Intelligent Design Argument Fails Again

The reason why it fails is just obvious when you go through it. When a scientific theory is proposed, It's because the evidence clearly leads to that conclusion. And after that conclusion is reached, other scientist replicate it through experimentation/research, to see if they come to the same conclusion. However, if something different is found, another completely different conclusion might be reached. Also, when additional evidence is presented, that past conclusion might be considered invalid, and another conclusion might be considered that Status Quo.

However, the reason Intelligent Design isn't science, is simply because it's obvious that the Conclusion was determined way before any
science" was applied. The people who created "intelligent design" clearly wanted to shift things towards a belief in a higher being, and as such put that as the stagnant conclusion and tried to gather any arguments that would support that in any way. There was never any science in it to being with, because the conclusions intelligent design reaches, doesn't equate with a rational reason to belive in a higher being. It just puts together a bunch of disconnected arguments, to try and present doubt about evolution.

If you're gonna believe in Religion that's fine. But to try and pass it off as science is disingenuous, and hurts your argument.

 

I do not care what the Pope says, for he claims to be Jesus Christ hidden under the veil of flesh.

If you think man is trustworthy, especially those of high counsel, I don't know what to say, good luck I guess. For they get billions of dollars in funding, thus they have to present something new every once and awhile. But to believe what we are told, without being able to observe or demonstrate it repeatedly ourselves, than it's their fantasy world not mine. For all we know, they could be working on something entirely different, while presenting a lie to us. Do I want to trust them, yes, can I, no.

And to make it clear, I never said science. I said those of high counsel. The reason for that is because almost every lie holds a little truth. When it comes to science, there are many things we as normal people can observe and demonstrate ourselves, holding truth as truth, whereas some science can only be observed and demonstrated by those of high counsel, in this case scientists. Such as nasa. We provide them with all the money, and all they give us is cartoons to validate the spending thereof. While pocketing the money.

How can you ever believe someone or a group of people that has told the biggest lie ever? What lie is that? Well the next time your looking at the moon, just think, man was up there both driving and jumping around. Absurd!
The greatest achievement in man's history, yet they lost almost all the videos and photos taken. And not lost in space, but they lost it here in their so called archives or paperwork.

"Let God be true, and every man a liar."

Your saying you can't see how scientists or those of high counsel would lie. Well, do you believe kings, queens, governments or powers that be, reveal the truth, or tell lies? "You will know them by their fruits". Look for those in high places, their wealth, actions, and beliefs. It is very clear, they are all very similar.

 

You're mixing creation with evolution and I think the two must be spoken of separately. There are ten major theories of creation, meaning the evidence lead to ten different conclusions and all of them could be wrong. Infallible science is not. And science requires proof before coming to any conclusion.

 

I think we all know who

 

Hard to say exactly how he operates. He said to Jeremiah- "Before I formed you in the womb.." so his exact method is open to speculation.

 

Your guess that scientists are getting wealthy is nonsense.

And, no, unlike with ideas concerning god science gets tested all the time. In fact, theories don't come to be without serious testing - repetition by other scientists, examination of results through the review process required for publication, by scientists working on other explanations (such as Einstein finding superior explanations of physical phenomena). In fact, Einstein is a great example - becoming famous by proposing an answer contrary to the answers already established in his day.

Yes, I do believe we have a long history of those in government lying. However, their lies do not last and there is less emphasis on ensuring that they are telling the truth. Look at the lies of today - Obama's birthplace, that Iraqi oil would pay for the war in Iraq, etc., etc. We knew these were false when they were uttered, and in science the process of science would have made it impossible to support such nonsense. We ALLOW lies in politics, as we see free speech as important and identifying falsehoods is sometimes difficult and not worthy of prosecution of any kind. In science, that is just not the case. Theories are validated before they are published. Those who lie are swept to the dustbin, left to find other employment as their results are removed.

 

That had to do with the time line for sanctification.

So, how does that apply to this topic?

 

Why does everybody claim that I say all scientists. Read what I said please.

There is absolute truth in science, this is science that can be observed and demonstrated repeatedly by normal people such as myself. Science that cannot be observed or demonstrated is not by definition, "science".

 

ID is a replacement for evolution in that it postulates constant involvement by god through the generations.

So, I don't see the mixing you are talking about.

 

No, science is not limited to your specific training and means. It doesn't depend on you having a linear accelerator or your own private Hubble telescope. It doesn't depend on you having an electron microscope. It doesn't depend on you doing experiments in the various methods of evolution.

And, there is no definition of science that limits science to YOUR education, training and means.

Why would there be??? Was Einstein supposed to dumb down his work so you would understand? Are scientists supposed to refrain from using calculus on the grounds that you don't have a clue about differential equations?

I mean, seriously, the limit you are proposing is the most absurd and wrong thing I've heard about science in a long time.

 

At what point during pregnancy does God form a person because scientists and doctors have observed every stage of pregnancy and it appears to be an entirely natural process.

 

And yet, you blindly accept every word of a book that was written by men (including that very line that you just vomited up). By your own logic, if every men is a liar, and men wrote a book saying it was "from God", then chances are excellent that it is a lie.

No, YOU'RE (not your) very gullible, since you just accept the claims of your so-called authority on origins, which of course gives you no way of checking the validity of its proclamations for yourself. Once again, your logic self-refutes.

What a random ass rant, which I will not comment on, due to the fact that it is entirely off-topic.

 

God wrote the 'Creation/Evolution Program' then snapped his fingers to start it, THAT was the Big Bang..

 

You have zero proof to support that argument and more to the point, it violates Occam's Razor.

 

Well Jesus said God created the whole shebang, but you say he didn't, so who shall we believe, the Son of God or you?
Hmm...that's a toughie...

 

Nobody does. All we know is that changes in such constants don't square with our present understanding of the laws of physics; but we don't even know that the Cosmological Principle holds good throughout space, let alone time.

Sure. Why wouldn't I?

 

Religion is supposed to be focused on "why". Why are we here, what should we be doing about that.

Science is focused on how our physical universe works.

One doesn't have to see these as being in conflict. Genesis has an outstanding description of the original or fundamental human condition, told as an allegory. That description is not improved by suggesting there was a real "tree of knowledge of good and evil" and "tree of life" (that both since died out?). Similarly, it makes no sense to demand that we all deny the evidence of physics and insist that the creation story is literal - with absolutely no evidrnce.

 

probably best not to believe in myths that punish nonbelievers and claims to have a jealous God that goes by the name "Jealous".... any of those would obviously be made up myths

 

Jesus was an alright guy, so if people don't like him, they can't be let into paradise or it'd be a case of "oops there goes the neighbourhood". They don't want to be there anyway, so where else can they go?

"Jealous" can simply mean "miffed" or "disappointed". I mean, if you were a God and saw heathens worshipping the great god Boogaloo instead of you, you'd be miffed and disappointed too..

 

Apart from a few fire-and-brimstone fundies, no modern Christian takes everything literally..

 

Why, if I was an Omnipotent, omniscience,omnipresence, omnibenevolent god I would of known people would worship Boogaloo, so why would I be disappointed or miffed?

 

We had a pet cat named Harry some years ago and loved the little sh*t, but after a few months he vanished.
We eventually found out he'd moved in with a family a few streets away and we felt disappointed that he obviously thought we weren't good enough for him (sniffle)

 

A god would of known Harry was going to be happier with the family down the road, no need for sniffles and being a omnibenevolent god would of been happy for Harry!

 

Where is your proof Jesus said that?

 

Please don't over excite me this early in the morning.