. I'm reading a book on it right now. I'll get back to you in a few weeks.

Name the book.

Signature in the cell

I think that book has been debunked refuted several times as dishonest misrepresentations.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Archaholic
Posts: 262
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2016 3:42:52 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/7/2016 2:17:04 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 11/7/2016 1:58:24 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/7/2016 1:05:52 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/7/2016 1:01:23 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
ID is a scientific theory. I'm reading a book on it right now. I'll get back to you in a few weeks.

Name the book.

Signature in the cell

I think that book has been debunked refuted several times as dishonest misrepresentations.

Debunked by who? Atheists?

Why people assume that a designer should necessarily mean a "God"?
dee-em
Posts: 6,482
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2016 4:48:37 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/7/2016 3:42:52 AM, Archaholic wrote:
At 11/7/2016 2:17:04 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 11/7/2016 1:58:24 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/7/2016 1:05:52 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/7/2016 1:01:23 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
ID is a scientific theory. I'm reading a book on it right now. I'll get back to you in a few weeks.

Name the book.

Signature in the cell

I think that book has been debunked refuted several times as dishonest misrepresentations.

Debunked by who? Atheists?

No, biologists. They strictly didn't need to since Meyer is a philosopher not a scientist.

Why people assume that a designer should necessarily mean a "God"?

Don't be naive. (Or expect that we are naive).
Willows
Posts: 2,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2016 11:56:46 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/6/2016 10:19:25 PM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 11/6/2016 10:11:33 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 11/6/2016 10:00:56 PM, Skeptical1 wrote:
Intelligent Design (or Creationism Revisited) is the fundamentalist Christian sponsored attempt to ensure that religious dogma is represented in science classrooms throughout the US and elsewhere. Its proponents attempt to pass it off as science so that, at very least, it is taught alongside the established theory of evolution by natural selection. However, by "design", ID is not science (see below). As an aside, it seems somewhat absurd that ID advocates should claim "equal representation" in science classrooms for a "theory" which is accepted by less than 2% of scientists.

Science is the endeavour to observe, understand and explain the natural world. When there are gaps in our understanding of the natural world, science seeks to address these by finding natural explanations. Science does not address matters of religious belief. The entire point of ID is to find gaps in our understanding of the natural world, so that it can "prove" the presence of God (which it attempts to obfuscate by using the less tribal term "intelligent designer"). Where these gaps exist, ID claims "God did it".

To the best of my knowledge, ID "research" has not produced one single new natural explanation for any scientific problem. If I am wrong here, I would appreciate any reference to such a discovery. But I would think such a thing would be extremely rare. It is only by "demonstrating" that this organism or that could not have arrived through natural means that the IDer can support their hypothesis " that intervention by some intelligence had to occur. If a natural cause is found, then the discovery is of no use to the ID argument. This is the very antithesis of the scientific method.

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au...

This is from 2005 and people were aware that ID is fundamentally retarted.

An excellent case for the affirmative. Unfortunately, if you actually live in Australia, you will know that a combination of conservative state and federal governments have attempted to increase the role played by religion in state schools. Thus this argument is not settled by any means - even here.

My understanding was that federal government at least were not supporting the payment of religious counsellors in state schools.
Skeptical1
Posts: 697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2016 12:07:42 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/7/2016 11:56:46 AM, Willows wrote:
At 11/6/2016 10:19:25 PM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 11/6/2016 10:11:33 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 11/6/2016 10:00:56 PM, Skeptical1 wrote:
Intelligent Design (or Creationism Revisited) is the fundamentalist Christian sponsored attempt to ensure that religious dogma is represented in science classrooms throughout the US and elsewhere. Its proponents attempt to pass it off as science so that, at very least, it is taught alongside the established theory of evolution by natural selection. However, by "design", ID is not science (see below). As an aside, it seems somewhat absurd that ID advocates should claim "equal representation" in science classrooms for a "theory" which is accepted by less than 2% of scientists.

Science is the endeavour to observe, understand and explain the natural world. When there are gaps in our understanding of the natural world, science seeks to address these by finding natural explanations. Science does not address matters of religious belief. The entire point of ID is to find gaps in our understanding of the natural world, so that it can "prove" the presence of God (which it attempts to obfuscate by using the less tribal term "intelligent designer"). Where these gaps exist, ID claims "God did it".

To the best of my knowledge, ID "research" has not produced one single new natural explanation for any scientific problem. If I am wrong here, I would appreciate any reference to such a discovery. But I would think such a thing would be extremely rare. It is only by "demonstrating" that this organism or that could not have arrived through natural means that the IDer can support their hypothesis " that intervention by some intelligence had to occur. If a natural cause is found, then the discovery is of no use to the ID argument. This is the very antithesis of the scientific method.

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au...

This is from 2005 and people were aware that ID is fundamentally retarted.

An excellent case for the affirmative. Unfortunately, if you actually live in Australia, you will know that a combination of conservative state and federal governments have attempted to increase the role played by religion in state schools. Thus this argument is not settled by any means - even here.

My understanding was that federal government at least were not supporting the payment of religious counsellors in state schools.

I wasn't aware of any change, so I did a quick Google search, which found this on the ABC News website. As you can see, it says the article was updated just last month:

Budget 2014: Funding for secular counsellors cut in school chaplaincy program
By political reporter Eliza Borrello
Updated 6 Oct 2016, 12:41pm

The Government has already put chaplains in more than 2,500 Australian schools.

A school group says the scrapping of funding for non-religious counsellors under the National School Chaplaincy Program is doing students a disservice.

Labor allowed secular student welfare workers to be funded under the scheme but the Federal Government has reversed the decision in the federal budget and will only pay for chaplains.
Willows
Posts: 2,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2016 12:12:59 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/7/2016 12:07:42 PM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 11/7/2016 11:56:46 AM, Willows wrote:
At 11/6/2016 10:19:25 PM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 11/6/2016 10:11:33 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 11/6/2016 10:00:56 PM, Skeptical1 wrote:
Intelligent Design (or Creationism Revisited) is the fundamentalist Christian sponsored attempt to ensure that religious dogma is represented in science classrooms throughout the US and elsewhere. Its proponents attempt to pass it off as science so that, at very least, it is taught alongside the established theory of evolution by natural selection. However, by "design", ID is not science (see below). As an aside, it seems somewhat absurd that ID advocates should claim "equal representation" in science classrooms for a "theory" which is accepted by less than 2% of scientists.

Science is the endeavour to observe, understand and explain the natural world. When there are gaps in our understanding of the natural world, science seeks to address these by finding natural explanations. Science does not address matters of religious belief. The entire point of ID is to find gaps in our understanding of the natural world, so that it can "prove" the presence of God (which it attempts to obfuscate by using the less tribal term "intelligent designer"). Where these gaps exist, ID claims "God did it".

To the best of my knowledge, ID "research" has not produced one single new natural explanation for any scientific problem. If I am wrong here, I would appreciate any reference to such a discovery. But I would think such a thing would be extremely rare. It is only by "demonstrating" that this organism or that could not have arrived through natural means that the IDer can support their hypothesis " that intervention by some intelligence had to occur. If a natural cause is found, then the discovery is of no use to the ID argument. This is the very antithesis of the scientific method.

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au...

This is from 2005 and people were aware that ID is fundamentally retarted.

An excellent case for the affirmative. Unfortunately, if you actually live in Australia, you will know that a combination of conservative state and federal governments have attempted to increase the role played by religion in state schools. Thus this argument is not settled by any means - even here.

My understanding was that federal government at least were not supporting the payment of religious counsellors in state schools.

I wasn't aware of any change, so I did a quick Google search, which found this on the ABC News website. As you can see, it says the article was updated just last month:

Budget 2014: Funding for secular counsellors cut in school chaplaincy program
By political reporter Eliza Borrello
Updated 6 Oct 2016, 12:41pm

The Government has already put chaplains in more than 2,500 Australian schools.

A school group says the scrapping of funding for non-religious counsellors under the National School Chaplaincy Program is doing students a disservice.

Labor allowed secular student welfare workers to be funded under the scheme but the Federal Government has reversed the decision in the federal budget and will only pay for chaplains.

Thanks for that. I'll have a look into it when I get a chance.
MasonicSlayer
Posts: 2,379
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2016 1:38:23 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/7/2016 2:17:04 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 11/7/2016 1:58:24 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/7/2016 1:05:52 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/7/2016 1:01:23 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
ID is a scientific theory. I'm reading a book on it right now. I'll get back to you in a few weeks.

Name the book.

Signature in the cell

I think that book has been debunked refuted several times as dishonest misrepresentations.

I would like to debunk your honesty with a series of questions for you to answer. Would you like to take my test of honesty? If you fail my test, it will be for one of two reasons. One possibility would suggest you are ignorant of the truthfulness of the facts to these questions. The other possibility would say you are lying about the facts. Both possibilities would render any future assements from you as wasteful intellections. Do you accept this challenge?
bulproof
Posts: 25,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2016 2:08:21 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/7/2016 1:38:23 PM, MasonicSlayer wrote:
At 11/7/2016 2:17:04 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 11/7/2016 1:58:24 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/7/2016 1:05:52 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/7/2016 1:01:23 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
ID is a scientific theory. I'm reading a book on it right now. I'll get back to you in a few weeks.

Name the book.

Signature in the cell

I think that book has been debunked refuted several times as dishonest misrepresentations.

I would like to debunk your honesty with a series of questions for you to answer. Would you like to take my test of honesty? If you fail my test, it will be for one of two reasons. One possibility would suggest you are ignorant of the truthfulness of the facts to these questions. The other possibility would say you are lying about the facts. Both possibilities would render any future assements from you as wasteful intellections. Do you accept this challenge?
That's funny.
The moronicsayer is incapable of recognising design much less honesty.
He does provide lots of laughs though.
Archaholic
Posts: 262
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2016 2:16:18 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/7/2016 4:48:37 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/7/2016 3:42:52 AM, Archaholic wrote:
At 11/7/2016 2:17:04 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 11/7/2016 1:58:24 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/7/2016 1:05:52 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/7/2016 1:01:23 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
ID is a scientific theory. I'm reading a book on it right now. I'll get back to you in a few weeks.

Name the book.

Signature in the cell

I think that book has been debunked refuted several times as dishonest misrepresentations.

Debunked by who? Atheists?

No, biologists. They strictly didn't need to since Meyer is a philosopher not a scientist.

Why people assume that a designer should necessarily mean a "God"?

Don't be naive. (Or expect that we are naive).

You know, much of the science comes from philosophy, so I don't see why dismiss certain ideas. Is it because they are closed to some religion beliefs? That would be a pity.

Scientists should and must be open to new thoughts and ideas, because it can lead us to new discoveries. The fact that cells are intelligent, or act like a computer, is not far-fetched at all, it is actually something deserved to be far studied.

I would like to drop some links that can help you to see such an interesting theory, more interesting and believable than randomness in life evolution.

http://energeticsinstitute.com.au...
http://www.basic.northwestern.edu...

BR
MasonicSlayer
Posts: 2,379
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2016 2:21:27 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/7/2016 2:08:21 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 11/7/2016 1:38:23 PM, MasonicSlayer wrote:
At 11/7/2016 2:17:04 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 11/7/2016 1:58:24 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/7/2016 1:05:52 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/7/2016 1:01:23 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
ID is a scientific theory. I'm reading a book on it right now. I'll get back to you in a few weeks.

Name the book.

Signature in the cell

I think that book has been debunked refuted several times as dishonest misrepresentations.

I would like to debunk your honesty with a series of questions for you to answer. Would you like to take my test of honesty? If you fail my test, it will be for one of two reasons. One possibility would suggest you are ignorant of the truthfulness of the facts to these questions. The other possibility would say you are lying about the facts. Both possibilities would render any future assements from you as wasteful intellections. Do you accept this challenge?
That's funny.
The moronicsayer is incapable of recognising design much less honesty.
He does provide lots of laughs though.

The test is funny if you want to laugh at it. However, if you take the test and provide direct answers that are relatable to the questions, this now adds a seriousness to the credibilities to the participants.

You do not like to answer questions. You speak with a laziness of irresponsible generalizations. This can be a result of an immature mind, or the actions of a deceptive mind. I'm still waiting for you to respond to my last question regarding your statement of Jesus being a liar. You asked me to explain why he is a liar of something. I asked you to become specific. You then walked away. You had to walk away. Had you been specific you would have lost whatever pathetic angle you were trying to spin.
bulproof
Posts: 25,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2016 2:24:04 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/7/2016 2:16:18 PM, Archaholic wrote:
Scientists should and must be open to new thoughts and ideas, because it can lead us to new discoveries. The fact that cells are intelligent, or act like a computer, is not far-fetched at all, it is actually something deserved to be far studied.
I assume that you are devoting you efforts to support this nonsense with evidence you are gathering? No?
Perhaps you should start investigating the information that invisible green aliens occupy every room in the whitehouse while you are about it, they are related fields of science.
Archaholic
Posts: 262
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2016 2:26:53 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/7/2016 2:24:04 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 11/7/2016 2:16:18 PM, Archaholic wrote:
Scientists should and must be open to new thoughts and ideas, because it can lead us to new discoveries. The fact that cells are intelligent, or act like a computer, is not far-fetched at all, it is actually something deserved to be far studied.
I assume that you are devoting you efforts to support this nonsense with evidence you are gathering? No?
Perhaps you should start investigating the information that invisible green aliens occupy every room in the whitehouse while you are about it, they are related fields of science.
Have you bothered to see the links I provided? This is a theory being researched in several universities. So, don't come to tell me about nonsense.
bulproof
Posts: 25,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2016 2:28:46 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/7/2016 2:26:53 PM, Archaholic wrote:
At 11/7/2016 2:24:04 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 11/7/2016 2:16:18 PM, Archaholic wrote:
Scientists should and must be open to new thoughts and ideas, because it can lead us to new discoveries. The fact that cells are intelligent, or act like a computer, is not far-fetched at all, it is actually something deserved to be far studied.
I assume that you are devoting you efforts to support this nonsense with evidence you are gathering? No?
Perhaps you should start investigating the information that invisible green aliens occupy every room in the whitehouse while you are about it, they are related fields of science.
Have you bothered to see the links I provided? This is a theory being researched in several universities. So, don't come to tell me about nonsense.
Is the great Liberty one of them? hahaha
GlorifiedOne
Posts: 33
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2016 2:29:45 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/6/2016 10:12:49 PM, YYW wrote:
It amazes me that people are so dumb that they still think intelligent design is even worth debating. : :

It's not nearly as stupid as people not believing that the voice of God is similar to the voice recognition software/search engine technology that God had people build in his simulation program. Many prophets and all us saints have experience listening to the voice that God created within his simulation program that is like HAL in 2001 Space Odyssey. Why do you think God had man put that movie together? That got his characters called computer scientists to develop technology that could recognize voices and also speak.

Revelation 13
15: and it was allowed to give breath to the image of the beast so that the image of the beast should even speak, and to cause those who would not worship the image of the beast to be slain.

God knew a long time ago that his characters would be building computer technology with voices that could speak.
bulproof
Posts: 25,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2016 2:33:18 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/7/2016 2:29:45 PM, GlorifiedOne wrote:
At 11/6/2016 10:12:49 PM, YYW wrote:
It amazes me that people are so dumb that they still think intelligent design is even worth debating. : :

It's not nearly as stupid as people not believing that the voice of God is similar to the voice recognition software/search engine technology that God had people build in his simulation program. Many prophets and all us saints have experience listening to the voice that God created within his simulation program that is like HAL in 2001 Space Odyssey. Why do you think God had man put that movie together? That got his characters called computer scientists to develop technology that could recognize voices and also speak.

Revelation 13
15: and it was allowed to give breath to the image of the beast so that the image of the beast should even speak, and to cause those who would not worship the image of the beast to be slain.

God knew a long time ago that his characters would be building computer technology with voices that could speak.
Fukk Off BOG.
Archaholic
Posts: 262
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2016 2:33:47 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/7/2016 2:28:46 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 11/7/2016 2:26:53 PM, Archaholic wrote:
At 11/7/2016 2:24:04 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 11/7/2016 2:16:18 PM, Archaholic wrote:
Scientists should and must be open to new thoughts and ideas, because it can lead us to new discoveries. The fact that cells are intelligent, or act like a computer, is not far-fetched at all, it is actually something deserved to be far studied.
I assume that you are devoting you efforts to support this nonsense with evidence you are gathering? No?
Perhaps you should start investigating the information that invisible green aliens occupy every room in the whitehouse while you are about it, they are related fields of science.
Have you bothered to see the links I provided? This is a theory being researched in several universities. So, don't come to tell me about nonsense.
Is the great Liberty one of them? hahaha

Why are you so afraid to see the links? It is not about God or religious, it is pure science. This is assuming you are interested in science.
GlorifiedOne
Posts: 33
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2016 2:34:39 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/7/2016 2:33:18 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 11/7/2016 2:29:45 PM, GlorifiedOne wrote:
At 11/6/2016 10:12:49 PM, YYW wrote:
It amazes me that people are so dumb that they still think intelligent design is even worth debating. : :

It's not nearly as stupid as people not believing that the voice of God is similar to the voice recognition software/search engine technology that God had people build in his simulation program. Many prophets and all us saints have experience listening to the voice that God created within his simulation program that is like HAL in 2001 Space Odyssey. Why do you think God had man put that movie together? That got his characters called computer scientists to develop technology that could recognize voices and also speak.

Revelation 13
15: and it was allowed to give breath to the image of the beast so that the image of the beast should even speak, and to cause those who would not worship the image of the beast to be slain.

God knew a long time ago that his characters would be building computer technology with voices that could speak.
Fukk Off BOG. : :

It's pretty amazing how God had one of his saints write about voice recognition software 2,000 years ago built according to His thoughts called the Beast.