TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: 'Religion is in the throws of death, and ID is simply evidence of its last gasps at survival.'

A desperate and false statement, that, and I believe the word is spelled 'throes', not 'throws'

---

Good catch. I don't know if I did that or my iPhone. But you got the gist of it. There won't be any serious followers of religion 500 years from now, of course IMO.

---

I'd bet you on that. But I could just see your descendants and mine getting together to work out who owes who, and how do they pay?

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: 'Religion is in the throws of death, and ID is simply evidence of its last gasps at survival.'

A desperate and false statement, that, and I believe the word is spelled 'throes', not 'throws'

---

Good catch. I don't know if I did that or my iPhone. But you got the gist of it. There won't be any serious followers of religion 500 years from now, of course IMO.

---

Maybe, maybe not. But I'd guarantee there won't be any serious followers of many of the scientific theories of today 500 years from now. You know, the ones that make up your current world view.

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The historical Jesus is NOT their field of study and therefore they have no authority, it's as simple as that, and for you to assert otherwise is evidence of how desperate you've become. The fact that you had to appeal to FOREIGN LANGUAGE professors to bolster your claim, in the face of virtually ALL reputable and relevant scholars in the field of study essentially declaring these claims as "foolish" and "completely spurious", shows exactly how incredibly weak and baseless your argument is. Not just weak, but as those scholars have said, it's stupid.

You are flailing at this point, and how you're not embarassed by it is beyond me. It's time to just concede.

---

From what I have gathered in previous conversations, you do not fully believe in the theory of Macro-evolution (without inserting magical explosions). Out of all the scientific theories, quite possibly the one with the most evidence. Evidence that has been extensively tested and confirmed by multiple independent sources.

---

What evidence shows there was no intelligent design involved? You are citing evidence that confirms what, exactly?

---

There can be no evidence for Intelligent Design! ID is a catch-all for what we can't explain, yet. For Intelligent Design to succeed, science has to fail. You cannot prove ID. So asking for proof it does not exist is a ridiculous request. I am sure there is a stripper with a heart of gold paying her way through Medical School too somewhere in the Universe!

Intelligent design has done nothing to advance science. It has pitted science against religion. It has done nothing to advance understanding. It is a bone being thrown to the Creationist. Sorry, even if there is an ID there is no way to prove it. Unless you have God's Cook Book or notes...

---

You must prove ID is false, if you are going to rule it out. If you can't rule it out, what is the problem with my stance on macroevolution?

ID may or may not be able to be definitively proven...however, it can be the best inference from the data. Note that neither can it be proven that mere random, undirected DNA mutation and natural selection is the explanation for the origin of animal kinds and for what is seen in the fossil record. That is merely an inference, just like ID.

You don't seem to understand what ID is or what it entails. It most certainly is an advanced scientific argument.

---

You can't prove it false, The whole premise is based on science can't prove it so there must be a designer we can't explain! ID is based on science failing.

---

Again, you don't understand ID. You are characterizing it all wrong.

I recommend a book by the genius Stephen Meyer, "Return of the God Hypothesis" to get a deep understand the arguments behind Intelligent Design (Add*: also the excellent book "Signature in the Cell") Here is a quote from a Nobel Prize winner in Physics, Brian Josephson, Fellow of the Royal Society, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Cambridge, regarding Meyer's book, and about Intelligent Design:

"This book makes it clear that far from being an unscientific claim, intelligent design is valid science."

---

I understand it. I don't agree with you or the author. We can do dueling Physicist if you like.


. https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2010/02/the-end-of-intelligent-design

---

Isn't that kind of his point?

---

He is saying his is right... I am saying mine is right. It is all opinion. It can't be proven. There are no experiments to prove that their is an Intelligent Designer, it is supposition and opinion. We can do this all day. If we want to discuss aspects of it and delve into the details, ok. But, we are at an impasse. I suggest a duel...

---

First of all, I did not quote a scientist to show I'm "right".

Secondly, even if that's what I was doing, I would win, because your physicist in his article doesn't even argue the points made by Meyer in his book, or even argue that Intelligent Design is wrong! Here is a quote from his essay:

"None of this is to say that the conclusions the ID movement draws about how life came to be and how it evolves are intrinsically unreasonable or necessarily wrong."

So if we're playing dueling physicists, it seems as if your guy has conceded.

---

ID is nothing more than a religious attempt to hold on to the remaining unknowns that scientific research has yet to uncover.......it's nothing more than a jazzed up god of the gaps.

---

This is the funniest comment I've read in a looong time! I've never seen anyone criticize the "god of the gaps" argument by using the "scientism of the gaps" argument all in the same breath! This is so rich. I really do thank you for this.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The historical Jesus is NOT their field of study and therefore they have no authority, it's as simple as that, and for you to assert otherwise is evidence of how desperate you've become. The fact that you had to appeal to FOREIGN LANGUAGE professors to bolster your claim, in the face of virtually ALL reputable and relevant scholars in the field of study essentially declaring these claims as "foolish" and "completely spurious", shows exactly how incredibly weak and baseless your argument is. Not just weak, but as those scholars have said, it's stupid.

You are flailing at this point, and how you're not embarassed by it is beyond me. It's time to just concede.

---

From what I have gathered in previous conversations, you do not fully believe in the theory of Macro-evolution (without inserting magical explosions). Out of all the scientific theories, quite possibly the one with the most evidence. Evidence that has been extensively tested and confirmed by multiple independent sources.

---

What evidence shows there was no intelligent design involved? You are citing evidence that confirms what, exactly?

---

There can be no evidence for Intelligent Design! ID is a catch-all for what we can't explain, yet. For Intelligent Design to succeed, science has to fail. You cannot prove ID. So asking for proof it does not exist is a ridiculous request. I am sure there is a stripper with a heart of gold paying her way through Medical School too somewhere in the Universe!

Intelligent design has done nothing to advance science. It has pitted science against religion. It has done nothing to advance understanding. It is a bone being thrown to the Creationist. Sorry, even if there is an ID there is no way to prove it. Unless you have God's Cook Book or notes...

---

You must prove ID is false, if you are going to rule it out. If you can't rule it out, what is the problem with my stance on macroevolution?

ID may or may not be able to be definitively proven...however, it can be the best inference from the data. Note that neither can it be proven that mere random, undirected DNA mutation and natural selection is the explanation for the origin of animal kinds and for what is seen in the fossil record. That is merely an inference, just like ID.

You don't seem to understand what ID is or what it entails. It most certainly is an advanced scientific argument.

---

You can't prove it false, The whole premise is based on science can't prove it so there must be a designer we can't explain! ID is based on science failing.

---

Again, you don't understand ID. You are characterizing it all wrong.

I recommend a book by the genius Stephen Meyer, "Return of the God Hypothesis" to get a deep understand the arguments behind Intelligent Design (Add*: also the excellent book "Signature in the Cell") Here is a quote from a Nobel Prize winner in Physics, Brian Josephson, Fellow of the Royal Society, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Cambridge, regarding Meyer's book, and about Intelligent Design:

"This book makes it clear that far from being an unscientific claim, intelligent design is valid science."

---

I understand it. I don't agree with you or the author. We can do dueling Physicist if you like.


. https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2010/02/the-end-of-intelligent-design

---

Isn't that kind of his point?

---

He is saying his is right... I am saying mine is right. It is all opinion. It can't be proven. There are no experiments to prove that their is an Intelligent Designer, it is supposition and opinion. We can do this all day. If we want to discuss aspects of it and delve into the details, ok. But, we are at an impasse. I suggest a duel...

---

First of all, I did not quote a scientist to show I'm "right".

Secondly, even if that's what I was doing, I would win, because your physicist in his article doesn't even argue the points made by Meyer in his book, or even argue that Intelligent Design is wrong! Here is a quote from his essay:

"None of this is to say that the conclusions the ID movement draws about how life came to be and how it evolves are intrinsically unreasonable or necessarily wrong."

So if we're playing dueling physicists, it seems as if your guy has conceded.

---

He is saying it is not something that can be proven. It is a movement not science. How do you prove an intelligent design? Give us one metric? One measurable? One experiment?

It is a philosophy, not a science. A middle of the road compromise to reconcile religion. Saying you can't prove it isn't science, doesn't make it science.

I believe in God and believe God created the universe, it is a matter of faith. Physics is just the mechanics.

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The historical Jesus is NOT their field of study and therefore they have no authority, it's as simple as that, and for you to assert otherwise is evidence of how desperate you've become. The fact that you had to appeal to FOREIGN LANGUAGE professors to bolster your claim, in the face of virtually ALL reputable and relevant scholars in the field of study essentially declaring these claims as "foolish" and "completely spurious", shows exactly how incredibly weak and baseless your argument is. Not just weak, but as those scholars have said, it's stupid.

You are flailing at this point, and how you're not embarassed by it is beyond me. It's time to just concede.

---

From what I have gathered in previous conversations, you do not fully believe in the theory of Macro-evolution (without inserting magical explosions). Out of all the scientific theories, quite possibly the one with the most evidence. Evidence that has been extensively tested and confirmed by multiple independent sources.

---

What evidence shows there was no intelligent design involved? You are citing evidence that confirms what, exactly?

---

There can be no evidence for Intelligent Design! ID is a catch-all for what we can't explain, yet. For Intelligent Design to succeed, science has to fail. You cannot prove ID. So asking for proof it does not exist is a ridiculous request. I am sure there is a stripper with a heart of gold paying her way through Medical School too somewhere in the Universe!

Intelligent design has done nothing to advance science. It has pitted science against religion. It has done nothing to advance understanding. It is a bone being thrown to the Creationist. Sorry, even if there is an ID there is no way to prove it. Unless you have God's Cook Book or notes...

---

You must prove ID is false, if you are going to rule it out. If you can't rule it out, what is the problem with my stance on macroevolution?

ID may or may not be able to be definitively proven...however, it can be the best inference from the data. Note that neither can it be proven that mere random, undirected DNA mutation and natural selection is the explanation for the origin of animal kinds and for what is seen in the fossil record. That is merely an inference, just like ID.

You don't seem to understand what ID is or what it entails. It most certainly is an advanced scientific argument.

---

You can't prove it false, The whole premise is based on science can't prove it so there must be a designer we can't explain! ID is based on science failing.

---

Again, you don't understand ID. You are characterizing it all wrong.

I recommend a book by the genius Stephen Meyer, "Return of the God Hypothesis" to get a deep understand the arguments behind Intelligent Design (Add*: also the excellent book "Signature in the Cell") Here is a quote from a Nobel Prize winner in Physics, Brian Josephson, Fellow of the Royal Society, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Cambridge, regarding Meyer's book, and about Intelligent Design:

"This book makes it clear that far from being an unscientific claim, intelligent design is valid science."

---

I understand it. I don't agree with you or the author. We can do dueling Physicist if you like.


. https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2010/02/the-end-of-intelligent-design

---

Isn't that kind of his point?

---

He is saying his is right... I am saying mine is right. It is all opinion. It can't be proven. There are no experiments to prove that their is an Intelligent Designer, it is supposition and opinion. We can do this all day. If we want to discuss aspects of it and delve into the details, ok. But, we are at an impasse. I suggest a duel...

---

First of all, I did not quote a scientist to show I'm "right".

Secondly, even if that's what I was doing, I would win, because your physicist in his article doesn't even argue the points made by Meyer in his book, or even argue that Intelligent Design is wrong! Here is a quote from his essay:

"None of this is to say that the conclusions the ID movement draws about how life came to be and how it evolves are intrinsically unreasonable or necessarily wrong."

So if we're playing dueling physicists, it seems as if your guy has conceded.

---

He is saying it is not something that can be proven. It is a movement not science. How do you prove an intelligent design? Give us one metric? One measurable? One experiment?

It is a philosophy, not a science. A middle of the road compromise to reconcile religion. Saying you can't prove it isn't science, doesn't make it science.

I believe in God and believe God created the universe, it is a matter of faith. Physics is just the mechanics.

---

Order.

ATL Bear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The historical Jesus is NOT their field of study and therefore they have no authority, it's as simple as that, and for you to assert otherwise is evidence of how desperate you've become. The fact that you had to appeal to FOREIGN LANGUAGE professors to bolster your claim, in the face of virtually ALL reputable and relevant scholars in the field of study essentially declaring these claims as "foolish" and "completely spurious", shows exactly how incredibly weak and baseless your argument is. Not just weak, but as those scholars have said, it's stupid.

You are flailing at this point, and how you're not embarassed by it is beyond me. It's time to just concede.

---

From what I have gathered in previous conversations, you do not fully believe in the theory of Macro-evolution (without inserting magical explosions). Out of all the scientific theories, quite possibly the one with the most evidence. Evidence that has been extensively tested and confirmed by multiple independent sources.

---

What evidence shows there was no intelligent design involved? You are citing evidence that confirms what, exactly?

---

There can be no evidence for Intelligent Design! ID is a catch-all for what we can't explain, yet. For Intelligent Design to succeed, science has to fail. You cannot prove ID. So asking for proof it does not exist is a ridiculous request. I am sure there is a stripper with a heart of gold paying her way through Medical School too somewhere in the Universe!

Intelligent design has done nothing to advance science. It has pitted science against religion. It has done nothing to advance understanding. It is a bone being thrown to the Creationist. Sorry, even if there is an ID there is no way to prove it. Unless you have God's Cook Book or notes...

---

You must prove ID is false, if you are going to rule it out. If you can't rule it out, what is the problem with my stance on macroevolution?

ID may or may not be able to be definitively proven...however, it can be the best inference from the data. Note that neither can it be proven that mere random, undirected DNA mutation and natural selection is the explanation for the origin of animal kinds and for what is seen in the fossil record. That is merely an inference, just like ID.

You don't seem to understand what ID is or what it entails. It most certainly is an advanced scientific argument.

---

You can't prove it false, The whole premise is based on science can't prove it so there must be a designer we can't explain! ID is based on science failing.

---

Again, you don't understand ID. You are characterizing it all wrong.

I recommend a book by the genius Stephen Meyer, "Return of the God Hypothesis" to get a deep understand the arguments behind Intelligent Design (Add*: also the excellent book "Signature in the Cell") Here is a quote from a Nobel Prize winner in Physics, Brian Josephson, Fellow of the Royal Society, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Cambridge, regarding Meyer's book, and about Intelligent Design:

"This book makes it clear that far from being an unscientific claim, intelligent design is valid science."

---

I understand it. I don't agree with you or the author. We can do dueling Physicist if you like.


. https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2010/02/the-end-of-intelligent-design

---

Isn't that kind of his point?

---

He is saying his is right... I am saying mine is right. It is all opinion. It can't be proven. There are no experiments to prove that their is an Intelligent Designer, it is supposition and opinion. We can do this all day. If we want to discuss aspects of it and delve into the details, ok. But, we are at an impasse. I suggest a duel...

---

First of all, I did not quote a scientist to show I'm "right".

Secondly, even if that's what I was doing, I would win, because your physicist in his article doesn't even argue the points made by Meyer in his book, or even argue that Intelligent Design is wrong! Here is a quote from his essay:

"None of this is to say that the conclusions the ID movement draws about how life came to be and how it evolves are intrinsically unreasonable or necessarily wrong."

So if we're playing dueling physicists, it seems as if your guy has conceded.

---

He is saying it is not something that can be proven. It is a movement not science. How do you prove an intelligent design? Give us one metric? One measurable? One experiment?

It is a philosophy, not a science. A middle of the road compromise to reconcile religion. Saying you can't prove it isn't science, doesn't make it science.

I believe in God and believe God created the universe, it is a matter of faith. Physics is just the mechanics.

---

Order.

---

Lost me. Physics provides order or order is proof of intelligent design?

If we are talking ID. How do you test order? Science is about testing and measuring. How do you test and measure order, DNA, or even origin of universe for an intelligent designer?

By the way, I don't think there is a conflict between religion and science. To me ID is unnecessary. A stretch that is not needed.

ATL Bear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The historical Jesus is NOT their field of study and therefore they have no authority, it's as simple as that, and for you to assert otherwise is evidence of how desperate you've become. The fact that you had to appeal to FOREIGN LANGUAGE professors to bolster your claim, in the face of virtually ALL reputable and relevant scholars in the field of study essentially declaring these claims as "foolish" and "completely spurious", shows exactly how incredibly weak and baseless your argument is. Not just weak, but as those scholars have said, it's stupid.

You are flailing at this point, and how you're not embarassed by it is beyond me. It's time to just concede.

---

From what I have gathered in previous conversations, you do not fully believe in the theory of Macro-evolution (without inserting magical explosions). Out of all the scientific theories, quite possibly the one with the most evidence. Evidence that has been extensively tested and confirmed by multiple independent sources.

---

What evidence shows there was no intelligent design involved? You are citing evidence that confirms what, exactly?

---

There can be no evidence for Intelligent Design! ID is a catch-all for what we can't explain, yet. For Intelligent Design to succeed, science has to fail. You cannot prove ID. So asking for proof it does not exist is a ridiculous request. I am sure there is a stripper with a heart of gold paying her way through Medical School too somewhere in the Universe!

Intelligent design has done nothing to advance science. It has pitted science against religion. It has done nothing to advance understanding. It is a bone being thrown to the Creationist. Sorry, even if there is an ID there is no way to prove it. Unless you have God's Cook Book or notes...

---

You must prove ID is false, if you are going to rule it out. If you can't rule it out, what is the problem with my stance on macroevolution?

ID may or may not be able to be definitively proven...however, it can be the best inference from the data. Note that neither can it be proven that mere random, undirected DNA mutation and natural selection is the explanation for the origin of animal kinds and for what is seen in the fossil record. That is merely an inference, just like ID.

You don't seem to understand what ID is or what it entails. It most certainly is an advanced scientific argument.

---

You can't prove it false, The whole premise is based on science can't prove it so there must be a designer we can't explain! ID is based on science failing.

---

Again, you don't understand ID. You are characterizing it all wrong.

I recommend a book by the genius Stephen Meyer, "Return of the God Hypothesis" to get a deep understand the arguments behind Intelligent Design (Add*: also the excellent book "Signature in the Cell") Here is a quote from a Nobel Prize winner in Physics, Brian Josephson, Fellow of the Royal Society, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Cambridge, regarding Meyer's book, and about Intelligent Design:

"This book makes it clear that far from being an unscientific claim, intelligent design is valid science."

---

I understand it. I don't agree with you or the author. We can do dueling Physicist if you like.


. https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2010/02/the-end-of-intelligent-design

---

Isn't that kind of his point?

---

He is saying his is right... I am saying mine is right. It is all opinion. It can't be proven. There are no experiments to prove that their is an Intelligent Designer, it is supposition and opinion. We can do this all day. If we want to discuss aspects of it and delve into the details, ok. But, we are at an impasse. I suggest a duel...

---

First of all, I did not quote a scientist to show I'm "right".

Secondly, even if that's what I was doing, I would win, because your physicist in his article doesn't even argue the points made by Meyer in his book, or even argue that Intelligent Design is wrong! Here is a quote from his essay:

"None of this is to say that the conclusions the ID movement draws about how life came to be and how it evolves are intrinsically unreasonable or necessarily wrong."

So if we're playing dueling physicists, it seems as if your guy has conceded.

---

He is saying it is not something that can be proven. It is a movement not science. How do you prove an intelligent design? Give us one metric? One measurable? One experiment?

It is a philosophy, not a science. A middle of the road compromise to reconcile religion. Saying you can't prove it isn't science, doesn't make it science.

I believe in God and believe God created the universe, it is a matter of faith. Physics is just the mechanics.

---

Order.

---

Good idea. I'll have the #1 Combo with Cheese and a large Coke, and a double side of Amazing Grace, please.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The historical Jesus is NOT their field of study and therefore they have no authority, it's as simple as that, and for you to assert otherwise is evidence of how desperate you've become. The fact that you had to appeal to FOREIGN LANGUAGE professors to bolster your claim, in the face of virtually ALL reputable and relevant scholars in the field of study essentially declaring these claims as "foolish" and "completely spurious", shows exactly how incredibly weak and baseless your argument is. Not just weak, but as those scholars have said, it's stupid.

You are flailing at this point, and how you're not embarassed by it is beyond me. It's time to just concede.

---

From what I have gathered in previous conversations, you do not fully believe in the theory of Macro-evolution (without inserting magical explosions). Out of all the scientific theories, quite possibly the one with the most evidence. Evidence that has been extensively tested and confirmed by multiple independent sources.

---

What evidence shows there was no intelligent design involved? You are citing evidence that confirms what, exactly?

---

There can be no evidence for Intelligent Design! ID is a catch-all for what we can't explain, yet. For Intelligent Design to succeed, science has to fail. You cannot prove ID. So asking for proof it does not exist is a ridiculous request. I am sure there is a stripper with a heart of gold paying her way through Medical School too somewhere in the Universe!

Intelligent design has done nothing to advance science. It has pitted science against religion. It has done nothing to advance understanding. It is a bone being thrown to the Creationist. Sorry, even if there is an ID there is no way to prove it. Unless you have God's Cook Book or notes...

---

You must prove ID is false, if you are going to rule it out. If you can't rule it out, what is the problem with my stance on macroevolution?

ID may or may not be able to be definitively proven...however, it can be the best inference from the data. Note that neither can it be proven that mere random, undirected DNA mutation and natural selection is the explanation for the origin of animal kinds and for what is seen in the fossil record. That is merely an inference, just like ID.

You don't seem to understand what ID is or what it entails. It most certainly is an advanced scientific argument.

---

You can't prove it false, The whole premise is based on science can't prove it so there must be a designer we can't explain! ID is based on science failing.

---

Again, you don't understand ID. You are characterizing it all wrong.

I recommend a book by the genius Stephen Meyer, "Return of the God Hypothesis" to get a deep understand the arguments behind Intelligent Design (Add*: also the excellent book "Signature in the Cell") Here is a quote from a Nobel Prize winner in Physics, Brian Josephson, Fellow of the Royal Society, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Cambridge, regarding Meyer's book, and about Intelligent Design:

"This book makes it clear that far from being an unscientific claim, intelligent design is valid science."

---

I understand it. I don't agree with you or the author. We can do dueling Physicist if you like.


. https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2010/02/the-end-of-intelligent-design

---

Isn't that kind of his point?

---

He is saying his is right... I am saying mine is right. It is all opinion. It can't be proven. There are no experiments to prove that their is an Intelligent Designer, it is supposition and opinion. We can do this all day. If we want to discuss aspects of it and delve into the details, ok. But, we are at an impasse. I suggest a duel...

---

First of all, I did not quote a scientist to show I'm "right".

Secondly, even if that's what I was doing, I would win, because your physicist in his article doesn't even argue the points made by Meyer in his book, or even argue that Intelligent Design is wrong! Here is a quote from his essay:

"None of this is to say that the conclusions the ID movement draws about how life came to be and how it evolves are intrinsically unreasonable or necessarily wrong."

So if we're playing dueling physicists, it seems as if your guy has conceded.

---

ID is nothing more than a religious attempt to hold on to the remaining unknowns that scientific research has yet to uncover.......it's nothing more than a jazzed up god of the gaps.

---

This is the funniest comment I've read in a looong time! I've never seen anyone criticize the "god of the gaps" argument by using the "scientism of the gaps" argument all in the same breath! This is so rich. I really do thank you for this.

---

he does two shows nightly. Don't forget to tip the wait staff

Oldbear83 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The historical Jesus is NOT their field of study and therefore they have no authority, it's as simple as that, and for you to assert otherwise is evidence of how desperate you've become. The fact that you had to appeal to FOREIGN LANGUAGE professors to bolster your claim, in the face of virtually ALL reputable and relevant scholars in the field of study essentially declaring these claims as "foolish" and "completely spurious", shows exactly how incredibly weak and baseless your argument is. Not just weak, but as those scholars have said, it's stupid.

You are flailing at this point, and how you're not embarassed by it is beyond me. It's time to just concede.

---

From what I have gathered in previous conversations, you do not fully believe in the theory of Macro-evolution (without inserting magical explosions). Out of all the scientific theories, quite possibly the one with the most evidence. Evidence that has been extensively tested and confirmed by multiple independent sources.

---

What evidence shows there was no intelligent design involved? You are citing evidence that confirms what, exactly?

---

There can be no evidence for Intelligent Design! ID is a catch-all for what we can't explain, yet. For Intelligent Design to succeed, science has to fail. You cannot prove ID. So asking for proof it does not exist is a ridiculous request. I am sure there is a stripper with a heart of gold paying her way through Medical School too somewhere in the Universe!

Intelligent design has done nothing to advance science. It has pitted science against religion. It has done nothing to advance understanding. It is a bone being thrown to the Creationist. Sorry, even if there is an ID there is no way to prove it. Unless you have God's Cook Book or notes...

---

You must prove ID is false, if you are going to rule it out. If you can't rule it out, what is the problem with my stance on macroevolution?

ID may or may not be able to be definitively proven...however, it can be the best inference from the data. Note that neither can it be proven that mere random, undirected DNA mutation and natural selection is the explanation for the origin of animal kinds and for what is seen in the fossil record. That is merely an inference, just like ID.

You don't seem to understand what ID is or what it entails. It most certainly is an advanced scientific argument.

---

You can't prove it false, The whole premise is based on science can't prove it so there must be a designer we can't explain! ID is based on science failing.

---

Again, you don't understand ID. You are characterizing it all wrong.

I recommend a book by the genius Stephen Meyer, "Return of the God Hypothesis" to get a deep understand the arguments behind Intelligent Design (Add*: also the excellent book "Signature in the Cell") Here is a quote from a Nobel Prize winner in Physics, Brian Josephson, Fellow of the Royal Society, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Cambridge, regarding Meyer's book, and about Intelligent Design:

"This book makes it clear that far from being an unscientific claim, intelligent design is valid science."

---

I understand it. I don't agree with you or the author. We can do dueling Physicist if you like.


. https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2010/02/the-end-of-intelligent-design

---

Isn't that kind of his point?

---

He is saying his is right... I am saying mine is right. It is all opinion. It can't be proven. There are no experiments to prove that their is an Intelligent Designer, it is supposition and opinion. We can do this all day. If we want to discuss aspects of it and delve into the details, ok. But, we are at an impasse. I suggest a duel...

---

First of all, I did not quote a scientist to show I'm "right".

Secondly, even if that's what I was doing, I would win, because your physicist in his article doesn't even argue the points made by Meyer in his book, or even argue that Intelligent Design is wrong! Here is a quote from his essay:

"None of this is to say that the conclusions the ID movement draws about how life came to be and how it evolves are intrinsically unreasonable or necessarily wrong."

So if we're playing dueling physicists, it seems as if your guy has conceded.

---

He is saying it is not something that can be proven. It is a movement not science. How do you prove an intelligent design? Give us one metric? One measurable? One experiment?

It is a philosophy, not a science. A middle of the road compromise to reconcile religion. Saying you can't prove it isn't science, doesn't make it science.

I believe in God and believe God created the universe, it is a matter of faith. Physics is just the mechanics.

---

Order.

---

Good idea. I'll have the #1 Combo with Cheese and a large Coke, and a double side of Amazing Grace, please.

---

don't you mean Diet Coke?

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The historical Jesus is NOT their field of study and therefore they have no authority, it's as simple as that, and for you to assert otherwise is evidence of how desperate you've become. The fact that you had to appeal to FOREIGN LANGUAGE professors to bolster your claim, in the face of virtually ALL reputable and relevant scholars in the field of study essentially declaring these claims as "foolish" and "completely spurious", shows exactly how incredibly weak and baseless your argument is. Not just weak, but as those scholars have said, it's stupid.

You are flailing at this point, and how you're not embarassed by it is beyond me. It's time to just concede.

---

From what I have gathered in previous conversations, you do not fully believe in the theory of Macro-evolution (without inserting magical explosions). Out of all the scientific theories, quite possibly the one with the most evidence. Evidence that has been extensively tested and confirmed by multiple independent sources.

---

What evidence shows there was no intelligent design involved? You are citing evidence that confirms what, exactly?

---

There can be no evidence for Intelligent Design! ID is a catch-all for what we can't explain, yet. For Intelligent Design to succeed, science has to fail. You cannot prove ID. So asking for proof it does not exist is a ridiculous request. I am sure there is a stripper with a heart of gold paying her way through Medical School too somewhere in the Universe!

Intelligent design has done nothing to advance science. It has pitted science against religion. It has done nothing to advance understanding. It is a bone being thrown to the Creationist. Sorry, even if there is an ID there is no way to prove it. Unless you have God's Cook Book or notes...

---

You must prove ID is false, if you are going to rule it out. If you can't rule it out, what is the problem with my stance on macroevolution?

ID may or may not be able to be definitively proven...however, it can be the best inference from the data. Note that neither can it be proven that mere random, undirected DNA mutation and natural selection is the explanation for the origin of animal kinds and for what is seen in the fossil record. That is merely an inference, just like ID.

You don't seem to understand what ID is or what it entails. It most certainly is an advanced scientific argument.

---

You can't prove it false, The whole premise is based on science can't prove it so there must be a designer we can't explain! ID is based on science failing.

---

Again, you don't understand ID. You are characterizing it all wrong.

I recommend a book by the genius Stephen Meyer, "Return of the God Hypothesis" to get a deep understand the arguments behind Intelligent Design (Add*: also the excellent book "Signature in the Cell") Here is a quote from a Nobel Prize winner in Physics, Brian Josephson, Fellow of the Royal Society, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Cambridge, regarding Meyer's book, and about Intelligent Design:

"This book makes it clear that far from being an unscientific claim, intelligent design is valid science."

---

I understand it. I don't agree with you or the author. We can do dueling Physicist if you like.


. https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2010/02/the-end-of-intelligent-design

---

Isn't that kind of his point?

---

He is saying his is right... I am saying mine is right. It is all opinion. It can't be proven. There are no experiments to prove that their is an Intelligent Designer, it is supposition and opinion. We can do this all day. If we want to discuss aspects of it and delve into the details, ok. But, we are at an impasse. I suggest a duel...

---

First of all, I did not quote a scientist to show I'm "right".

Secondly, even if that's what I was doing, I would win, because your physicist in his article doesn't even argue the points made by Meyer in his book, or even argue that Intelligent Design is wrong! Here is a quote from his essay:

"None of this is to say that the conclusions the ID movement draws about how life came to be and how it evolves are intrinsically unreasonable or necessarily wrong."

So if we're playing dueling physicists, it seems as if your guy has conceded.

---

He is saying it is not something that can be proven. It is a movement not science. How do you prove an intelligent design? Give us one metric? One measurable? One experiment?

It is a philosophy, not a science. A middle of the road compromise to reconcile religion. Saying you can't prove it isn't science, doesn't make it science.

I believe in God and believe God created the universe, it is a matter of faith. Physics is just the mechanics.

---

Being unprovable doesn't mean it's unscientific. That was the point here, that's what you were essentially asserting. I gave you a long list of scientists who agree. You gave this author, who doesn't necessarily disagree, given that he can't say it is unreasonable or wrong.

You continue to demonstrate that you don't understand what ID is. It is a reasoned, logical, evidence based argument, not a philosophical "movement" or "compromise" with religion. Why don't you answer my questions about the poker guy and the house of cards?

And no one argued that since you can't prove it isn't science, makes it a science. You are misrepresenting the argument.

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The historical Jesus is NOT their field of study and therefore they have no authority, it's as simple as that, and for you to assert otherwise is evidence of how desperate you've become. The fact that you had to appeal to FOREIGN LANGUAGE professors to bolster your claim, in the face of virtually ALL reputable and relevant scholars in the field of study essentially declaring these claims as "foolish" and "completely spurious", shows exactly how incredibly weak and baseless your argument is. Not just weak, but as those scholars have said, it's stupid.

You are flailing at this point, and how you're not embarassed by it is beyond me. It's time to just concede.

---

From what I have gathered in previous conversations, you do not fully believe in the theory of Macro-evolution (without inserting magical explosions). Out of all the scientific theories, quite possibly the one with the most evidence. Evidence that has been extensively tested and confirmed by multiple independent sources.

---

What evidence shows there was no intelligent design involved? You are citing evidence that confirms what, exactly?

---

There can be no evidence for Intelligent Design! ID is a catch-all for what we can't explain, yet. For Intelligent Design to succeed, science has to fail. You cannot prove ID. So asking for proof it does not exist is a ridiculous request. I am sure there is a stripper with a heart of gold paying her way through Medical School too somewhere in the Universe!

Intelligent design has done nothing to advance science. It has pitted science against religion. It has done nothing to advance understanding. It is a bone being thrown to the Creationist. Sorry, even if there is an ID there is no way to prove it. Unless you have God's Cook Book or notes...

---

You must prove ID is false, if you are going to rule it out. If you can't rule it out, what is the problem with my stance on macroevolution?

ID may or may not be able to be definitively proven...however, it can be the best inference from the data. Note that neither can it be proven that mere random, undirected DNA mutation and natural selection is the explanation for the origin of animal kinds and for what is seen in the fossil record. That is merely an inference, just like ID.

You don't seem to understand what ID is or what it entails. It most certainly is an advanced scientific argument.

---

You can't prove it false, The whole premise is based on science can't prove it so there must be a designer we can't explain! ID is based on science failing.

---

Again, you don't understand ID. You are characterizing it all wrong.

I recommend a book by the genius Stephen Meyer, "Return of the God Hypothesis" to get a deep understand the arguments behind Intelligent Design (Add*: also the excellent book "Signature in the Cell") Here is a quote from a Nobel Prize winner in Physics, Brian Josephson, Fellow of the Royal Society, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Cambridge, regarding Meyer's book, and about Intelligent Design:

"This book makes it clear that far from being an unscientific claim, intelligent design is valid science."

---

I understand it. I don't agree with you or the author. We can do dueling Physicist if you like.


. https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2010/02/the-end-of-intelligent-design

---

Isn't that kind of his point?

---

He is saying his is right... I am saying mine is right. It is all opinion. It can't be proven. There are no experiments to prove that their is an Intelligent Designer, it is supposition and opinion. We can do this all day. If we want to discuss aspects of it and delve into the details, ok. But, we are at an impasse. I suggest a duel...

---

First of all, I did not quote a scientist to show I'm "right".

Secondly, even if that's what I was doing, I would win, because your physicist in his article doesn't even argue the points made by Meyer in his book, or even argue that Intelligent Design is wrong! Here is a quote from his essay:

"None of this is to say that the conclusions the ID movement draws about how life came to be and how it evolves are intrinsically unreasonable or necessarily wrong."

So if we're playing dueling physicists, it seems as if your guy has conceded.

---

He is saying it is not something that can be proven. It is a movement not science. How do you prove an intelligent design? Give us one metric? One measurable? One experiment?

It is a philosophy, not a science. A middle of the road compromise to reconcile religion. Saying you can't prove it isn't science, doesn't make it science.

I believe in God and believe God created the universe, it is a matter of faith. Physics is just the mechanics.

---

Evolution via undirected, natural processes is also unprovable as the cause of the origin of animal kinds, and for all what we see in the fossil record. Do you consider it science, or "scientific"?

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The historical Jesus is NOT their field of study and therefore they have no authority, it's as simple as that, and for you to assert otherwise is evidence of how desperate you've become. The fact that you had to appeal to FOREIGN LANGUAGE professors to bolster your claim, in the face of virtually ALL reputable and relevant scholars in the field of study essentially declaring these claims as "foolish" and "completely spurious", shows exactly how incredibly weak and baseless your argument is. Not just weak, but as those scholars have said, it's stupid.

You are flailing at this point, and how you're not embarassed by it is beyond me. It's time to just concede.

---

From what I have gathered in previous conversations, you do not fully believe in the theory of Macro-evolution (without inserting magical explosions). Out of all the scientific theories, quite possibly the one with the most evidence. Evidence that has been extensively tested and confirmed by multiple independent sources.

---

What evidence shows there was no intelligent design involved? You are citing evidence that confirms what, exactly?

---

There can be no evidence for Intelligent Design! ID is a catch-all for what we can't explain, yet. For Intelligent Design to succeed, science has to fail. You cannot prove ID. So asking for proof it does not exist is a ridiculous request. I am sure there is a stripper with a heart of gold paying her way through Medical School too somewhere in the Universe!

Intelligent design has done nothing to advance science. It has pitted science against religion. It has done nothing to advance understanding. It is a bone being thrown to the Creationist. Sorry, even if there is an ID there is no way to prove it. Unless you have God's Cook Book or notes...

---

You must prove ID is false, if you are going to rule it out. If you can't rule it out, what is the problem with my stance on macroevolution?

ID may or may not be able to be definitively proven...however, it can be the best inference from the data. Note that neither can it be proven that mere random, undirected DNA mutation and natural selection is the explanation for the origin of animal kinds and for what is seen in the fossil record. That is merely an inference, just like ID.

You don't seem to understand what ID is or what it entails. It most certainly is an advanced scientific argument.

---

You can't prove it false, The whole premise is based on science can't prove it so there must be a designer we can't explain! ID is based on science failing.

---

Again, you don't understand ID. You are characterizing it all wrong.

I recommend a book by the genius Stephen Meyer, "Return of the God Hypothesis" to get a deep understand the arguments behind Intelligent Design (Add*: also the excellent book "Signature in the Cell") Here is a quote from a Nobel Prize winner in Physics, Brian Josephson, Fellow of the Royal Society, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Cambridge, regarding Meyer's book, and about Intelligent Design:

"This book makes it clear that far from being an unscientific claim, intelligent design is valid science."

---

I understand it. I don't agree with you or the author. We can do dueling Physicist if you like.


. https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2010/02/the-end-of-intelligent-design

---

Isn't that kind of his point?

---

He is saying his is right... I am saying mine is right. It is all opinion. It can't be proven. There are no experiments to prove that their is an Intelligent Designer, it is supposition and opinion. We can do this all day. If we want to discuss aspects of it and delve into the details, ok. But, we are at an impasse. I suggest a duel...

---

First of all, I did not quote a scientist to show I'm "right".

Secondly, even if that's what I was doing, I would win, because your physicist in his article doesn't even argue the points made by Meyer in his book, or even argue that Intelligent Design is wrong! Here is a quote from his essay:

"None of this is to say that the conclusions the ID movement draws about how life came to be and how it evolves are intrinsically unreasonable or necessarily wrong."

So if we're playing dueling physicists, it seems as if your guy has conceded.

---

He is saying it is not something that can be proven. It is a movement not science. How do you prove an intelligent design? Give us one metric? One measurable? One experiment?

It is a philosophy, not a science. A middle of the road compromise to reconcile religion. Saying you can't prove it isn't science, doesn't make it science.

I believe in God and believe God created the universe, it is a matter of faith. Physics is just the mechanics.

---

Can you even prove physics? Even in physics, there are assumptions made that can't be proven. For example, the speed of light being a constant is an assumption that we can't prove, we just have to assume.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The historical Jesus is NOT their field of study and therefore they have no authority, it's as simple as that, and for you to assert otherwise is evidence of how desperate you've become. The fact that you had to appeal to FOREIGN LANGUAGE professors to bolster your claim, in the face of virtually ALL reputable and relevant scholars in the field of study essentially declaring these claims as "foolish" and "completely spurious", shows exactly how incredibly weak and baseless your argument is. Not just weak, but as those scholars have said, it's stupid.

You are flailing at this point, and how you're not embarassed by it is beyond me. It's time to just concede.

---

From what I have gathered in previous conversations, you do not fully believe in the theory of Macro-evolution (without inserting magical explosions). Out of all the scientific theories, quite possibly the one with the most evidence. Evidence that has been extensively tested and confirmed by multiple independent sources.

---

What evidence shows there was no intelligent design involved? You are citing evidence that confirms what, exactly?

---

There can be no evidence for Intelligent Design! ID is a catch-all for what we can't explain, yet. For Intelligent Design to succeed, science has to fail. You cannot prove ID. So asking for proof it does not exist is a ridiculous request. I am sure there is a stripper with a heart of gold paying her way through Medical School too somewhere in the Universe!

Intelligent design has done nothing to advance science. It has pitted science against religion. It has done nothing to advance understanding. It is a bone being thrown to the Creationist. Sorry, even if there is an ID there is no way to prove it. Unless you have God's Cook Book or notes...

---

You must prove ID is false, if you are going to rule it out. If you can't rule it out, what is the problem with my stance on macroevolution?

ID may or may not be able to be definitively proven...however, it can be the best inference from the data. Note that neither can it be proven that mere random, undirected DNA mutation and natural selection is the explanation for the origin of animal kinds and for what is seen in the fossil record. That is merely an inference, just like ID.

You don't seem to understand what ID is or what it entails. It most certainly is an advanced scientific argument.

---

You can't prove it false, The whole premise is based on science can't prove it so there must be a designer we can't explain! ID is based on science failing.

---

Again, you don't understand ID. You are characterizing it all wrong.

I recommend a book by the genius Stephen Meyer, "Return of the God Hypothesis" to get a deep understand the arguments behind Intelligent Design (Add*: also the excellent book "Signature in the Cell") Here is a quote from a Nobel Prize winner in Physics, Brian Josephson, Fellow of the Royal Society, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Cambridge, regarding Meyer's book, and about Intelligent Design:

"This book makes it clear that far from being an unscientific claim, intelligent design is valid science."

---

I understand it. I don't agree with you or the author. We can do dueling Physicist if you like.


. https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2010/02/the-end-of-intelligent-design

---

Isn't that kind of his point?

---

He is saying his is right... I am saying mine is right. It is all opinion. It can't be proven. There are no experiments to prove that their is an Intelligent Designer, it is supposition and opinion. We can do this all day. If we want to discuss aspects of it and delve into the details, ok. But, we are at an impasse. I suggest a duel...

---

First of all, I did not quote a scientist to show I'm "right".

Secondly, even if that's what I was doing, I would win, because your physicist in his article doesn't even argue the points made by Meyer in his book, or even argue that Intelligent Design is wrong! Here is a quote from his essay:

"None of this is to say that the conclusions the ID movement draws about how life came to be and how it evolves are intrinsically unreasonable or necessarily wrong."

So if we're playing dueling physicists, it seems as if your guy has conceded.

---

He is saying it is not something that can be proven. It is a movement not science. How do you prove an intelligent design? Give us one metric? One measurable? One experiment?

It is a philosophy, not a science. A middle of the road compromise to reconcile religion. Saying you can't prove it isn't science, doesn't make it science.

I believe in God and believe God created the universe, it is a matter of faith. Physics is just the mechanics.

---

Order.

---

Good idea. I'll have the #1 Combo with Cheese and a large Coke, and a double side of Amazing Grace, please.

---

don't you mean Diet Coke?

---

Only when I jumbo the fries

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

26 years ago, my daughter was born 10 weeks early and weighed 2.6 lbs. She is perfectly healthy. Next week she will give birth to her own baby.

---

I'm glad your daughter survived premature birth. Be thankful she was born in a time where medical technology, and skilled professionals could pull her through. In my own family we had a baby girl born at 22 weeks only to live two days at Presbyterian, and another immediate family member who's infant died at 6 months old, after spending 4 months in Children's Hospital. I can promise you they had as many prayers and pleas for their wellbeing as your daughter. Medical technology can't always pull someone through. There is no evidence that there is any supernatural power at play arbitrarily deciding who lives and who dies. I'm glad for you, your daughter, and the opportunity you have to know her children.

ATL Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: 'Religion is in the throws of death, and ID is simply evidence of its last gasps at survival.'

A desperate and false statement, that, and I believe the word is spelled 'throes', not 'throws'

---

Good catch. I don't know if I did that or my iPhone. But you got the gist of it. There won't be any serious followers of religion 500 years from now, of course IMO.

---

Maybe, maybe not. But I'd guarantee there won't be any serious followers of many of the scientific theories of today 500 years from now. You know, the ones that make up your current world view.

---

You mean general relativity and quantum theory? The same theories that get us to the moon, and operate your cell phone and computers? I don't think we'll go back to believing planets orbit the sun on the backs of gods. Rather, we'll be using technologies that grew out of refinement of those scientific theories. But maybe you're right, and society will collapse under the weight of believing in the alternative realities of mystics and politicians.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The historical Jesus is NOT their field of study and therefore they have no authority, it's as simple as that, and for you to assert otherwise is evidence of how desperate you've become. The fact that you had to appeal to FOREIGN LANGUAGE professors to bolster your claim, in the face of virtually ALL reputable and relevant scholars in the field of study essentially declaring these claims as "foolish" and "completely spurious", shows exactly how incredibly weak and baseless your argument is. Not just weak, but as those scholars have said, it's stupid.

You are flailing at this point, and how you're not embarassed by it is beyond me. It's time to just concede.

---

From what I have gathered in previous conversations, you do not fully believe in the theory of Macro-evolution (without inserting magical explosions). Out of all the scientific theories, quite possibly the one with the most evidence. Evidence that has been extensively tested and confirmed by multiple independent sources.

---

What evidence shows there was no intelligent design involved? You are citing evidence that confirms what, exactly?

---

There can be no evidence for Intelligent Design! ID is a catch-all for what we can't explain, yet. For Intelligent Design to succeed, science has to fail. You cannot prove ID. So asking for proof it does not exist is a ridiculous request. I am sure there is a stripper with a heart of gold paying her way through Medical School too somewhere in the Universe!

Intelligent design has done nothing to advance science. It has pitted science against religion. It has done nothing to advance understanding. It is a bone being thrown to the Creationist. Sorry, even if there is an ID there is no way to prove it. Unless you have God's Cook Book or notes...

---

You must prove ID is false, if you are going to rule it out. If you can't rule it out, what is the problem with my stance on macroevolution?

ID may or may not be able to be definitively proven...however, it can be the best inference from the data. Note that neither can it be proven that mere random, undirected DNA mutation and natural selection is the explanation for the origin of animal kinds and for what is seen in the fossil record. That is merely an inference, just like ID.

You don't seem to understand what ID is or what it entails. It most certainly is an advanced scientific argument.

---

You can't prove it false, The whole premise is based on science can't prove it so there must be a designer we can't explain! ID is based on science failing.

---

Again, you don't understand ID. You are characterizing it all wrong.

I recommend a book by the genius Stephen Meyer, "Return of the God Hypothesis" to get a deep understand the arguments behind Intelligent Design (Add*: also the excellent book "Signature in the Cell") Here is a quote from a Nobel Prize winner in Physics, Brian Josephson, Fellow of the Royal Society, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Cambridge, regarding Meyer's book, and about Intelligent Design:

"This book makes it clear that far from being an unscientific claim, intelligent design is valid science."

---

I understand it. I don't agree with you or the author. We can do dueling Physicist if you like.


. https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2010/02/the-end-of-intelligent-design

---

Isn't that kind of his point?

---

He is saying his is right... I am saying mine is right. It is all opinion. It can't be proven. There are no experiments to prove that their is an Intelligent Designer, it is supposition and opinion. We can do this all day. If we want to discuss aspects of it and delve into the details, ok. But, we are at an impasse. I suggest a duel...

---

First of all, I did not quote a scientist to show I'm "right".

Secondly, even if that's what I was doing, I would win, because your physicist in his article doesn't even argue the points made by Meyer in his book, or even argue that Intelligent Design is wrong! Here is a quote from his essay:

"None of this is to say that the conclusions the ID movement draws about how life came to be and how it evolves are intrinsically unreasonable or necessarily wrong."

So if we're playing dueling physicists, it seems as if your guy has conceded.

---

ID is nothing more than a religious attempt to hold on to the remaining unknowns that scientific research has yet to uncover.......it's nothing more than a jazzed up god of the gaps.

---

This is the funniest comment I've read in a looong time! I've never seen anyone criticize the "god of the gaps" argument by using the "scientism of the gaps" argument all in the same breath! This is so rich. I really do thank you for this.

---

I hate to say your ignorance is showing, but ID hasn't explained anything we know about our universe. ID is nothing more than an attempt to explain what we don't fully know, in an effort to protect mystical beliefs. Science gives us answers to what ID doesn't and cannot explain, without invoking mysticism.

Quantum Theory had nothing to do with the Apollo program or the moon landings.

I suspect you just used the phrase in hopes it would make you look smart.

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The historical Jesus is NOT their field of study and therefore they have no authority, it's as simple as that, and for you to assert otherwise is evidence of how desperate you've become. The fact that you had to appeal to FOREIGN LANGUAGE professors to bolster your claim, in the face of virtually ALL reputable and relevant scholars in the field of study essentially declaring these claims as "foolish" and "completely spurious", shows exactly how incredibly weak and baseless your argument is. Not just weak, but as those scholars have said, it's stupid.

You are flailing at this point, and how you're not embarassed by it is beyond me. It's time to just concede.

---

From what I have gathered in previous conversations, you do not fully believe in the theory of Macro-evolution (without inserting magical explosions). Out of all the scientific theories, quite possibly the one with the most evidence. Evidence that has been extensively tested and confirmed by multiple independent sources.

---

What evidence shows there was no intelligent design involved? You are citing evidence that confirms what, exactly?

---

There can be no evidence for Intelligent Design! ID is a catch-all for what we can't explain, yet. For Intelligent Design to succeed, science has to fail. You cannot prove ID. So asking for proof it does not exist is a ridiculous request. I am sure there is a stripper with a heart of gold paying her way through Medical School too somewhere in the Universe!

Intelligent design has done nothing to advance science. It has pitted science against religion. It has done nothing to advance understanding. It is a bone being thrown to the Creationist. Sorry, even if there is an ID there is no way to prove it. Unless you have God's Cook Book or notes...

---

You must prove ID is false, if you are going to rule it out. If you can't rule it out, what is the problem with my stance on macroevolution?

ID may or may not be able to be definitively proven...however, it can be the best inference from the data. Note that neither can it be proven that mere random, undirected DNA mutation and natural selection is the explanation for the origin of animal kinds and for what is seen in the fossil record. That is merely an inference, just like ID.

You don't seem to understand what ID is or what it entails. It most certainly is an advanced scientific argument.

---

You can't prove it false, The whole premise is based on science can't prove it so there must be a designer we can't explain! ID is based on science failing.

---

Again, you don't understand ID. You are characterizing it all wrong.

I recommend a book by the genius Stephen Meyer, "Return of the God Hypothesis" to get a deep understand the arguments behind Intelligent Design (Add*: also the excellent book "Signature in the Cell") Here is a quote from a Nobel Prize winner in Physics, Brian Josephson, Fellow of the Royal Society, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Cambridge, regarding Meyer's book, and about Intelligent Design:

"This book makes it clear that far from being an unscientific claim, intelligent design is valid science."

---

I understand it. I don't agree with you or the author. We can do dueling Physicist if you like.


. https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2010/02/the-end-of-intelligent-design

---

Isn't that kind of his point?

---

He is saying his is right... I am saying mine is right. It is all opinion. It can't be proven. There are no experiments to prove that their is an Intelligent Designer, it is supposition and opinion. We can do this all day. If we want to discuss aspects of it and delve into the details, ok. But, we are at an impasse. I suggest a duel...

---

First of all, I did not quote a scientist to show I'm "right".

Secondly, even if that's what I was doing, I would win, because your physicist in his article doesn't even argue the points made by Meyer in his book, or even argue that Intelligent Design is wrong! Here is a quote from his essay:

"None of this is to say that the conclusions the ID movement draws about how life came to be and how it evolves are intrinsically unreasonable or necessarily wrong."

So if we're playing dueling physicists, it seems as if your guy has conceded.

---

ID is nothing more than a religious attempt to hold on to the remaining unknowns that scientific research has yet to uncover.......it's nothing more than a jazzed up god of the gaps.

---

This is the funniest comment I've read in a looong time! I've never seen anyone criticize the "god of the gaps" argument by using the "scientism of the gaps" argument all in the same breath! This is so rich. I really do thank you for this.

---

I hate to say your ignorance is showing, but ID hasn't explained anything we know about our universe. ID is nothing more than an attempt to explain what we don't fully know, in an effort to protect mystical beliefs. Science gives us answers to what ID doesn't and cannot explain, without invoking mysticism.

---

If ID reveals a Mind behind our universe, I would say that it explains the most important thing of all.

ATL Bear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The historical Jesus is NOT their field of study and therefore they have no authority, it's as simple as that, and for you to assert otherwise is evidence of how desperate you've become. The fact that you had to appeal to FOREIGN LANGUAGE professors to bolster your claim, in the face of virtually ALL reputable and relevant scholars in the field of study essentially declaring these claims as "foolish" and "completely spurious", shows exactly how incredibly weak and baseless your argument is. Not just weak, but as those scholars have said, it's stupid.

You are flailing at this point, and how you're not embarassed by it is beyond me. It's time to just concede.

---

From what I have gathered in previous conversations, you do not fully believe in the theory of Macro-evolution (without inserting magical explosions). Out of all the scientific theories, quite possibly the one with the most evidence. Evidence that has been extensively tested and confirmed by multiple independent sources.

---

What evidence shows there was no intelligent design involved? You are citing evidence that confirms what, exactly?

---

There can be no evidence for Intelligent Design! ID is a catch-all for what we can't explain, yet. For Intelligent Design to succeed, science has to fail. You cannot prove ID. So asking for proof it does not exist is a ridiculous request. I am sure there is a stripper with a heart of gold paying her way through Medical School too somewhere in the Universe!

Intelligent design has done nothing to advance science. It has pitted science against religion. It has done nothing to advance understanding. It is a bone being thrown to the Creationist. Sorry, even if there is an ID there is no way to prove it. Unless you have God's Cook Book or notes...

---

You must prove ID is false, if you are going to rule it out. If you can't rule it out, what is the problem with my stance on macroevolution?

ID may or may not be able to be definitively proven...however, it can be the best inference from the data. Note that neither can it be proven that mere random, undirected DNA mutation and natural selection is the explanation for the origin of animal kinds and for what is seen in the fossil record. That is merely an inference, just like ID.

You don't seem to understand what ID is or what it entails. It most certainly is an advanced scientific argument.

---

You can't prove it false, The whole premise is based on science can't prove it so there must be a designer we can't explain! ID is based on science failing.

---

Again, you don't understand ID. You are characterizing it all wrong.

I recommend a book by the genius Stephen Meyer, "Return of the God Hypothesis" to get a deep understand the arguments behind Intelligent Design (Add*: also the excellent book "Signature in the Cell") Here is a quote from a Nobel Prize winner in Physics, Brian Josephson, Fellow of the Royal Society, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Cambridge, regarding Meyer's book, and about Intelligent Design:

"This book makes it clear that far from being an unscientific claim, intelligent design is valid science."

---

I understand it. I don't agree with you or the author. We can do dueling Physicist if you like.


. https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2010/02/the-end-of-intelligent-design

---

Isn't that kind of his point?

---

He is saying his is right... I am saying mine is right. It is all opinion. It can't be proven. There are no experiments to prove that their is an Intelligent Designer, it is supposition and opinion. We can do this all day. If we want to discuss aspects of it and delve into the details, ok. But, we are at an impasse. I suggest a duel...

---

First of all, I did not quote a scientist to show I'm "right".

Secondly, even if that's what I was doing, I would win, because your physicist in his article doesn't even argue the points made by Meyer in his book, or even argue that Intelligent Design is wrong! Here is a quote from his essay:

"None of this is to say that the conclusions the ID movement draws about how life came to be and how it evolves are intrinsically unreasonable or necessarily wrong."

So if we're playing dueling physicists, it seems as if your guy has conceded.

---

He is saying it is not something that can be proven. It is a movement not science. How do you prove an intelligent design? Give us one metric? One measurable? One experiment?

It is a philosophy, not a science. A middle of the road compromise to reconcile religion. Saying you can't prove it isn't science, doesn't make it science.

I believe in God and believe God created the universe, it is a matter of faith. Physics is just the mechanics.

---

Order.

---

Lost me. Physics provides order or order is proof of intelligent design?

If we are talking ID. How do you test order? Science is about testing and measuring. How do you test and measure order, DNA, or even origin of universe for an intelligent designer?

By the way, I don't think there is a conflict between religion and science. To me ID is unnecessary. A stretch that is not needed.

---

Order had to exist before matter and energy. Neither creates their own, they only react to the order that exists in the matrix of orders within all forces (known and unknown by humans).....

.....Ultimately the universe was created from an underlying order.

---

Order, as in the Logos, the creative order of God:

"In the beginning was the Word (Logos), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God....All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made." - John 1:1

ATL Bear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The historical Jesus is NOT their field of study and therefore they have no authority, it's as simple as that, and for you to assert otherwise is evidence of how desperate you've become. The fact that you had to appeal to FOREIGN LANGUAGE professors to bolster your claim, in the face of virtually ALL reputable and relevant scholars in the field of study essentially declaring these claims as "foolish" and "completely spurious", shows exactly how incredibly weak and baseless your argument is. Not just weak, but as those scholars have said, it's stupid.

You are flailing at this point, and how you're not embarassed by it is beyond me. It's time to just concede.

---

From what I have gathered in previous conversations, you do not fully believe in the theory of Macro-evolution (without inserting magical explosions). Out of all the scientific theories, quite possibly the one with the most evidence. Evidence that has been extensively tested and confirmed by multiple independent sources.

---

What evidence shows there was no intelligent design involved? You are citing evidence that confirms what, exactly?

---

There can be no evidence for Intelligent Design! ID is a catch-all for what we can't explain, yet. For Intelligent Design to succeed, science has to fail. You cannot prove ID. So asking for proof it does not exist is a ridiculous request. I am sure there is a stripper with a heart of gold paying her way through Medical School too somewhere in the Universe!

Intelligent design has done nothing to advance science. It has pitted science against religion. It has done nothing to advance understanding. It is a bone being thrown to the Creationist. Sorry, even if there is an ID there is no way to prove it. Unless you have God's Cook Book or notes...

---

You must prove ID is false, if you are going to rule it out. If you can't rule it out, what is the problem with my stance on macroevolution?

ID may or may not be able to be definitively proven...however, it can be the best inference from the data. Note that neither can it be proven that mere random, undirected DNA mutation and natural selection is the explanation for the origin of animal kinds and for what is seen in the fossil record. That is merely an inference, just like ID.

You don't seem to understand what ID is or what it entails. It most certainly is an advanced scientific argument.

---

You can't prove it false, The whole premise is based on science can't prove it so there must be a designer we can't explain! ID is based on science failing.

---

Again, you don't understand ID. You are characterizing it all wrong.

I recommend a book by the genius Stephen Meyer, "Return of the God Hypothesis" to get a deep understand the arguments behind Intelligent Design (Add*: also the excellent book "Signature in the Cell") Here is a quote from a Nobel Prize winner in Physics, Brian Josephson, Fellow of the Royal Society, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Cambridge, regarding Meyer's book, and about Intelligent Design:

"This book makes it clear that far from being an unscientific claim, intelligent design is valid science."

---

I understand it. I don't agree with you or the author. We can do dueling Physicist if you like.


. https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2010/02/the-end-of-intelligent-design

---

Isn't that kind of his point?

---

He is saying his is right... I am saying mine is right. It is all opinion. It can't be proven. There are no experiments to prove that their is an Intelligent Designer, it is supposition and opinion. We can do this all day. If we want to discuss aspects of it and delve into the details, ok. But, we are at an impasse. I suggest a duel...

---

First of all, I did not quote a scientist to show I'm "right".

Secondly, even if that's what I was doing, I would win, because your physicist in his article doesn't even argue the points made by Meyer in his book, or even argue that Intelligent Design is wrong! Here is a quote from his essay:

"None of this is to say that the conclusions the ID movement draws about how life came to be and how it evolves are intrinsically unreasonable or necessarily wrong."

So if we're playing dueling physicists, it seems as if your guy has conceded.

---

He is saying it is not something that can be proven. It is a movement not science. How do you prove an intelligent design? Give us one metric? One measurable? One experiment?

It is a philosophy, not a science. A middle of the road compromise to reconcile religion. Saying you can't prove it isn't science, doesn't make it science.

I believe in God and believe God created the universe, it is a matter of faith. Physics is just the mechanics.

---

Order.

---

Lost me. Physics provides order or order is proof of intelligent design?

If we are talking ID. How do you test order? Science is about testing and measuring. How do you test and measure order, DNA, or even origin of universe for an intelligent designer?

By the way, I don't think there is a conflict between religion and science. To me ID is unnecessary. A stretch that is not needed.

---

Sorry for TL,DR.

Order had to exist before matter and energy. Neither creates their own, they only react to the order that exists in the matrix of orders within all forces (known and unknown by humans). Physics is simply our rudimentary understanding of order within our existence that we have the capability to comprehend, measure, and test. But without order, our existence would look and be much different. It exists in biology also. How DNA replicates, phylogenic speciation, protein synthesis, etc. In fact the only true chaos factors appear in higher level intelligences (the unpredictable factor). The vast majority are instinctive or bio process oriented. The advanced sentient factor is the "wild card".

Ultimately the universe was created from an underlying order. Just the slightest variance from that order would have had incredible repercussions across the existence of everything. To make a simplistic and not perfect analogy, imagine watching a video game. Most humans can observe what happens in that game when certain stimulus (think controller input as mass, energy, biomatter, etc.) occurs. Human science has told us quite a bit about what happens when you do certain things on the controller, but not nearly everything. Some advanced theoretical science has gone so far as to attempt to explain what programming would be required for certain actions to occur in the video game, but it is limited or changed when another theory or variable from another type of action/input occurs in the game. Observationally we will continue to expand our understanding of what happens from different controller inputs. We'll also continue to theorize and understand the programming behind why those outputs occur as our ability to comprehend and measure the game grows. But ultimately, there's an underlying program that makes the game happen. That's the order tied to existence in my mind, and the greatest observable evidence of a higher power. As I said before, if time is an infinite factor, there is nothing random. And perhaps instead of thinking of God as a magician snapping things into existence, he was a divine programmer of the game of existence.

---

Believe it or not, we are not far off. Your last line is how I view the universe. Everything fits within the Bible until you try to go literal. I do not believe that Bible is meant to be a literal history book or science book. There are too many other literary mechanisms in it to be either one of those. I have no trouble with God working through science and that science is a gift from God to explain as we are capable of understanding. I see ID as an attempt to appease those not willing to believe in God, but their accepting is really irrelevant.

If anything, I am not sure the Bible should have stopped with Revelations!

TexasScientist said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

26 years ago, my daughter was born 10 weeks early and weighed 2.6 lbs. She is perfectly healthy. Next week she will give birth to her own baby.

---

I'm glad your daughter survived premature birth. Be thankful she was born in a time where medical technology, and skilled professionals could pull her through. In my own family we had a baby girl born at 22 weeks only to live two days at Presbyterian, and another immediate family member who's infant died at 6 months old, after spending 4 months in Children's Hospital. I can promise you they had as many prayers and pleas for their wellbeing as your daughter. Medical technology can't always pull someone through. There is no evidence that there is any supernatural power at play arbitrarily deciding who lives and who dies. I'm glad for you, your daughter, and the opportunity you have to know her children.

---

I am truly sorry for your losses. I cannot imagine any pain worse than losing a child.

The night before my daughter was born, my wife came running out of HEB with blood running down both legs. She had something that was called a placental abruption. I raced to the hospital in a driving rain. Both survived and thrived. I truly believe God was watching over us.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The historical Jesus is NOT their field of study and therefore they have no authority, it's as simple as that, and for you to assert otherwise is evidence of how desperate you've become. The fact that you had to appeal to FOREIGN LANGUAGE professors to bolster your claim, in the face of virtually ALL reputable and relevant scholars in the field of study essentially declaring these claims as "foolish" and "completely spurious", shows exactly how incredibly weak and baseless your argument is. Not just weak, but as those scholars have said, it's stupid.

You are flailing at this point, and how you're not embarassed by it is beyond me. It's time to just concede.

---

From what I have gathered in previous conversations, you do not fully believe in the theory of Macro-evolution (without inserting magical explosions). Out of all the scientific theories, quite possibly the one with the most evidence. Evidence that has been extensively tested and confirmed by multiple independent sources.

---

What evidence shows there was no intelligent design involved? You are citing evidence that confirms what, exactly?

---

There can be no evidence for Intelligent Design! ID is a catch-all for what we can't explain, yet. For Intelligent Design to succeed, science has to fail. You cannot prove ID. So asking for proof it does not exist is a ridiculous request. I am sure there is a stripper with a heart of gold paying her way through Medical School too somewhere in the Universe!

Intelligent design has done nothing to advance science. It has pitted science against religion. It has done nothing to advance understanding. It is a bone being thrown to the Creationist. Sorry, even if there is an ID there is no way to prove it. Unless you have God's Cook Book or notes...

---

You must prove ID is false, if you are going to rule it out. If you can't rule it out, what is the problem with my stance on macroevolution?

ID may or may not be able to be definitively proven...however, it can be the best inference from the data. Note that neither can it be proven that mere random, undirected DNA mutation and natural selection is the explanation for the origin of animal kinds and for what is seen in the fossil record. That is merely an inference, just like ID.

You don't seem to understand what ID is or what it entails. It most certainly is an advanced scientific argument.

---

You can't prove it false, The whole premise is based on science can't prove it so there must be a designer we can't explain! ID is based on science failing.

---

Again, you don't understand ID. You are characterizing it all wrong.

I recommend a book by the genius Stephen Meyer, "Return of the God Hypothesis" to get a deep understand the arguments behind Intelligent Design (Add*: also the excellent book "Signature in the Cell") Here is a quote from a Nobel Prize winner in Physics, Brian Josephson, Fellow of the Royal Society, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Cambridge, regarding Meyer's book, and about Intelligent Design:

"This book makes it clear that far from being an unscientific claim, intelligent design is valid science."

---

I understand it. I don't agree with you or the author. We can do dueling Physicist if you like.


. https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2010/02/the-end-of-intelligent-design

---

Isn't that kind of his point?

---

He is saying his is right... I am saying mine is right. It is all opinion. It can't be proven. There are no experiments to prove that their is an Intelligent Designer, it is supposition and opinion. We can do this all day. If we want to discuss aspects of it and delve into the details, ok. But, we are at an impasse. I suggest a duel...

---

First of all, I did not quote a scientist to show I'm "right".

Secondly, even if that's what I was doing, I would win, because your physicist in his article doesn't even argue the points made by Meyer in his book, or even argue that Intelligent Design is wrong! Here is a quote from his essay:

"None of this is to say that the conclusions the ID movement draws about how life came to be and how it evolves are intrinsically unreasonable or necessarily wrong."

So if we're playing dueling physicists, it seems as if your guy has conceded.

---

ID is nothing more than a religious attempt to hold on to the remaining unknowns that scientific research has yet to uncover.......it's nothing more than a jazzed up god of the gaps.

---

This is the funniest comment I've read in a looong time! I've never seen anyone criticize the "god of the gaps" argument by using the "scientism of the gaps" argument all in the same breath! This is so rich. I really do thank you for this.

---

I hate to say your ignorance is showing, but ID hasn't explained anything we know about our universe. ID is nothing more than an attempt to explain what we don't fully know, in an effort to protect mystical beliefs. Science gives us answers to what ID doesn't and cannot explain, without invoking mysticism.

---

If ID reveals a Mind behind our universe, I would say that it explains the most important thing of all.

---

A mind is a wonderful thing, but the spirit of a specific person makes all the difference to me.

That God reveals Himself is a miracle most do not even consider.

TexasScientist said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: 'Religion is in the throws of death, and ID is simply evidence of its last gasps at survival.'

A desperate and false statement, that, and I believe the word is spelled 'throes', not 'throws'

---

Good catch. I don't know if I did that or my iPhone. But you got the gist of it. There won't be any serious followers of religion 500 years from now, of course IMO.

---

Maybe, maybe not. But I'd guarantee there won't be any serious followers of many of the scientific theories of today 500 years from now. You know, the ones that make up your current world view.

---

You mean general relativity and quantum theory? The same theories that get us to the moon, and operate your cell phone and computers? I don't think we'll go back to believing planets orbit the sun on the backs of gods. Rather, we'll be using technologies that grew out of refinement of those scientific theories. But maybe you're right, and society will collapse under the weight of believing in the alternative realities of mystics and politicians.

---

We believed the planets and sun orbited the earth 500 years ago. Copernicus refined that theory in a pretty radical way. Don't think relativity, particularly special relativity, won't look different in 500 years. And since you likely couldn't outline or perform the math involved in quantum theory, I'm not sure you're in a position to say/know how it would be similar or dissimilar. We all have faith, just different masters that require it.

As to your last point, nations and societies throughout history have collapsed under a lack of principles and morals, not a lack of science. Social order and scientific order are two completely different lanes.

Golem said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Golem said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Bear51 said:

---

Listen, if there ever was a point in time when there was absolutely nothing including God then what would there be right now? NOTHING!!
There HAS to be an eternal cause, there has to be! It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand this.
There is a God and He has spoken through His Word that continues to withstand the test of time!

---

Thank you for sharing.

There are a lot of bad arguments for God, but the contingency argument (similar to what you are explaining here) is in my opinion the current best philosophical argument for God.

It doesn't lead me to conclude that there is a God, but it does raise the most questions.

---

Let's look at this the other way around: what would you consider to be unquestionable proof of God? Or at least lead you to conclude God does exist?

---

I have absolutely no idea - but if there is an omniscient and all-powerful God, this God would know exactly what it would take to convince me

---

An omniscient, all-powerful God may know that nothing will convince you, too, right?

---

Correct! Although, that raises questions about a God who would knowingly create a human who would never be able to be convinced of his existence.

---

Faith is a choice, not a feeling. For all the 'God of the gaps' aspersions cast by the weak minded, acknowledging that a conscious mind is the solution Occam's Razor mandates is difficult but brave. It requires suppression of pride and welcomes a purpose that you may not control.

I have thousands of questions and, admittedly, lack understanding in many of the more esoteric aspects of Christianity, but I choose faith. I welcome the purpose. I welcome the guidance. I also welcome the peace.

---

Just because someone does not have the same spiritual view as you does not make them weak-minded.

I am happy you have found peace and guidance though in your beliefs.

---

It's weak minded to dismissively use the language I referenced because you fear you aren't the center of the universe.

---

Interesting that I see it as the opposite. I see the believer saying, "I'm going to live forever in heaven" vs the nonbeliever saying, "I'm an insignificant speck of dust on an insignificant speck of dust planet in an insignificant speck of dust galaxy and that I didn't exist before life and won't exist after life."

HouseMoney said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

I've been exploring different religious and philosophical ideas lately, and I would love to hear your thoughts on what convinces you that God exists. As someone who hasn't yet been convinced by arguments for the existence of God, I'm hoping to learn more about what draws others to belief in a higher power.

I don't necessarily doubt the possibility of such a being, but I also don't know how one could be proven or dis-proven definitively. That's why I'd like to hear from some of you who do believe in God - what is it about your experience or understanding of the world that makes you believe there is a God?

Of course, I'm open to hearing from people who don't believe in God as well. I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts!

---

I start with intelligent design. There are lots of theories but there's always one that strikes you. One for me is with regards to an argument that "given enough time, human life could be formed by chance' that goes something like this: "Let's say you throw red, white and blue confetti out of an airplane 1,000 feet above your house, whats the chance it comes down in an american flag? What about 10,000 feet? Does that improve the probability? "

---

If you threw it out quadrillions of times then I would assume it would at least once come down in an American flag once.

That doesn't prove or disprove a God of course but just a thought experiment on how many planets there are in the observable universe.

BaylorHistory said:

---

HouseMoney said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

I've been exploring different religious and philosophical ideas lately, and I would love to hear your thoughts on what convinces you that God exists. As someone who hasn't yet been convinced by arguments for the existence of God, I'm hoping to learn more about what draws others to belief in a higher power.

I don't necessarily doubt the possibility of such a being, but I also don't know how one could be proven or dis-proven definitively. That's why I'd like to hear from some of you who do believe in God - what is it about your experience or understanding of the world that makes you believe there is a God?

Of course, I'm open to hearing from people who don't believe in God as well. I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts!

---

I start with intelligent design. There are lots of theories but there's always one that strikes you. One for me is with regards to an argument that "given enough time, human life could be formed by chance' that goes something like this: "Let's say you throw red, white and blue confetti out of an airplane 1,000 feet above your house, whats the chance it comes down in an american flag? What about 10,000 feet? Does that improve the probability? "

---

If you threw it out quadrillions of times then I would assume it would at least once come down in an American flag once.

That doesn't prove or disprove a God of course but just a thought experiment on how many planets there are in the observable universe.

---

The problem is you only need for it to come down in the right order once...

BaylorHistory said:

---

HouseMoney said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

I've been exploring different religious and philosophical ideas lately, and I would love to hear your thoughts on what convinces you that God exists. As someone who hasn't yet been convinced by arguments for the existence of God, I'm hoping to learn more about what draws others to belief in a higher power.

I don't necessarily doubt the possibility of such a being, but I also don't know how one could be proven or dis-proven definitively. That's why I'd like to hear from some of you who do believe in God - what is it about your experience or understanding of the world that makes you believe there is a God?

Of course, I'm open to hearing from people who don't believe in God as well. I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts!

---

I start with intelligent design. There are lots of theories but there's always one that strikes you. One for me is with regards to an argument that "given enough time, human life could be formed by chance' that goes something like this: "Let's say you throw red, white and blue confetti out of an airplane 1,000 feet above your house, whats the chance it comes down in an american flag? What about 10,000 feet? Does that improve the probability? "

---

If you threw it out quadrillions of times then I would assume it would at least once come down in an American flag once.

That doesn't prove or disprove a God of course but just a thought experiment on how many planets there are in the observable universe.

---

I'd bet the odds would be enormously smaller, but regardless - if you happen to see confetti on the ground in the colors and pattern of the American flag, would the better inference be that it was dropped out of a plane and landed that way, or that someone made it that way?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorHistory said:

---

HouseMoney said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

I've been exploring different religious and philosophical ideas lately, and I would love to hear your thoughts on what convinces you that God exists. As someone who hasn't yet been convinced by arguments for the existence of God, I'm hoping to learn more about what draws others to belief in a higher power.

I don't necessarily doubt the possibility of such a being, but I also don't know how one could be proven or dis-proven definitively. That's why I'd like to hear from some of you who do believe in God - what is it about your experience or understanding of the world that makes you believe there is a God?

Of course, I'm open to hearing from people who don't believe in God as well. I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts!

---

I start with intelligent design. There are lots of theories but there's always one that strikes you. One for me is with regards to an argument that "given enough time, human life could be formed by chance' that goes something like this: "Let's say you throw red, white and blue confetti out of an airplane 1,000 feet above your house, whats the chance it comes down in an american flag? What about 10,000 feet? Does that improve the probability? "

---

If you threw it out quadrillions of times then I would assume it would at least once come down in an American flag once.

That doesn't prove or disprove a God of course but just a thought experiment on how many planets there are in the observable universe.

---

I'd bet the odds would be enormously smaller, but regardless - if you happen to see confetti on the ground in the colors and pattern of the American flag, would the better inference be that it was dropped out of a plane and landed that way, or that someone made it that way?

---

How about this:

You are walking in the fields and movement catches your eye.


It's a bush, looks like its moving.


As you get closer, you realize the bush is on fire.


Weird.


Then you realize that although the bush is burning, it's not consumed by the fire.


Weirder.


Then a voice speaks to you from within the burning bush.


By name.



Exodus 3:1-4

BaylorHistory said:

---

HouseMoney said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

I've been exploring different religious and philosophical ideas lately, and I would love to hear your thoughts on what convinces you that God exists. As someone who hasn't yet been convinced by arguments for the existence of God, I'm hoping to learn more about what draws others to belief in a higher power.

I don't necessarily doubt the possibility of such a being, but I also don't know how one could be proven or dis-proven definitively. That's why I'd like to hear from some of you who do believe in God - what is it about your experience or understanding of the world that makes you believe there is a God?

Of course, I'm open to hearing from people who don't believe in God as well. I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts!

---

I start with intelligent design. There are lots of theories but there's always one that strikes you. One for me is with regards to an argument that "given enough time, human life could be formed by chance' that goes something like this: "Let's say you throw red, white and blue confetti out of an airplane 1,000 feet above your house, whats the chance it comes down in an american flag? What about 10,000 feet? Does that improve the probability? "

---

If you threw it out quadrillions of times then I would assume it would at least once come down in an American flag once.

That doesn't prove or disprove a God of course but just a thought experiment on how many planets there are in the observable universe.

---

Speaking of chances and thought experiments, given the gestation and reproductive limitations of advanced mammals, including the time it takes to become capable of reproduction, and the necessity of an independent gene pool large enough for trait and heredity refinement and survival, the time math is pretty suspect around human evolution. We're talking thousands not millions of chances to bring about significant DNA transformation.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorHistory said:

---

HouseMoney said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

I've been exploring different religious and philosophical ideas lately, and I would love to hear your thoughts on what convinces you that God exists. As someone who hasn't yet been convinced by arguments for the existence of God, I'm hoping to learn more about what draws others to belief in a higher power.

I don't necessarily doubt the possibility of such a being, but I also don't know how one could be proven or dis-proven definitively. That's why I'd like to hear from some of you who do believe in God - what is it about your experience or understanding of the world that makes you believe there is a God?

Of course, I'm open to hearing from people who don't believe in God as well. I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts!

---

I start with intelligent design. There are lots of theories but there's always one that strikes you. One for me is with regards to an argument that "given enough time, human life could be formed by chance' that goes something like this: "Let's say you throw red, white and blue confetti out of an airplane 1,000 feet above your house, whats the chance it comes down in an american flag? What about 10,000 feet? Does that improve the probability? "

---

If you threw it out quadrillions of times then I would assume it would at least once come down in an American flag once.

That doesn't prove or disprove a God of course but just a thought experiment on how many planets there are in the observable universe.

---

I'd bet the odds would be enormously smaller, but regardless - if you happen to see confetti on the ground in the colors and pattern of the American flag, would the better inference be that it was dropped out of a plane and landed that way, or that someone made it that way?

---

You are arguing with people that believe in God. You are arguing over minutia of whether it was 6-24 hour days vs whether God used more time and other means to achieve the same goal. The point is both believe there is a God that created the Universe.

My point is ID is not needed and is a watered down unproveable concept that is trying desperately to apply measures to what can't be measured. It is a fool's errand.

There is no question that something created the Universe, I believe it to be God. Those that don't believe in a God and worship purely science do not and will not believe your arguments have merit. If you are looking for that "ah-ha" moment where they say you are right and they were wrong all this time, not happening... So why beat up on those that believe basically the same thing, just different details?

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

26 years ago, my daughter was born 10 weeks early and weighed 2.6 lbs. She is perfectly healthy. Next week she will give birth to her own baby.

---

I'm glad your daughter survived premature birth. Be thankful she was born in a time where medical technology, and skilled professionals could pull her through. In my own family we had a baby girl born at 22 weeks only to live two days at Presbyterian, and another immediate family member who's infant died at 6 months old, after spending 4 months in Children's Hospital. I can promise you they had as many prayers and pleas for their wellbeing as your daughter. Medical technology can't always pull someone through. There is no evidence that there is any supernatural power at play arbitrarily deciding who lives and who dies. I'm glad for you, your daughter, and the opportunity you have to know her children.

---

I am truly sorry for your losses. I cannot imagine any pain worse than losing a child.

The night before my daughter was born, my wife came running out of HEB with blood running down both legs. She had something that was called a placental abruption. I raced to the hospital in a driving rain. Both survived and thrived. I truly believe God was watching over us.

---

I understand how grateful you are for how things turned out, and I'm so glad for you and your family. But I have to ask three questions; why do you think God chose to watch over you, and chose not to watch over me and my wife, or chooses not to watch over someone else? Do you think you would have had the same outcome, if you had just gone home trusting God to watch over you? What did God do that doctors did not do?

ATL Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: 'Religion is in the throws of death, and ID is simply evidence of its last gasps at survival.'

A desperate and false statement, that, and I believe the word is spelled 'throes', not 'throws'

---

Good catch. I don't know if I did that or my iPhone. But you got the gist of it. There won't be any serious followers of religion 500 years from now, of course IMO.

---

Maybe, maybe not. But I'd guarantee there won't be any serious followers of many of the scientific theories of today 500 years from now. You know, the ones that make up your current world view.

---

You mean general relativity and quantum theory? The same theories that get us to the moon, and operate your cell phone and computers? I don't think we'll go back to believing planets orbit the sun on the backs of gods. Rather, we'll be using technologies that grew out of refinement of those scientific theories. But maybe you're right, and society will collapse under the weight of believing in the alternative realities of mystics and politicians.

---

We believed the planets and sun orbited the earth 500 years ago. Copernicus refined that theory in a pretty radical way. Don't think relativity, particularly special relativity, won't look different in 500 years. And since you likely couldn't outline or perform the math involved in quantum theory, I'm not sure you're in a position to say/know how it would be similar or dissimilar. We all have faith, just different masters that require it.

As to your last point, nations and societies throughout history have collapsed under a lack of principles and morals, not a lack of science. Social order and scientific order are two completely different lanes.

---

Copernicus ideas, to the extent they were accurate, helped push us down the road of accepting the evidence of reality, breaking with well established religious beliefs. The foundations of general relativity and quantum theory will hold, because they are tested and proven. There will be additional refinement of those theories as we gain knowledge about aspects that we don't yet fully understand. Quantum theory can't easily be taught on a message board, but I'll be happy to point you to sources on the subject - send me a PM.

I don't know what you mean about scientific order. Societies collapse for many reasons, usually combinations of reasons. Principles and morals are human determinations instituted by a civilization and its culture, and those change as cultural influences change. Scientific knowledge is a tool that can help societies, and nations avoid events, or change the course of events that could lead to collapse.

TexasScientist said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

26 years ago, my daughter was born 10 weeks early and weighed 2.6 lbs. She is perfectly healthy. Next week she will give birth to her own baby.

---

I'm glad your daughter survived premature birth. Be thankful she was born in a time where medical technology, and skilled professionals could pull her through. In my own family we had a baby girl born at 22 weeks only to live two days at Presbyterian, and another immediate family member who's infant died at 6 months old, after spending 4 months in Children's Hospital. I can promise you they had as many prayers and pleas for their wellbeing as your daughter. Medical technology can't always pull someone through. There is no evidence that there is any supernatural power at play arbitrarily deciding who lives and who dies. I'm glad for you, your daughter, and the opportunity you have to know her children.

---

I am truly sorry for your losses. I cannot imagine any pain worse than losing a child.

The night before my daughter was born, my wife came running out of HEB with blood running down both legs. She had something that was called a placental abruption. I raced to the hospital in a driving rain. Both survived and thrived. I truly believe God was watching over us.

---

I understand how grateful you are for how things turned out, and I'm so glad for you and your family. But I have to ask three questions; why do you think God chose to watch over you, and chose not to watch over me and my wife, or chooses not to watch over someone else? Do you think you would have had the same outcome, if you had just gone home trusting God to watch over you? What did God do that doctors did not do?

---

TS, in my experience, no one gets everything they want. There is always a mix of good and bad news, and sometimes you have to understand that you cannot control what happens, you can only control what you do about it.

For example, I am a cancer survivor. I can choose to be unhappy that I have an incurable cancer that limits my health and strength, or I can choose to be grateful that I am alive and able to be with my family.

I can choose to be bitter that I have been a crime victim several times, having had my car stolen, been robbed at gunpoint, and assaulted, or I can choose to be grateful that I was able to overcome those bad things and did not lose anything permanent in those incidents.

I can choose to be bitter that none of my relationships worked out early in life, so I was lonely while all my friends found their partners and got married, or I can be thankful that when I did get married, I found the right woman at a time when I was ready to take on that responsibility, and in a world where so many marriages end in divorce, my wife and I are in our second quarter-century of contented partnership.

Sometimes a thing happens in such a way, that a believer thinks he or she has seen God intervene to help them. Sometimes a thing happens which causes a person to question why they had to suffer, and why God let it happen.

You may call it rationalization, but at least some of what we call bad news is there to help make us tougher and help us relate to other people in their own difficulties. I mentioned for example that I have cancer - this has allowed me to relate to others going through that trial. The feeling that something is not right, the uncomfortable tests, the solemn discussion with your primary doctor, then your oncologist, when the cancer is confirmed. The shock when you realize that while treatment is available, there is a non-zero chance you will die from your cancer even if you do everything you are supposed to do. The sleepless nights when you try to get things in order so if you die during surgery your family will know what to do next. And so on.

And that, of course, is just one aspect. There are myriad threats and dangers in Life, and sooner or later one will prove fatal. That in no way means God is not there or does not care. It is just a fact that this life is not forever.

Christ promised us an eternal life with Him, but He also called on us to take up our crosses.

To put it another way, I know God has been there for me, because I know His voice. I am not surprised that someone who does not know God, would not hear HIs call.

I am truly sorry for your pain and loss. I hope you will yet find consolation.

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorHistory said:

---

HouseMoney said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

I've been exploring different religious and philosophical ideas lately, and I would love to hear your thoughts on what convinces you that God exists. As someone who hasn't yet been convinced by arguments for the existence of God, I'm hoping to learn more about what draws others to belief in a higher power.

I don't necessarily doubt the possibility of such a being, but I also don't know how one could be proven or dis-proven definitively. That's why I'd like to hear from some of you who do believe in God - what is it about your experience or understanding of the world that makes you believe there is a God?

Of course, I'm open to hearing from people who don't believe in God as well. I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts!

---

I start with intelligent design. There are lots of theories but there's always one that strikes you. One for me is with regards to an argument that "given enough time, human life could be formed by chance' that goes something like this: "Let's say you throw red, white and blue confetti out of an airplane 1,000 feet above your house, whats the chance it comes down in an american flag? What about 10,000 feet? Does that improve the probability? "

---

If you threw it out quadrillions of times then I would assume it would at least once come down in an American flag once.

That doesn't prove or disprove a God of course but just a thought experiment on how many planets there are in the observable universe.

---

I'd bet the odds would be enormously smaller, but regardless - if you happen to see confetti on the ground in the colors and pattern of the American flag, would the better inference be that it was dropped out of a plane and landed that way, or that someone made it that way?

---

You are arguing with people that believe in God. You are arguing over minutia of whether it was 6-24 hour days vs whether God used more time and other means to achieve the same goal. The point is both believe there is a God that created the Universe.

My point is ID is not needed and is a watered down unproveable concept that is trying desperately to apply measures to what can't be measured. It is a fool's errand.

There is no question that something created the Universe, I believe it to be God. Those that don't believe in a God and worship purely science do not and will not believe your arguments have merit. If you are looking for that "ah-ha" moment where they say you are right and they were wrong all this time, not happening... So why beat up on those that believe basically the same thing, just different details?

---

It is so strange how a simple question gets you bent out of shape. It's also strange how you, a professed believer that God created everything, refuse to answer a simple question that qualifies a logic that supports that which you believe. It's odd, something just doesn't sit right, your aversion to it.

Whether God created everything in 6 days, or he took eons to do it - either way, the fingerprints of design will be evident. ID is a reasoned, logical, and evidence based approach to demonstrate that design is the best inference from the data. You are WAY too caught up with whether you think it is a "science" or if it's provable or not (even after you were silent when asked if Darwinian evolution or even physics itself meet your requirement of "provable") - the relevant question is: is it true? And can logic, reason, and even science, point that way? Many, many scientists believe ID does that, and many more are starting to. In a world where too many people are being misled into thinking that science debunks creation, ID shows that actually the science supports it. To think that it is unimportant is foolish.

And btw - if I don't have that "ah-ha" moment, why is it that people, including yourself, won't answer the question?