Strands #301 “Festival Of Lights...
Quizzes & Puzzles22 mins ago
Intelligent Design
82 Answers
More a question for Theland than anyone else (or any other literalist Bible believer)
Can you explain to me why you believe that the universe is intelligently designed?
In fact, lets narrow it down a bit and just say Earth. (when I say 'narrow it down a bit', I actually mean considerably)
*The Earth has been home to over 99% of (now) extinct species of life forms.
*Life has evolved on this planet to eat other life forms
*Parasites live of other beings
*Cancer cells mutate indiscriminately (children, animals, Christians, atheists)
*Volcanos, earthquakes, tidal waves, etc don't discriminate whom they destroy
I could go on but I won't. But please tell me why you think that there is a divine intelligence in orchestrating the above. If its intelligent then its certainly malevolent.
Can you explain to me why you believe that the universe is intelligently designed?
In fact, lets narrow it down a bit and just say Earth. (when I say 'narrow it down a bit', I actually mean considerably)
*The Earth has been home to over 99% of (now) extinct species of life forms.
*Life has evolved on this planet to eat other life forms
*Parasites live of other beings
*Cancer cells mutate indiscriminately (children, animals, Christians, atheists)
*Volcanos, earthquakes, tidal waves, etc don't discriminate whom they destroy
I could go on but I won't. But please tell me why you think that there is a divine intelligence in orchestrating the above. If its intelligent then its certainly malevolent.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by nailit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
"So, maths can't prove or disprove intelligent design then. Thought not."
That's not a strength of ID. It's a weakness.
With respect to the rest of your diatribe, you're mistaken. History hasn't proved anything either: scientists are very good at discrediting earlier ideas, but in the process have advanced our understanding dramatically.
I note that you still haven't actually asked for an explanation of the mathematics behind modern physics. It's obviously going to take more than 4000 characters to explain, and it's up to you how seriously you take it, but it's certainly poor form to dismiss OG's points because, to be blunt, you don't have a clue what you are talking about either.
That's not a strength of ID. It's a weakness.
With respect to the rest of your diatribe, you're mistaken. History hasn't proved anything either: scientists are very good at discrediting earlier ideas, but in the process have advanced our understanding dramatically.
I note that you still haven't actually asked for an explanation of the mathematics behind modern physics. It's obviously going to take more than 4000 characters to explain, and it's up to you how seriously you take it, but it's certainly poor form to dismiss OG's points because, to be blunt, you don't have a clue what you are talking about either.
Hi jim360
//"So, maths can't prove or disprove intelligent design then. Thought not." That's not a strength of ID. It's a weakness.// Exactly.
//With respect to the rest of your diatribe, you're mistaken.// Really, that's your opinion.
//History hasn't proved anything either: scientists are very good at discrediting earlier ideas, but in the process have advanced our understanding dramatically.// No doubt science has progressed- but history has proved that you can't your faith in scientific theory which is wholly unreliable.
//I note that you still haven't actually asked for an explanation of the mathematics behind modern physics// You're quite right- I didn't- well spotted.
//It's obviously going to take more than 4000 characters to explain, and it's up to you how seriously you take it, but it's certainly poor form to dismiss OG's points because, to be blunt, you don't have a clue what you are talking about either.// Again, that's your opinion. OG made some points, I did my best to answer them, you didn't like the answers- that's your prerogative. OG is quite old enough to answer for himself without your "expert" opinion, I would think.
//"So, maths can't prove or disprove intelligent design then. Thought not." That's not a strength of ID. It's a weakness.// Exactly.
//With respect to the rest of your diatribe, you're mistaken.// Really, that's your opinion.
//History hasn't proved anything either: scientists are very good at discrediting earlier ideas, but in the process have advanced our understanding dramatically.// No doubt science has progressed- but history has proved that you can't your faith in scientific theory which is wholly unreliable.
//I note that you still haven't actually asked for an explanation of the mathematics behind modern physics// You're quite right- I didn't- well spotted.
//It's obviously going to take more than 4000 characters to explain, and it's up to you how seriously you take it, but it's certainly poor form to dismiss OG's points because, to be blunt, you don't have a clue what you are talking about either.// Again, that's your opinion. OG made some points, I did my best to answer them, you didn't like the answers- that's your prerogative. OG is quite old enough to answer for himself without your "expert" opinion, I would think.
It's worth bearing in mind that, as a proper discipline, science has only really existed for about 400 years, at best. Before then, the proper name for the subject was "natural philosophy".
At any rate, if you are putting science on some kind of trial for its many failures, it would be important to remember that historical context. Also, of course, there are its many successes: not least, of course, the understanding required to create the device on which you are currently ranting.
**
//"So, maths can't prove or disprove intelligent design then. Thought not." That's not a strength of ID. It's a weakness.// Exactly.
**
... Wait, what?
At any rate, if you are putting science on some kind of trial for its many failures, it would be important to remember that historical context. Also, of course, there are its many successes: not least, of course, the understanding required to create the device on which you are currently ranting.
**
//"So, maths can't prove or disprove intelligent design then. Thought not." That's not a strength of ID. It's a weakness.// Exactly.
**
... Wait, what?
I am not a believer in intelligent design but I think there is a flaw in the logic of saying that the universe is malevolent because there are indiscriminate aspects of it that kill or injure other aspects of it. The universe "cares" about the universe and not the individual part of itself....although of course the universe doesn't actually "care" at all. If the intelligent designer exists, then why should it care about one aspect of the design more than another?
Somebody mentioned building blocks of life being found in space? Meteors or something? Cracks in the rocks on Mars?
Sorry, if you delve into any of these stories, they are no more than wishful thinking with no substance to them whatsoever.
Big brains with big computers in big laboratories here on Earth can only reheat sausage rolls and not create anything resembling a building block of life.
How on earth are undirected natural processes supposed to have performed the miracle of life?
Sorry, if you delve into any of these stories, they are no more than wishful thinking with no substance to them whatsoever.
Big brains with big computers in big laboratories here on Earth can only reheat sausage rolls and not create anything resembling a building block of life.
How on earth are undirected natural processes supposed to have performed the miracle of life?
'Intelligent design' presupposes an intelligence far surpassing that of those who believe in and promote it . . . on that much, at least, few would disagree.
Intelligence is not a product of design but a prerequisite to designing, as well as for understanding why intelligence is itself a product of a prerequisite universe from which to evolve for the advantages it provides to the survival and well-being of rational beings within it.
ID'ers are not alone amongst those who fail to take into consideration that knowledge should be prerequisite to belief for only then does any hope for further knowledge follow from it.
Intelligence is not a product of design but a prerequisite to designing, as well as for understanding why intelligence is itself a product of a prerequisite universe from which to evolve for the advantages it provides to the survival and well-being of rational beings within it.
ID'ers are not alone amongst those who fail to take into consideration that knowledge should be prerequisite to belief for only then does any hope for further knowledge follow from it.
The 1% would be those species yet to become extinct and are here now.
building blocks https:/
building blocks https:/
Latest Posts
ChatterBank37 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles79 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles81 mins ago
Crosswords96 mins ago
Body & Soul129 mins ago
