Conclusive disproof of the theory of intelligent design?

Post by **S@M** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 5:13 am

so im not the only one who s been asking that question....

Post by **RiffRaff** » Sun Dec 10, 2006 2:27 am

GONNAFISTYA wrote: It seems to me that you believe in ID simply because it makes you feel better. There is nothing rational about that.

If searching for some understanding or reason why we’re here and believing that there is another existence beyond this one, then yes, it makes me feel better. One of us will be right someday and the other will be wrong. Funny thing is if I’m wrong, I’ve lost nothing. If you’re wrong, you’ve lost at least something.

tnf wrote:No proof about that. But plenty of 'proof' that ID - as it is described with the notion that things like molecular motors and biochemical pathways they mistakenly deem irreducibly complex...didn't just 'poof' into existence...which is what ID states. You must not really understand the jist of ID theory if you missed that.

There are thousands of 'theistic evolutionists' who agree with evolutionary biology and believe their is some supreme being that is still out there, but that evolution is simply how life arose (they would say how that supreme being created life was through evolution).

That's the point. Science doesn't actively try to 'disprove' the existence of God because its not a relevant scientific endeavor. It might be a relevant philosophical exercise though.

My interpretation of ID is a higher power directing the path of creation through processes such as evolution. It’s because this higher power that the many wonders of nature and creation have come into being. Through “his/her” design or plan. At least the ID theory that is proposed in this area states that some believe there is a higher power responsible for the universe and all that is in it. It doesn’t state that evolution is not a part of creation. I know I’m not as versed or technical on the subject as you. I’m coming from a simple understanding of ID theory. I assume, maybe incorrectly, that there are different degrees of ID theory.

Pext wrote:from now on i will think of you as an idiot, ok?

You think I care what you think.... :icon27: You give yourself too much credit.

Post by **GONNAFISTYA** » Sun Dec 10, 2006 6:42 am

RiffRaff wrote:
GONNAFISTYA wrote: It seems to me that you believe in ID simply because it makes you feel better. There is nothing rational about that.
If searching for some understanding or reason why we’re here and believing that there is another existence beyond this one, then yes, it makes me feel better. One of us will be right someday and the other will be wrong. Funny thing is if I’m wrong, I’ve lost nothing. If you’re wrong, you’ve lost at least something.

You're arguing in a rational debate with an irrational approach...exactly what ID does when it tries to pass itself off as objective science. Even more ridiculous is that you boast about having this irrational approach. How exactly is anyone supposed to take you seriously?

And as to you having nothing to lose if you're wrong...if "A loving God" is so important in your life...you've lost another reason to live, haven't you?

RiffRaff wrote:I’m coming from a simple understanding of ID theory. I assume, maybe incorrectly, that there are different degrees of ID theory.

Here's a novel idea: how about you look into it, do some research, understand the theory better and then come back and debate....because right now trying to discuss this with you is pointless. You'll always fall back to your misinformed arguement....which gets this discussion nowhere.

I reiterate my original point: people latch onto an idea they don't even bother to spend time really thinking about or really even fully understanding.

Post by **tnf** » Sun Dec 10, 2006 7:03 am

Riff, you are describing theistic evolution, not ID.
Like I said, you don't seem to know what ID theory really entails.

Post by **mjrpes** » Sun Dec 10, 2006 7:26 am

I've always wonder, if intelligent design is true, doesn't that mean that God (using the 'computer programmer' analogy) is a bad coder? In other words, God didn't have the smarts to design this world in such a way that he could press the 'run' button and have everything turn out the way he wants. Instead of sitting back and smoking a cigar, he has to continually press the pause button and tweak the world for things to turn out the way he wants. If I were a theist, I would be in more 'awe' of God if I believed that he could design this world in such simplistic beauty that complex stuff like us could emerge from simpler stuff.

But then again I realize it must be hard to free one's mind to alternative ideas of the nature of God that might conflict with a 2,000 year old text.

Post by **Pooinyourmouth** » Sun Dec 10, 2006 7:51 am

Saying ID came from valid research is so off. None of these assholes belong to any scientific community. It's a last grasp for straws for religion. Now I'm not going to sit here and say that there is no god, but the one the bible talks about is a dick. An all understanding being would never act like such a child. The bible is 100% man. If god does exist, then I'm sure the last thing he/she/it would want is for you to warship him/her/it.

Post by **MKJ** » Sun Dec 10, 2006 11:38 am

GONNAFISTYA wrote: I reiterate my original point: people latch onto an idea they don't even bother to spend time really thinking about or really even fully understanding.

you might even say he pulled a Kracus!