Religion/Spirituality The Intelligent Design/God/Theism Thread

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

1) You have obviously never read/heard of Plato's Demiurge, ID is about as old as logic breh.

2) No again, you keep twisting my words, ID rests on the simple statistical improbability that chance/randomness created the universe as we know it that's all. Again, we can't claim ID to be a fact, any more than we can claim the theory of relativity to be a fact, but we can come to a reasonable conclusion that ID is 10000x more likely to be true than evolution, similar to any scientific theory given the statistical probability of it being applicable to real life situations

1. I don't give a flying fukk how old the idea is. I only care if its true.

2. ID has no evidence to support it because the statistics it relies upon assumes universality in a realm that we can no determine such a thing, nor can we apply all of the variables claimed to be measured in a such a why to reliably make that sort of value judgement.

You are perverting the very statistics you claim to understand. They do not speak to the degree you wish them to

You can't rest your argument on "things were created because it seems unlikely they evolved"

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Yes, you're right, I can predictably confirm the same ratios apply to objects 7 billion light years away but I can't infer how the fact that the ratios exist by design, not by chance

You can't infer anything without proving it.

Furthermore, you are grossly misunderstood about these ratios if you think they're used in that way. Thats not what they're even asserting and you don't get to play fast and loose with definitions to suit your religiosity.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwich_Mean_Time



Yes Attorney-at-Law @Napoleon, I apologize, let me clarify my statement. Would you assume that 9 billion people jumping 10 inches in the air within a +/- 16 minute range is a chance occurrence?

I don't know and even if I could answer this, it doesn't substantiate there being a creator or not.

 

[blackzeus]

1. I don't give a flying fukk how old the idea is. I only care if its true.

2. ID has no evidence to support it because the statistics it relies upon assumes universality in a realm that we can no determine such a thing, nor can we apply all of the variables claimed to be measured in a such a why to reliably make that sort of value judgement.

You are perverting the very statistics you claim to understand. They do not speak to the degree you wish them to

You can't rest your argument on "things were created because it seems unlikely they evolved"

I'm using much stronger language than that breh, I'm using the words "statistically impossible". Again, please explain to me why I should abandon my common sense and scientific/statistical observations and believe that Curious George and I have a common ancestor It seems I am lacking of faith

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Please read the thread, unlike you, I'm not talking out of my azz:





Here in ID world we talk about quantifiable facts Again, we can't confirm anything for sure, we are talking statistics, but the statistical probability that these are chance occurrences are slim to none. It takes more faith to believe in randomness/chance/evolution/chaos than it does in ID. To quote the street poet Yo Gotti, "numbers don't lie"

your statistics do NOT relate to the arguments You're trying to make.

Its like you're relating geography andto to medicine.

 

[blackzeus]

1. I don't give a flying fukk how old the idea is. I only care if its true.

Yeah, you don't give a flying f*ck how old it is, but see nothing wrong with claiming it's a response to evolution?

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

@Mission249

My universal view is kind of a mixture of ID/Quantum Multiverse/Taoism if that makes any sense

oh ok...bullshyt.

 

[blackzeus]

I don't know and even if I could answer this, it doesn't substantiate there being a creator or not.

No @Napoleon Esq., 9 billion people jumpin up 10 inches at the same time most certainly doesn't substantiate a creator, but it does substantiate it's not a chance occurrence, that's the f*ckin' point of the analogy. You saying it's possible for objects billions of light years away observing the same laws to be a chance occurrence is the same as saying 9 billion people jumping up at approximately the same time is a chance occurrence, it's the same f*cking statistical impossibility.

 

[blackzeus]

your statistics do NOT relate to the arguments You're trying to make.

Its like you're relating geography andto to medicine.

Just say you don't agree and call it a night breh, you're making a fool of yourself, real talk, no ad hominem. 99% of theories are based on empirical data, yet you're saying the same scientific method of observation doesn't apply to ID

 

[blackzeus]

You can't infer anything without proving it.

Furthermore, you are grossly misunderstood about these ratios if you think they're used in that way. Thats not what they're even asserting and you don't get to play fast and loose with definitions to suit your religiosity.

You're right, I'm sorry, please explain to me what exactly is asserted by a fixed cosmological rate of expansion, and how it's used

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

oh ok...bullshyt.

youve been mad all day. im sorry my nuanced and presumably somewhat unique thought process regarding an incredibly complex universe irks u so much. as i recommended earlier to you..drink a cup of chamomile and relax.

 

[blackzeus]

youve been mad all day. im sorry my nuanced and presumably somewhat unique thought process regarding an incredibly complex universe irks u so much. as i recommended earlier to you..drink a cup of chamomile and relax.

I'm starting to think he's a descendant of Mao Zedong, it's @Napoleon's way or , no rational explanation needed

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

I'm starting to think he's a descendant of Mao Zedong, it's @Napoleon's way or , no rational explanation needed

hes acting like the vatican did with galileo. or better yet he should change his name to Robespierre

napoleon i recant. evolution and nothing else okay? dont send me to the guillotine

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Just say you don't agree and call it a night breh, you're making a fool of yourself, real talk, no ad hominem. 99% of theories are based on empirical data, yet you're saying the same scientific method of observation doesn't apply to ID

fukk agreeing with you.

You're fukking wrong. Thats the point.

You're misconstruing shyt that was not intended to be interpreted that way.

Just say you're a dumbass and be done with it.

"it seems impossible, therefore god did it"

fukking a$$hole.

 

[blackzeus]

fukk agreeing with you.

You're fukking wrong. Thats the point.

You're misconstruing shyt that was not intended to be interpreted that way.

Just say you're a dumbass and be done with it.

"it's statistically impossible this creation was by accident, therefore the likely conclusion is that somebody designed it"

fukking a$$hole.

OK breh, you're right, I'm wrong, you win, now please do us all a favor and go to sleep

EDIT: Fixed your post to accurately describe ID