Belief in existence of God scientific. Denial - unscientific

[theStudent]

The length of the thread, in the link below, is largely due to repeated questions.on the contained information. The following is open for debate.
Belief in the existence of God is scientific. Denial - unscientific.

For those who disagree with the above, please state why, and/or provide evidence for the following:

• God does not exist.
• God exists only in the mind of the believer.
• Miracles do not happen.
• The Bible is a book of myths.

[Neatras]

However, you haven't provided one piece of evidence for a biological organisms that came into existence on it's own.

Imagine that, theStudent once again redefining the theory of evolution as something it's not. If we were discussing abiogenesis, I'd actually care about what you ramble on about, but all you do is try and pull quotations from as many people as possible who essentially state "I believe God made everything, so there."

Since theStudent has not only demonstrated an inability to put forward the scientific merit of Creationism (which he is obviously arguing for), but has also misconstrued the theory of evolution, despite having been a member of this forum long enough to have over a thousand posts, I put forward that he is unsuitable for further discussion. He hasn't actually made any progress on this forum, after all, to justify most of his assertions, and having pointed out plenty of quote mines and fallacious arguments of his myself, I feel I've done my part.

theStudent, feel free to claim you've put forward evidence, while at the same time paradoxically refusing to show the evidence, but until then, these quotes are just as hollow as your arguments: opinionated, irrational, and forcing a narrative that 99% of scientists disagree with; the majority do acknowledge the validity of the evolutionary theory. And let's face it, this is the one part of the discussion it always comes back to with you.

[theStudent]

However, you haven't provided one piece of evidence for a biological organisms that came into existence on it's own.

Imagine that, theStudent once again redefining the theory of evolution as something it's not. If we were discussing abiogenesis, I'd actually care about what you ramble on about, but all you do is try and pull quotations from as many people as possible who essentially state "I believe God made everything, so there."

Since theStudent has not only demonstrated an inability to put forward the scientific merit of Creationism (which he is obviously arguing for), but has also misconstrued the theory of evolution, despite having been a member of this forum long enough to have over a thousand posts, I put forward that he is unsuitable for further discussion. He hasn't actually made any progress on this forum, after all, to justify most of his assertions, and having pointed out plenty of quote mines and fallacious arguments of his myself, I feel I've done my part.

theStudent, feel free to claim you've put forward evidence, while at the same time paradoxically refusing to show the evidence, but until then, these quotes are just as hollow as your arguments: opinionated, irrational, and forcing a narrative that 99% of scientists disagree with; the majority do acknowledge the validity of the evolutionary theory. And let's face it, this is the one part of the discussion it always comes back to with you.

Post 262
Two quotes - Why the evidence points to a creator.

After reasoning and providing a solid basis for believing in a creator, I'm not worth it?
Have a good day Neatras - be happy.

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to post 263 by Neatras]

Certain complexities but you never actually made the distinction between those and all other complexities

I have - in the same post you are replying to, but you seem to have missed them.
However, you haven't provided one piece of evidence for a biological organisms that came into existence on it's own.
Is that because it requires faith, to believe that such a thing can happen?

The gene itself is comple, so before one can speak of what it does, one has to determine how it came.
And since it is evident that intelligence is required for particular complexities - such as instructions/language, then conclusively all these processes are the product of the careful design of an intelligence.

The sheer complexity of our genetic blueprint moved a U.S. president to say

...we are learning the language in which God created life.

One of the chief scientists involved in the genetic decoding humbly remarked:

We have caught the first glimpse of our own instruction book, previously known only to God.

You are basically quote mining here, neither Bill Clinton nor Francis Collins share your beliefs, neither is a YEC nor an IDer, neither believes in a flood nor an ark. Besides, all that amounts to is the worst form of an appeal to authority.

Furthermore, the brain is complex - even moreso, what the brain involves, such as our ability to use language and thought etc.
What Distinguishes Humans from Other Animals?

There's no consensus on the question of what makes us special, or whether we even are. The biggest point of contention is whether our cognitive abilities differ from those of other animals "in kind," or merely in degree. Are we in a class by ourselves or just the smartest ones in our class?

Charles Darwin supported the latter hypothesis. He believed we are similar to animals, and merely incrementally more intelligent as a result of our higher evolution. But according to Marc Hauser, director of the cognitive evolution lab at Harvard University, in a recent article in Scientific American, "mounting evidence indicates that, in contrast to Darwin's theory of a continuity of mind between humans and other species, a profound gap separates our intellect from the animal kind."

I would take anything Hauser says with a grain of salt. He is not the Director of anything, he was fired.

According to wiki: On August 20, 2010, Michael Smith, Dean of Harvard's Faculty of Arts and Sciences, released a statement confirming that an internal investigation had found Hauser guilty of eight counts of scientific misconduct.[18] Three counts involved published papers, and five involved unpublished studies. The statement said that Harvard was cooperating with further investigations by the US Office of Research Integrity, the National Science Foundation Office of Inspector General, and the U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts. They stated that they would conduct their own review and make their conclusions available to the public.

Author William Rees-Mogg said:

Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God, any more than it can prove or disprove any moral or aesthetic proposition. There is no scientific reason to love one’s neighbour or to respect human life . . . To argue that nothing exists which cannot be proved scientifically is the crudest of errors, which would eliminate almost everything we value in life, not only God or the human spirit, but love and poetry and music.

William Rees-Mogg is clearly wrong and knows nothing about evolutionary psychology or evolutionarily stable strategies.

The “Religion� of Science
Scientists’ theories often seem to rely on premises that require their own kind of faith.

Ahen ... in your opinion, which seems to be bit off the beam.

For example, when it comes to the origin of life, most evolutionists adhere to ideas that require faith in certain “doctrines�. Facts are mixed with theories. And when scientists use the weight of their authority to impose blind belief in evolution, they are in reality implying: ‘You are not responsible for your morality because you are merely the product of biology, chemistry, and physics.’ Biologist Richard Dawkins says that in the universe ‘there is no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pointless indifference.’

Back to the quote mine I see.

To uphold such beliefs, some scientists choose to ignore the extensive research of other scientists who contradict the theoretical foundations for their theories on the origin of life.

You need to cite this in rather more detail to be taken seriously ... well, to be considered.

Even if we allow for billions of years of time, the accidental forming of the complex molecules required to form a functional living cell has been shown to be a mathematical impossibility.

False. Please cite where you got this, if it is what I suspect, it is horse puckey.

Thus, the dogmatic theories on the origin of life that appear in many textbooks must be considered invalid.

I know of no "dogmatic" theories on the origin of life.

Belief that life originated by blind chance demands more faith than belief in creation does.

No one claims "blind chance."

Astronomer David Block observed:

A man who does not believe in a Creator would have to have more faith than one who does. In declaring that God does not exist, a person makes a sweeping unsubstantiated statement — a postulate based on faith.

What does David Block, an astronomer and "motivational speaker" know about this? This is just another logical fallacy in the form of another appeal to authority.

Scientific discoveries can induce a reverential attitude in some scientists. Albert Einstein admitted:

You will hardly find one among the profounder sort of scientific minds without a religious feeling of his own. . . . Religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.

I'm sure you thought you had a point there, but it seems to have been lost.

While science involves a way of knowing, it is not the only source of knowledge. The purpose of science is to describe phenomena in the natural world and to assist in answering how these phenomena occur.
Science provides us with insights into the physical universe, meaning everything that is observable. But no matter how far scientific investigation goes, it can never answer the question of purpose — why the universe exists in the first place.

False, here's a science based view on why: https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140122 ... y-of-life/

If there is a Creator behind the universe, we cannot expect to comprehend him [God] or his purposes by using telescopes, microscopes, or other scientific instruments.
Think of a potter and a vase that he has formed. No amount of examination of the vase itself can give an answer as to why it was made. For that, we must ask the potter himself.

False analogy.

Molecular biologist Francis Collins

Note: not a molecular biologist, a physician and administrator.

explains how faith and spirituality can help fill the void science leaves:

I would not expect religion to be the right tool for sequencing the human genome and by the same token would not expect science to be the means to approaching the supernatural. But on the really interesting larger questions, such as ‘Why are we here?’ or ‘Why do human beings long for spirituality?,’ I find science unsatisfactory. Many superstitions have come into existence and then faded away. Faith has not, which suggests it has reality.

That's one physician/administrator's opinion and another appeal to authority on your part.

True religion, in answering the question of why and in dealing with the purpose of life, also offers standards for values, morals, and ethics as well as guidance in life. Scientist Allan Sandage expressed it this way:

I don’t go to a biology book to learn how to live.

That might be because Sandage is an astronomer and might not understand the biology book. Oh yes, another appeal to authority.

Author Tom Utley concludes:

It seems . . . clearer than ever that science will never satisfy the human hunger for answers.

You mean the British journalist who writes for the Daily Mail? This is a strange appeal to authority, he has none.

I'm bored with your appeals to non-authorities; I see no reason to continue.

[theStudent]

You are basically quote mining here, neither Bill Clinton nor Francis Collins share your beliefs, neither is a YEC nor an IDer, neither believes in a flood nor an ark. Besides, all that amounts to is the worst form of an appeal to authority.

What are these called?

1. You are basically quote mining here... an appeal to authority.

   Instead of addressing the information, once again faithfully he makes wrong assumptions, as to why I posted the information.

2. I would take anything Hauser says with a grain of salt. He is not the Director of anything, he was fired.

   Instead of addressing the information, once again faithfully he decides that it is best to pay attention to the persons character, as though that makes the statement wrong.

3. William Rees-Mogg is clearly wrong and knows nothing about evolutionary psychology or evolutionarily stable strategies.

   Instead of addressing the information, once again faithfully he just says it is wrong, without actually providing anything at all to show why it is wrong.

4. Ahen ... in your opinion, which seems to be bit off the beam.

   Instead of addressing the information, once again faithfully he decides that it is best to pay attention to the persons character, as though that makes the statement wrong.

5. Back to the quote mine I see.

   Instead of addressing the information, once again faithfully he again comments on quotes, as if that's a good excuse to dismiss the information.

6. Back to the quote mine I see.

   Instead of addressing the information, once again faithfully he again comments on quotes, as if that's a good excuse to dismiss the information.

I'm shocked!

You need to cite this in rather more detail to be taken seriously ... well, to be considered.

I don't understand why this is difficult.

To uphold such beliefs, some scientists choose to ignore the extensive research of other scientists who contradict the theoretical foundations for their theories on the origin of life.

In a nutshell - there are thousands of scientists; all do research; all don't agree; in the case of evolution, apply the above.
It's as simple as that.

False. Please cite where you got this, if it is what I suspect, it is horse puckey.

False?
Okay. I agree 100% with it, so address it as mine.
Show me where it's false.

I know of no "dogmatic" theories on the origin of life.

Fair enough.

No one claims "blind chance."

Okay. What do you call it?

I'm sure you thought you had a point there, but it seems to have been lost.

He did make a point, I consider valid.
Why does it seem to be lost?

False, here's a science based view on why: https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140122 ... y-of-life/

That doesn't provide an answer to why the universe exists in the first place.
It doesn't surprise me that you would as usual, provie an entire page, for me to search through - that doesn't even contain what you claim.
It would be good, if for once you could provide a portion of the page that you think supports your claims, which obviously it is. You say the statement is false, when the facts disagree, and you have nothing to back it up.

False analogy.

Another sweeping claim, and nothing to support it.

Note: not a molecular biologist, a physician and administrator.

Are we referring to the same person?
http://www.dnaftb.org/39/bio-2.html
http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/col1bio-1
http://www.nature.com/news/human-genome ... gy-1.18436
http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/bio/coll-body.html

Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D., is a physician-geneticist and the Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, NIH. In that role he oversees a fifteen year project aimed at mapping and sequencing all of the human DNA by the year 2005. Many consider this the most important scientific undertaking of our time.

He obtained his undergraduate degree in chemistry at the University of Virginia, and went on to obtain a Ph.D. in physical chemistry at Yale University. Recognizing that a revolution was beginning in molecular biology and genetics, he changed fields and enrolled in medical school at the University of North Carolina, where he encountered the field of medical genetics and knew he had found his dream.

Collins has overseen the successful completion of several of the Genome Project's goals...

In addition, Collins founded a new NIH intramural research program in genome research, which has now grown to become one of the premier research units in human genetics in the country. His own research laboratory continues to be vigorously active, exploring the molecular genetics of breast cancer, prostate cancer, adult-onset diabetes, and other disorders. His accomplishments have been recognized by election to the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences, and numerous national and international awards.

Collins: Why this scientist believes in God
As the director of the Human Genome Project, I have led a consortium of scientists to read out the 3.1 billion letters of the human genome, our own DNA instruction book. As a believer, I see DNA, the information molecule of all living things, as God's language, and the elegance and complexity of our own bodies and the rest of nature as a reflection of God's plan.

I did not always embrace these perspectives. As a graduate student in physical chemistry in the 1970s, I was an atheist, finding no reason to postulate the existence of any truths outside of mathematics, physics and chemistry. But then I went to medical school, and encountered life and death issues at the bedsides of my patients. Challenged by one of those patients, who asked "What do you believe, doctor?", I began searching for answers.

I had always assumed that faith was based on purely emotional and irrational arguments, and was astounded to discover, initially in the writings of the Oxford scholar C.S. Lewis and subsequently from many other sources, that one could build a very strong case for the plausibility of the existence of God on purely rational grounds. My earlier atheist's assertion that "I know there is no God" emerged as the least defensible. As the British writer G.K. Chesterton famously remarked, "Atheism is the most daring of all dogmas, for it is the assertion of a universal negative."

That's one physician/administrator's opinion and another appeal to authority on your part.

I can understand if you dismiss his opinion, but I really wish you would stop with your assumptions about an appeal to authority.
I'm really exercising a lot of patience putting up with that baseless assumption.
But if you insist on continuing, that is your prérogative.
I guess I just have to keep biting my lip, as I gain more and more patience.

That might be because Sandage is an astronomer and might not understand the biology book. Oh yes, another appeal to authority.

I'm glad you said "might", otherwise it would have seemed that anyone, no matter their education, as long as they are on the other side, is just senseless.
Here we go again.

And again.

• You mean the British journalist who writes for the Daily Mail? This is a strange appeal to authority, he has none.

  Instead of addressing the information, once again faithfully he decides that it is best to pay attention to the persons character, as though that makes the statement wrong.

I'm bored with your appeals to non-authorities; I see no reason to continue.

[RonE]

[Replying to post 274 by theStudent]

Collins has been a important part of the genome project and an interesting personality, though he probably wouldn't like that label.

Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D., is a physician-geneticist and the Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, NIH...
Collins: Why this scientist believes in God
As the director of the Human Genome Project, I have led a consortium of scientists to read out the 3.1 billion letters of the human genome, our own DNA instruction book. As a believer, I see DNA, the information molecule of all living things, as God's language, and the elegance and complexity of our own bodies and the rest of nature as a reflection of God's plan.

I did not always embrace these perspectives. As a graduate student in physical chemistry in the 1970s, I was an atheist, finding no reason to postulate the existence of any truths outside of mathematics, physics and chemistry. But then I went to medical school, and encountered life and death issues at the bedsides of my patients. Challenged by one of those patients, who asked "What do you believe, doctor?", I began searching for answers.

I had always assumed that faith was based on purely emotional and irrational arguments, and was astounded to discover, initially in the writings of the Oxford scholar C.S. Lewis and subsequently from many other sources, that one could build a very strong case for the plausibility of the existence of God on purely rational grounds. My earlier atheist's assertion that "I know there is no God" emerged as the least defensible. As the British writer G.K. Chesterton famously remarked, "Atheism is the most daring of all dogmas, for it is the assertion of a universal negative."

IMHO, Collins is an interesting blend of science and religion. And he makes me wonder if what we are seeing is a shift in religion, where those like the Pope, have recognized evolution and essentially claimed it for god. Collins in an interview for the PBS documentary "The Question of God" had this to say about the YEC and evolution deniers:

"On the other hand, we have people who are believers who are so completely sold on the literal interpretation of the first book of the Bible that they are rejecting very compelling scientific data about the age of the earth and the relatedness of living beings."

(My bold added)

Please apply this quote back to your earlier topic "What if" where you were desperately trying to discredit evolution. Collins is your witness, and he is refuting that non-science stuff you and the other JWs have been saying about evolution.

[H.sapiens]

You are basically quote mining here, neither Bill Clinton nor Francis Collins share your beliefs, neither is a YEC nor an IDer, neither believes in a flood nor an ark. Besides, all that amounts to is the worst form of an appeal to authority.

What are these called?

1. You are basically quote mining here... an appeal to authority.

   Instead of addressing the information, once again faithfully he makes wrong assumptions, as to why I posted the information.

2. I would take anything Hauser says with a grain of salt. He is not the Director of anything, he was fired.

   Instead of addressing the information, once again faithfully he decides that it is best to pay attention to the persons character, as though that makes the statement wrong.

3. William Rees-Mogg is clearly wrong and knows nothing about evolutionary psychology or evolutionarily stable strategies.

   Instead of addressing the information, once again faithfully he just says it is wrong, without actually providing anything at all to show why it is wrong.

4. Ahen ... in your opinion, which seems to be bit off the beam.

   Instead of addressing the information, once again faithfully he decides that it is best to pay attention to the persons character, as though that makes the statement wrong.

5. Back to the quote mine I see.

   Instead of addressing the information, once again faithfully he again comments on quotes, as if that's a good excuse to dismiss the information.

6. Back to the quote mine I see.

   Instead of addressing the information, once again faithfully he again comments on quotes, as if that's a good excuse to dismiss the information.

I'm shocked!

You need to cite this in rather more detail to be taken seriously ... well, to be considered.

I don't understand why this is difficult.

To uphold such beliefs, some scientists choose to ignore the extensive research of other scientists who contradict the theoretical foundations for their theories on the origin of life.

In a nutshell - there are thousands of scientists; all do research; all don't agree; in the case of evolution, apply the above.
It's as simple as that.

False. Please cite where you got this, if it is what I suspect, it is horse puckey.

False?
Okay. I agree 100% with it, so address it as mine.
Show me where it's false.

I know of no "dogmatic" theories on the origin of life.

Fair enough.

No one claims "blind chance."

Okay. What do you call it?

I'm sure you thought you had a point there, but it seems to have been lost.

He did make a point, I consider valid.
Why does it seem to be lost?

False, here's a science based view on why: https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140122 ... y-of-life/

That doesn't provide an answer to why the universe exists in the first place.
It doesn't surprise me that you would as usual, provie an entire page, for me to search through - that doesn't even contain what you claim.
It would be good, if for once you could provide a portion of the page that you think supports your claims, which obviously it is. You say the statement is false, when the facts disagree, and you have nothing to back it up.

False analogy.

Another sweeping claim, and nothing to support it.

Note: not a molecular biologist, a physician and administrator.

Are we referring to the same person?
http://www.dnaftb.org/39/bio-2.html
http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/col1bio-1
http://www.nature.com/news/human-genome ... gy-1.18436
http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/bio/coll-body.html

Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D., is a physician-geneticist and the Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, NIH. In that role he oversees a fifteen year project aimed at mapping and sequencing all of the human DNA by the year 2005. Many consider this the most important scientific undertaking of our time.

He obtained his undergraduate degree in chemistry at the University of Virginia, and went on to obtain a Ph.D. in physical chemistry at Yale University. Recognizing that a revolution was beginning in molecular biology and genetics, he changed fields and enrolled in medical school at the University of North Carolina, where he encountered the field of medical genetics and knew he had found his dream.

Collins has overseen the successful completion of several of the Genome Project's goals...

In addition, Collins founded a new NIH intramural research program in genome research, which has now grown to become one of the premier research units in human genetics in the country. His own research laboratory continues to be vigorously active, exploring the molecular genetics of breast cancer, prostate cancer, adult-onset diabetes, and other disorders. His accomplishments have been recognized by election to the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences, and numerous national and international awards.

Collins: Why this scientist believes in God
As the director of the Human Genome Project, I have led a consortium of scientists to read out the 3.1 billion letters of the human genome, our own DNA instruction book. As a believer, I see DNA, the information molecule of all living things, as God's language, and the elegance and complexity of our own bodies and the rest of nature as a reflection of God's plan.

I did not always embrace these perspectives. As a graduate student in physical chemistry in the 1970s, I was an atheist, finding no reason to postulate the existence of any truths outside of mathematics, physics and chemistry. But then I went to medical school, and encountered life and death issues at the bedsides of my patients. Challenged by one of those patients, who asked "What do you believe, doctor?", I began searching for answers.

I had always assumed that faith was based on purely emotional and irrational arguments, and was astounded to discover, initially in the writings of the Oxford scholar C.S. Lewis and subsequently from many other sources, that one could build a very strong case for the plausibility of the existence of God on purely rational grounds. My earlier atheist's assertion that "I know there is no God" emerged as the least defensible. As the British writer G.K. Chesterton famously remarked, "Atheism is the most daring of all dogmas, for it is the assertion of a universal negative."

That's one physician/administrator's opinion and another appeal to authority on your part.

I can understand if you dismiss his opinion, but I really wish you would stop with your assumptions about an appeal to authority.
I'm really exercising a lot of patience putting up with that baseless assumption.
But if you insist on continuing, that is your prérogative.
I guess I just have to keep biting my lip, as I gain more and more patience.

That might be because Sandage is an astronomer and might not understand the biology book. Oh yes, another appeal to authority.

I'm glad you said "might", otherwise it would have seemed that anyone, no matter their education, as long as they are on the other side, is just senseless.
Here we go again.

And again.

• You mean the British journalist who writes for the Daily Mail? This is a strange appeal to authority, he has none.

  Instead of addressing the information, once again faithfully he decides that it is best to pay attention to the persons character, as though that makes the statement wrong.

I'm bored with your appeals to non-authorities; I see no reason to continue.

Do you understand the difference between evidence and an appeal to authority?

Do you understand that and argument is fallacious when an authority is cited on a topic that lies outside of their area of expertise; or when the authority cited is not a true expert concerning the topic at hand?

Do you understand that and argument is fallacious when it is quoted out of context and removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to either distort its intended meaning; or to distort the actual view of the person quoted?

If you understand these things, why do you insist on using as the sole support for your claims fallacious appeals and quote mines (often both in one swell foop, as you do with Collins and Clinton)

[arian]

[Replying to post 239 by arian]

!

Hi arian, your argument seems to me to go something like this:

" I can't imagine that God didn't design everything, so therefore, God must have designed everything. And those "naturalist" fellows sure have laughable ideas."

In any case, that's what I understood from your post. No in those words, of course.

Well, our children may design things out of Legos, or building-blocks and claim "they did it", but yeah, we daddies made the Legos and the wood blocks, so yes, I can't imagine that God didn't design everything, and let his children make toy robots from everything he designed and provided for us to build from.

But there is nothing about a sand dune or a wave on an ocean or a snowflake or tree leaves or flower shapes or even cloud formations that require any thing else but the laws of physics to explain how they happened.

Oh come on, .. where is your faith in "natural selection", .. huh? This sand particle goes here, then that one goes there and in a few thousand years "sand castle".

I have yet to observe a naturally occurring sand castle.
I don't know of any.. have you?

If so, please let us know.
It would be an important discovery.

A decomposed human body, from dust thou art, to dust thou shalt return, all naturally like.
But that's not what were talking about, it is that you believe nature can huff and puff lava, cause earthquakes and move the continents around a bit, and presto, she created all the animals on our world including you and me, .. BUT, you say she can't create a sand castle!? Don't you believe in evolution?

Nature can't create a sand castle, BUT, it can take a sweating rock, starting with a single celled bacteria and through "natural selection" make a human out of it, but a sand castle? Never, .. lol.

You are laughing ( "lol" is laughing, I presume ) at your own joke.

As I stated above, show me a naturally occurring sand castle and I will be hugely interested in discussions about it.

Until then, I have no reason to even imagine such a thing.

That's what debunks evolution my friend, that evolution claims that nature can create a human out of the dust of the earth, from rock, yet can't create a simple sand castle, or something like a toaster!?

Like she can create the scientist/engineer that creates a simple robot that can walk up the stairs, but Mama Nature can't create the robot, that one needs I.D. .. don't you see something wrong with that?

When it thunders.. and we have destructive weather.. we could say something like "Oh my.. SOMEONE is angry up there" , and many people did in the past and many people still do.

Oh yeah, it's not God, but that careless Mother Nature, she can create the most complex things all she needs is her husband Father Time.

If an atheist doesn't believe in "God", why would he believe in "Mother Nature"?

I don't know of any intentional "Mother Nature".
The universe, or "nature" doesn't seem to have it's own intelligence.

Then what may I ask is this "natural selection"? Mother nature working her but off selecting: "the heart protected by ribs is good, and eyeballs on the bottom of the apes feet, and heart between the Gluteus Maximus is bad!" so she kills off the poor ape that she accidentally through her chaotic mentality selected the eyes and the heart in a place she didn't like. Did the creature choose to die? Heck no, any creature no matter how badly disfigured would still want to live, just ask Dr. Mengele!

What we call "nature" or the "cosmos" or the "universe" is the complete set of what exists. We have no way as yet to determine if the hypothesis that this set can have consciousness of any kind is a true one. We currently have no evidence to support the hypothesis. ID proposes a hypothesis, and cannot demonstrate any evidence.

It offers.. analogies as evidence.
And that simply is not science.

ID presents a hypothesis that is completely unverifiable.

Oh come on Blastcat, I worked for many different Aircraft Companies including McDonnell Douglass Helicopter where we built the first Apaches here in Tempe AZ, .. all from I.D. But only the helicopters, not the redskin Indians, you know why? Because we did not have enough Intelligence in our Designs to create one.

I mean come on, how can you defend I.D. for toasters, but not for the engineer making the toaster?

Taking your son on a tour of Honda in Japan: "Son, see that genius guy over there standing so proudly next to his ASIMO robot creation? Yeah, him in the white coat, he evolved out of a rock, can you believe it?"

The ID hypothesis is not verifiable, and cannot be known to be true ... and it relies on methodology that is not scientific.

So Intelligent Design is not verifiable? Do you even hear yourself my old debating friend? I mean please forgive me, but Romans 1:28 comes to my mind.

And that is why most scientists simply reject the hypothesis AND the methodology.
And that's why I do as well.

Please go and tell this to the Physicists, engineers and scientists at 666CERN who have robbed us of trillions of $$$ over the years, and stop them, .. tell them: "ID hypothesis is not verifiable, and cannot be known to be true!" because buddy, they are trying to Intelligently Design and create a "Parallel Universe"!

Like a scientist, Mother nature can create the scientists, but she can't create a robot like ASIMO, now how is that?

As far as I know, robots like ASIMO were created by humans.

I am not aware of any evidence of a "Mother Nature" creating things. I am also not aware of any evidence for a Tooth Fairy, putting coins under children's pillows either.

You would have to bring us some evidence for either of these "beings".

Evidence, I have all the evidence you need! I can tell you that they are really sneaky! The tooth fairy can come into your wife and put that dime under her children's pillow, I've seen it happen to many atheist friends of mine, and what's even worse is that she won't remember a thing the next morning!

"Mom, did you take my tooth from under my pillow last night and left the dime there?"

"No honey, the tooth fairy did!" Same with Satan Claus.

We can invent beings in our imagination, we can even invent intentionality where it isn't to be found. But inventing an idea isn't the same as demonstrating that it actually exists.

Of course you can't see the "idea" exist until the mind sends it to the brain and then uses the body to draw it all out. If not, it just gets all lost in Infinity. We demonstrate our imagination every day, from toasters to cars, to planes, .. how much more evidence do you want?

Our imagined Mother Nature hasn't been demonstrated as a real intentional entity, in the real world, and therefore cannot be said to have a plan and then designed humans in the real world.

Sorry

Natural Selection, .. who selects what's good and what doesn't work? Nature does, she is called Mother Nature, do I have to teach you about your own religion and your gods?
They came about by a quantum speck sitting there in nothing 13.75 billion years ago getting hotter and denser, until a Big Bang! and there they were, Father Time and Mother nature. Father Time was just giving Mama Nature all the "time" she needed, and she took her time and selected, and selected some more till she had us exactly as she wanted us to be. THEN, she looked and said: "It's goooood, it's gooood!"

As far as we know, there is no natural "creation", no intentionality in the universe other than in certain kinds of animals. But we sure can imagine it, can't we?

Oh yes, we can !
"ID" is imagining it.

OK, so you admit that the Evolution story is just an imagination? That Mama Nature did NOT create millions and billions of choices which she can select from? That she did not create the volcanoes, the meteors, star dust (AKA pixy dust) to choose from? I mean you guys even admit she makes a lot of bad choices, like for instance she just can't select the proper genes to complete humans. We are said that even after 4 billion years were still just EVOLVING apes. At lest she could have kept our hair on our body so we wouldn't have to shop for them expensive clothes, you know? And the guilt, man, her taking our fur caused some serious self conscious problems for us apes, .. no wonder we hid in caves to sleep naked like our cousins right outside the caves. Probably laughing their butts off.

Not only that, but it took over a hundred years for Intelligent Design to make a simple robot to walk up the stairs, so I guess there is no way "I.D." could create an entire human body, and give it life of it's own, .. not the I.D. programmed kind, but one that can reason on his own, with its own free will.

Are you trying to prove that humans design things?

I'm going to guess that you are trying to be ironic in your statement.. trying to ridicule what I was writing, or something like that. I'm not too sure what your intent was.

If so, I admire your efforts at being funny. It's hard to tell, because you don't make yourself particularly comprehensible. But I will try to address what I have to imagine are your concerns. If I guess incorrectly, please don't hesitate to correct me.

If I were to take your statement seriously for a moment:

Look, I have tried for many, many years to take the BB-Evolution story seriously, until I read all I could take on this story. I mean come on, a Catholic Jesuit Priest who whips himself and prays to some deities one night hears the universe "Big-Bang" in nothing??

And then what, .. it starts to expand before space or time to a pinhead first, then a baseball size, then a bowling ball and then poooff, .. it disappears back into nothing and expands into itself. Yep, there is no "outside to our universe". Can you really be serious about a story like that? And now the witches and warlocks that run 666CERN who support this story religiously have robbed humanity first of their dignity, then their money (sounds like the Jews during the Holocaust, don't it) and are actually spending every penny on this delusional crack-pipe-dream, just look at the Temple they built for their new goddess Durga asking her to help them create a Big-Bang in the LHC Temple!

You don't seem to understand what "ID" is actually trying to demonstrate. Nobody is asking for proof that humans can design and create things. We all pretty much agree that humans do.

Intelligent Design want's to demonstrate something ELSE than human designs.

Intelligent Design proposes that whatever isn't designed by humans is designed by something else.

You have that wrong, either unintentionally, or purposefully to try to trick me. It is YOU guys who claim the universe was created by some"thing" else other than "He", our Heavenly Father by Intelligent Design.

As for us Intelligent Designers to think that what we can't create, like another human, and seeing the best we can do is ASIMO, to reason that some other Intelligent designer like us must have is from observation. It is intelligent scientific observation, .. simple logic.

Just as a child knows that we daddies made the Lego pieces for him to create from. I have never seen a child sit there waiting for Mother Nature to evolve some more blocks for him, have you? And if evolution is how all things appeared, then it would be natural for us to think that, and just wait.

But, I have seen even atheists pray to God when they are facing dire need, like when stuck in a crushed vehicle or similar situations. Why not wait to evolve out of the car huh?

So you see that reasoning that the things we didn't create, Daddy must have is an intelligent observation. Children do it, so why can't intelligent adults?

If we want to learn more about physics, we get a "book" on physics. If we want to learn about our Creator, we find a book telling us everything about the Creator. Not make up some ridiculous stories what may have happened billions of years ago before space and time existed, .. I mean come on, seriously.

Intelligent Design wants to prove that natural events (those that are not man-made ) were intended and designed, or planed, and then created by an intentional "something" or "someone" ELSE than humans.

Natural events, .. you mean like the snow maker on ski-hills? Or the Tesla coil making lightning? Maybe the cloud seeding to create rain?
Oh sorry, I forgot; we humans can create those things but not God our Creator, right?

Sandcastles are human creations..
In your opinion, is ID trying to prove that HUMANS create, or something ELSE?

OK, answer me this: "Have we humans ever created the material that we create things from?" Like the sand that we create sandcastles from. It's as if EVERYTHING that we have ever created, everything that we create and everything that we plan to create, the material is conveniently there just waiting for us. All we have to do is open the box and dig inside it, just like our children digging inside that box of Legos.

The components of sand dunes happen naturally, too. No god required... no "Intelligent Design" required or demonstrated, either.

We can explain how all of that happens.

Then explain 'how' "sand castles" don't happen?

I can't explain how they don't, because they DO happen, but they seldom "happen" unless humans make them happen.

And we can explain how humans make sand castles happen.

We can explain a lot of how natural events happen, too.
We have YET to discover a "designer" at the end of those rainbows.

Nor, pots of gold.

How about this my friend, what if, now I'm sure this will sound so I.D. crazy to you, .. but what if we hope that our children will one day grow out of taking pre made Legos out of a box to create things, and think about making the blocs themselves?

The same with our Creator, He gave us all these minerals to mine and create things with, so what IF He was hoping that one day when we grew up, we would discover how HE made the materials we create from and start making it ourselves? Copper, gold, dirt, living organisms, all from scientifically observing how Daddy made it, and now, hey, we make it!?

Oh wait, that is exactly what is happening. The desire is there, only the attitude is wrong.

Instead of asking our Heavenly Father to help us learn how to create the materials we create from, what even our own body is created from, .. we say look, we know enough now, so let us rebel once again as we did in the days of old and openly claim that God our Creator does NOT exist, but all this just popped out of "nothing".

"Yes God (with raised fist frantically waving up at God like my neighbor in Texas whom "THEY" made to place a full sized plastic skeleton on the back of his motorcycle with one arm lifted with its middle finger sticking up towards heaven, and every day he passed by when I was doing things outside) we will never give you credit for giving us all this material, now that we found out about how you made a sew things, we don't need you! And on top of that, we will destroy everything you made, the entire world and everything in it, .. you hear?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObJL6aA2czo

Including all life on earth, yes, we'll kill everyone, it's all planned out in Agenda 21 and 2030, .. and then, in the custom of those brothers who have gone before us (Jim Jones, David Koresh, Hitler, Marshall Applewhite,) we will kill ourselves! You hear God, we have chosen a new god to rule over us whom we worship:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1Xg7lYuYus

and in his name we rob graves and disturb the dead and steal their skull and bones and put them in every classroom to make every child worship them! YES, they will worship Death, by listening and dancing to Death-songs, songs of war and every perversion imaginable to man.

Yes, when I Lucifer am done, every child, girl and boy of all ages will have a tattoo of skull and bones representing their rebellion against YOU! They will listen to abhorring sounds made into music which they will worship me with uplifted arms making blasphemous symbols with their hands, yes me Lucifer, for I have set in my heart that I WILL BE like the Most High, and as your Son seen with His own eyes, that man has bowed to ME, .. I own this world!

Sure you want to defend such lies as evolution? Time is short, we are mortal and we all die once, .. and then comes judgment.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 275 by RonE]

I am aware of what Francis Collins says he believes. It's in the same link I posted of the CNN interview.
I am also aware that some scientists as well as religionists accept that God may have started the process of evolution.
I await the time when they get a rude awakening, and have to explain why the Bible is not compatible with their views.

[RonE]

[Replying to post 278 by theStudent]

[Replying to post 275 by RonE]

I am aware of what Francis Collins says he believes. It's in the same link I posted of the CNN interview.

I went back and reviewed your postings and found no reference to the quote from Collins when he talks about creationists & evolution deniers, which you completely ignored:

"On the other hand, we have people who are believers who are so completely sold on the literal interpretation of the first book of the Bible that they are rejecting very compelling scientific data about the age of the earth and the relatedness of living beings." Francis Collins

Why would you ignore this? You value Collins' opinion on the one thing and ignore the other?

I am also aware that some scientists as well as religionists accept that God may have started the process of evolution.
I await the time when they get a rude awakening, and have to explain why the Bible is not compatible with their views.

And in your opinion this fellow who has studied and been on the leading edge of these issues for nearly 25 years, has been an atheist and now a christian has somehow gotten it all wrong... while you see it all clearly? Really?

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 278 by theStudent]

[Replying to post 275 by RonE]

I am aware of what Francis Collins says he believes. It's in the same link I posted of the CNN interview.

I went back and reviewed your postings and found no reference to the quote from Collins when he talks about creationists & evolution deniers, which you completely ignored:

"On the other hand, we have people who are believers who are so completely sold on the literal interpretation of the first book of the Bible that they are rejecting very compelling scientific data about the age of the earth and the relatedness of living beings." Francis Collins

Why would you ignore this? You value Collins' opinion on the one thing and ignore the other?

I am also aware that some scientists as well as religionists accept that God may have started the process of evolution.
I await the time when they get a rude awakening, and have to explain why the Bible is not compatible with their views.

And in your opinion this fellow who has studied and been on the leading edge of these issues for nearly 25 years, has been an atheist and now a christian has somehow gotten it all wrong... while you see it all clearly? Really?

What choice does he have?
dog·ma
ˈdôɡmə/
noun
a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

If people (general) let others do the thinking for them, especially those in authority over them, escaping dogmatic claims is extremely hard. They are sheep after all according to their theology. Why question your shepherds claims?