"Intelligent design" creationism basically finished

What I'm saying is what the watch maker argument says, you wing nuts find a watch and want us to believe it's existence is not the result of an watch maker but chance. Or my favorite, it's always been a watch that is why it's a watch. You're the same people that think someone with a penis is a woman because they say so. It's just is. Lmfao

I'm not an atheist - but I find that to be poor logic for the existence of a creator.

Something like the universe can't come into existence on its own - but an ominiscient, all-powerful being just always existed?

You run into the same issues explaining how a creator came into being as you would w/ the universe coming into being...
 
I'm not an atheist - but I find that to be poor logic for the existence of a creator.

Something like the universe can't come into existence on its own - but an ominiscient, all-powerful being just always existed?

You run into the same issues explaining how a creator came into being as you would w/ the universe coming into being...

^^^^EXACTLY^^^^^

This is, as I recall, the exact critique of Aquinas' "First Uncaused Cause" argument for God. It just amounts to "special pleading" on behalf of God rather than a robust point.
 
So Satan is your scapegoat for everything negative in the world now huh?

Just blame it on devil! Like blame it on the Boogeyman that you created just to have someone to blame things on!

The Devil made me do it! HA HA HA! :laugh:

Weak!
A Seed Doesn't Grow in Sanctified Sand

As the narrative goes, when Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden of Eden, Satan gloated at them, cackling "You're in my world now." Nature is the enemy of human progress, and those who think the natural way is the best way must be pushed out of Man's Way. Calling a natural disaster "an act of God" is a sacrilege.

Prometheus (the Inventor) is the real motor of the world, not Atlas. Aynal Randy's mythological hero was just a dumb hulk holding up an undeveloped Earth, where unthinking man would soon become extinct if were not for a few of them becoming homo sapiens. Atlas represents the subhuman plutocratic parasite who makes all his money from humiliating geniuses from childhood on and turning them into wimpy nerd pushovers.
 
.

You set the bar impossibly high, and show a complete lack of awareness of high science works.

grow the fuck up, dude.....we both know how the scientific method works and we both know that what you are talking about is NOT scientific testing of abiogenesis.....

the hypothesis of abiogenesis.....

there are organic chemicals.................something happens..............there is life.....

experimenting with the creation of organic chemicals is not a test of "something happens"......../
 
What I'm saying is what the watch maker argument says, you wing nuts find a watch and want us to believe it's existence is not the result of an watch maker but chance. Or my favorite, it's always been a watch that is why it's a watch. You're the same people that think someone with a penis is a woman because they say so. It's just is. Lmfao

I am not partial to anthrocentric words like watchmaker, deity, spirit. Its the same mistake the Medieval Church made, putting humans at the center of all reality.

I am probably one of the few on this board that will eschew absolute certainty and confess to ignorance.

I have no idea if there is some higher organizing principle underlying reality which our simian brains lack the capacity to fathom.

Or whether there is just an inert mathmatical scaffolding our minds can access and which explains everything about the cosmos.
 
a person walks into a room........there is a table and a deck of cards........spread out on the table is a royal flush in hearts......there is a note that says "I dealt this hand" signed Harold.......

the person says this room sprang into existence spontaneously......the laws of nature randomly dictated the existence of a deck of cards, the formulation of the five cards displayed and the rules of a game called poker......the note is inconsequential because we have no idea if the person who wrote it was really Harold or if the note was written by someone who came into the room years later........

people think that makes sense......
 
The theory of evolution is needed in, say, the study of bacteria and viruses.

The Pharmafia's JV Jabbers

You mean it's a college requirement for the worthless nerd virologists who created vaccines that kill people instead of curing them? Little Mamas' Boys who spend years sucking their thumbs in classrooms because they're afraid to grow up.
 
I am not partial to anthrocentric words like watchmaker, deity, spirit. Its the same mistake the Medieval Church made, putting humans at the center of all reality.

I am probably one of the few on this board that will eschew absolute certainty and confess to ignorance.

I have no idea if there is some higher organizing principle underlying reality which our simian brains lack the capacity to fathom.

Or whether there is just an inert mathmatical scaffolding our minds can access and which explains everything about the cosmos.

Whether or not your partial to anthro centric words is irrelevant to their accuracy. No one in their right mind finds a watch and thinks it's presence is explained by chance or again, it's a watch because it always been a watch. To suggest such a thing is to slap reason in the face.
 
Come to think of it, I haven't heard anything about the pseudoscience known as creationism in years, if it's been discredited, that's a good thing.

After creationism was shot down by the courts, ID was evangelical Christianity's next attempt to sneak creationism into science education via the Trojan horse of ID.
 
Whether or not your partial to anthro centric words is irrelevant to their accuracy. No one in their right mind finds a watch and thinks it's presence is explained by chance or again, it's a watch because it always been a watch. To suggest such a thing is to slap reason in the face.

You can parade around with everyone else wearing a veneer of absolute certainty on one side of the issue or the other.

To me, the emergence of infinitely complex cellular life from prebiotic inert chemicals is one of the great unsolved mysteries.

I think the odds are more likely that the laws of chemistry and physics could ultimately give us a plausible answer for how it happened. But I do not categorically rule out that the emergence of cellular life was a unique occurrence on Earth, the result of a perfect storm of events, and perhaps even attributable to some organizing principle we cannot comprehend.
 
Whether or not your partial to anthro centric words is irrelevant to their accuracy. No one in their right mind finds a watch and thinks it's presence is explained by chance or again, it's a watch because it always been a watch. To suggest such a thing is to slap reason in the face.

A universe is hardly the same as a watch. I agree that it is ridiculously tempting to assume that since every watch we have any experience of was made by a person that EVERYTHING that exists must have had a "creator" or "Designer".

The problem is: when talking about the universe and every thing and the proposal is there "must be a designer" the question just gets kicked down the road again. WHO created the creator? Where did the CREATOR come from?

There is precious little value to proposing a "solution" to the question that still falls afoul of the original question save for "special pleading".
 
No, I mean some generalized god or gods of some sort. Call them the Q if you want. I can conceptualize that there can and probably are intelligences within the universe that are greater than me and humanity in their ability to both think and manipulate things.

1703060-Arthur-C-Clarke-Quote-Any-sufficiently-advanced-technology-is.jpg

The Man Who Conquers Nature Is, by Definition, the Only Supernatural Being

We are all gods; the more intelligent, the more godly. Only jealous Low-IQs need a Master God so they cover up their inferiority by pretending they are associated with a Supreme Authority and are better than the best of us if we don't believe in It.
 
It is erroneous to entirely dismiss intelligent design as a concept. By doing so, you are committing a McNamara fallacy. You are saying intelligent design cannot be occurring or exist because you can't measure or observe it. That doesn't mean it isn't happening, only that you haven't got the means to recognize it is, if it is.

Irrational German Science Previewed a Century of Irrational German Politics

I have the same problem with proving that Entanglement is the same particle going back and forth at the square of the speed of light. Nothing can measure that velocity (a light-year in three minutes) over the distance being investigated; nothing may ever be able to measure that. It's even more immeasurable with the Quantum Leap.
 
Back
Top