Religion/Spirituality The Intelligent Design/God/Theism Thread

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

I'll watch your videos a little later on to respond intelligently, but if you've read Plato's Demiurge, you'll note that ID has existed since ancient times, whether or not Creationists gave rebirth to the idea in the USA is another topic which I'll claim ignorance on for now, give me a few to watch these videos, but ID is a very old idea in and of itself.

WHY DOES ANYONE GIVE A fukk WHAT SOME GUY 2000+ YEARS AGO THINKS ABOUT MODERN BIOLOGY?!?!?!

EVEN DARWIN GOT ASPECTS OF MODERN EVOLUTIONARY THEORY WRONG!!!!

FOR fukkS SAKE YOU ASSWIPE. GO FESTER SOMEWHERE ELSE WITH THIS B U L L shyt.

 

[blackzeus]

None of this matters. Your beliefs are not substantiated with any evidence besides sheer faith.

They mock you for believing in the statistically improbable, and at the same time mock you for believing in the statistically probable. And then claim they are not part of a religion

 

[tmonster]

3. did that, thus this thread, but will google the arguments for and against irreducible complexity and junk DNA in terms of the ID vs evolution debate later this evening

ok

4. a1) ok so you're saying I should take randomness and complexity being divorced on faith? a2) you didn't answer the question about the laptop, is it logical to assume then that my laptop could possibly be a product of evolution since order and randomness are completely divorced? b) You used the word teleogically, not me, so I have the right to ask you what you are trying to infer by that. Purpose deals with the intent of the designer, not the fact of it was designed or not. Yes, in regards to purpose, yes, order and randomness are divorced, but not in terms of design. Feel free to correct me as to why I'm wrong if you feel I am wrong in this aspect

I told you to feel free to assume that your laptop is a product of evolution, so go ahead. technically can you prove that your laptop is not a product of evolution?

5. I read your post, you said, that the stated facts were not evidence, so I am trying to wrap my head around the idea of how complexity is irrelevant to the fact of the existence of a designer or not breh. If I understand you correctly, you are saying it's equally if not more logical to assume my cell phone is a product of evolution rather than intelligent design, because the complexity of the cell phone is irrelevant to the idea that the cellphone was intelligently designed. Is this correct?

stated facts not in evidence

 

[blackzeus]

Too bad.

I could claim the universe was created by fat women on LSD...doesn't make it true

Yes, but ID makes claims based on empirical evidence and statistical probabilities, not understanding how that is analogous to the fictional example you gave that was the invention of your imagination

 

[blackzeus]

I told you to feel free to assume that your laptop is a product of evolution, so go ahead. technically can you prove that your laptop is not a product of evolution?

Now we're getting somewhere, thanks for claiming your point is true Now to answer your question, you are right, technically, unless I am at a Taiwanese factory videotaping the creation of my laptop, I can't assume it's not a product of evolution. (I can but you guys are lawyers so I'll roll with it ...) However, I can use complexity and statistics to conclude that is 99.9% probable it is a product of intelligent design vs a pure chance occurrence. From that point, I can either have faith in what is 99.9% probable, or have faith in the .1% probability that it came to be by chance. So...

a) why should I believe in what is .1% probable?

b) how does your position not require more faith than mine?

 

[tmonster]

Now we're getting somewhere, thanks for claiming your point is true Now to answer your question, you are right, technically, unless I am at a Taiwanese factory videotaping the creation of my laptop, I can't assume it's not a product of evolution.

assume video is provided

 

[blackzeus]

assume video is provided

Breh, you're blowing my mind no homo Are you insinuating confirmed video proof of something being intelligently designed is not in fact sufficient proof of ID? Did the Steelers not beat the Bengals yesterday?

 

[Won Won]

However, I can use complexity and statistics to conclude that is 99.9% probable it is a product of intelligent design

Can you explain the process you used?

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

I didnt say it has more or less leverage.

Philosophy has less leverage. You all can't answer any statements of fact through testing, but rather question conclusions. All you're good for is the freshman logic class and a money making major for your respective universities. A bit like theology.

I said I have more expertise in philosophy than science.

And it shows. Even a few intro classes would nip all this dumb shyt in the bud...but now you're here trying to get a crash course on how the world actually works and you're having a hard time because you chose to major in bullshyt.

My daily job depends on knowing this information in the sciences/medical field...so its in your best interest to capitulate and admit your inadequacy here.

My mind is literally blown that you think that YOUR stance is scientifically verifiable.

Evolution exists. Panspermia is probably true (thanks to EXPERIMENTS DONE OUTSIDE OF EARTH). And evolution says nothing about intelligent design. It doesn't come up. ID is merely a way for theists to pretend to have a dog in the fight. Evolution doesn't talk about origins, only the change of life. There are some great theories about origins, none of which need supernatural causes (look up cyanobacteria and abiogenesis) but for you to understand this would probably take a few grand, since you don't have the patience to watch a few khan academy videos.

I have said mine probably isnt.

I truly don't care. Evidence is all I deal with.

All you can do is poke holes in every one elses theories but you havent and cant prove your own with anything.

Thats what happens when you assert bullshyt. And now you're realizing this.

And you do realize the historical significance of philosophy on science and particularly in the realm of theories on the creation/formation of the Universe, spirituality and religion right?

feckless theories of the universe, spirituality and religion are all bullshyt. Without evidence or testing, none of those specious ideas matter. Get your head out of your sophistry tainted ass.

You really need to read or re-read Descarte's Meditations etc.

none of which introduce anything in Newtons Principa.

You also need to have better reading comprehension because I have never argued in here by saying my way is right.

Don't backtrack now. For all this philosophy bullshyt you're spewing, you're damn good at dodging the very defense you've tried to lay out for your own positions.

All Im saying is what I think.

yet you don't think its right, huh?

Thoughts alone do not equal knowledge...K on this is intellectually arrogant...and you are claiming knowledge.

How profound professor
If thoughts don't equal knowledge, then you should be open to learning, not defending bullshyt.

The time for being nice was 10 pages ago.

Its almost like me saying..I like Grapefruit Juice and think its good for you...and you saying NO IT HAS TOO MUCH CITRIC ACID AND CAN LEAD TO GALL STONES. Ok? So what?

1. i'd recommend eating whole fruit over juice for the fiber content
2. too much processed juice has too much sugar
3. gallstones
4. all of this is factually true. So what?

I still like Grapefruit Juice and think its good for you in moderation

Raw sex feels good, but its not very smart is it?

(and that example makes it easier for you than it should be, bordering on not being equivalent to this argument). Its called an opinion. Its more like me saying Stacy Dash is beautiful and you then trying to define beauty via science and then saying Im wrong and youre right. gtfoh

Sounds like you want someone to hold your hand emotionally like a little hoe through the world of raw data and objectivity.

Man the fukk up.

Let me know when "actual science" proves through itself, that your way of thinking on this is correct without doubt via it being a valid, falsifiable experiment.

Science proves itself by not speaking on things it doesnt know or asserting what it can not demonstrate.

 

[blackzeus]

Can you explain the process you used?

Well I will try to explain the simplest method, likewise I can provide a philosophical/mathematical proof later on, very busy right now:

Using simple statistical analysis, assuming I didn't have the video of the fabrication of the laptop, I could simply go in my neighborhood, collect all the laptops, working and not working, in parts or in whole, and start with the assumption each one and each part exists by chance. Then I could start inspect the the parts, and observe that X part goes with Y part, and Y part goes with Z part, and Z part goes with A part, etc etc. (complexity). Then I could calculate the odds that all these parts came together by chance (random walk theory). Then I can look at the results of my calculation and deduce if it is logical to assume that it the laptop was created by chance, or if I should look for another explanation as to how the laptop came to be If you want me to back it up with math I can do it tonight, working right now, but that in essence is the process of combined statistics/complexity/probability to come to a logical conclusion, with the caveat of course that scientifically speaking, the conclusion is a logical probability, not a fact

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

this motherfukka lost it. alright i capitulate

im not even going to bother going through all that nonsense...between idiocy and false assumptions being made on my background and stance its just not worth it (i never denied evolution for example..i absolutely believe in evolution etc).

Science proves itself by not speaking on things it doesnt know or asserting what it can not demonstrate.

Which is why Philosophy can be useful in this pursuit..and if you really have faith in that statement, then you should have never spoken on me in the first place. zeus is talking more math and science than i am. have a nice day

 

[CHL]

shots fired at philosophy majors

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

shots fired at philosophy majors

i know right...and i wasnt a philosophy major someone here caught strays

 

[Mission249]

@blackzeus DOING THE GISH GALLOP

Wow, I'm actually learning something from this thread. Never heard the term "Gish Gallop" before, but that's exactly what @blackzeus does:


@blackzeus Try to distill your argument into its core statement and stop leaning on the crutch of the 4 pages of copy/pasted stuff you got from the internet that nobody has time to read. It's not a reasonable way to debate. Are you arguing that evolution isn't true or are you arguing about the genesis of the universe? These are two completely different things.

And, just to be clear, even if I cede the point that evolution can't be driven by randomness (i.e. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift), how do you explain away all the other major driving forces behind evolution like natural selection?

Here's a hypothetical. If over millions of years we were to euthanize successive generations of dogs who don't have great vision, don't you think their eye sight would evolve and become much more powerful? That's what we call evolution by artificial selection.

And, finally, when you use ill defined terms like "complex" and "intelligence", it makes impossible for anyone to completely refute you. But I think you know that.

 

[tmonster]

Breh, you're blowing my mind no homo Are you insinuating confirmed video proof of something being intelligently designed is not in fact sufficient proof of ID? Did the Steelers not beat the Bengals yesterday?

assume video provided now prove your laptop is not evolutionarily derived