Utter nonsense. How do you find "traces of design" when it's your theory that everything is designed? It's not like an archaeologist finding an arrowhead. An arrow can be differentiated from the surrounding material. The traces are intelligent HUMAN design can be seen in an arrowhead because it's different from the rock.
But if you assume it's all designed how to pick out the arrowhead?
It's only an assumption that rock was designed, nothing more.
Dumbski is just another Liar for Jesus - it says so right there on the video. How do these hypocrites sleep, I wonder, breaking that commandment about not bearing false witness? You know - LYING! Hard to tell them from the muslims when they engage in the same tactics of LYING to the infidel, ain't it? Birds of a feather, folks.
"I believe God created the world for a purpose. The Designer of intelligent design is, ultimately, the Christian God. The focus of my writings is not to try to understand the Christian doctrine of creation; it’s to try to develop intelligent design as a scientific program." William Dembski, Millstatt Forum, Strasbourg, France, August 1998.
So much for the objective and separate view of ID from religion. Don't be fooled by ID advocates. They are priests in sheep's clothing.
"If you want to know who God is, you need to know God through both creation and redemption. According to Scripture, the angels praise God chiefly for two things: God's creation of the world and God's redemption of the world through Jesus Christ. Let us follow the angels' example." William Dembski, Millstatt Forum, Strasbourg, France, August 10, 1998.
Don't be fooled. This man's sole mission is to subjugate science to the will of fundamentalist Christianity.
The fog of semantics cannot be trivialized. Intelligent Design argues that the fundamental principle of living systems are 'endowed' by its structure in an 'un-described' process that precludes naturalistic agencies, to a degree, where humans can recognize but incapable to preclude 'intent'. Life is complex;but using assumptions that it can only be derive 'by intent' frames opinion as proof. I am more interested in evidence than 'final proof', biology is founded on working ideas not beliefs.
ID is not controversial because it challenges the theory evolution.
ID is controversial because it was PROVED in a court of LAW to be nothing more than creationism repackaged.
read: "Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District"
What William Dembski has done is this video is lie to people when he says (at 1:00 ) it is not, and lying to make your case, besides being un-scientific, is decidedly un-Christian as well.
@PaulinaPaulino So, just because a judge says it is one way, that is suppose to be the right way. I could point out many cases were either the judge got it wrong, or that there was some sort of bias in his or her thought process. That is human nature for you.
@lightsoutnow30 Look, do you WANT to be an ignorant moron all your life? That's FINE if you do, as long as you admit it.
My point was NOT just that "a judge says so", it is that even a religious, conservative judge, when presented with actual evidence, came to the correct conclusion that ID is Creationism repackaged.
You can either be a stupid ass and deny that, or you can accept the fact that he is correct.
@PaulinaPaulino Yes, when one can not change a person's mind kindly resort to some form of unflattering and just plain angry words that border on violent tendencies. You need help. If you did not understand my point, thats ok. I am not trying to change your mind, and I dont want to.Because what you believe is what you believe, Wow, that sounds like a form of religion.
@lightsoutnow30 I have no intention to change your mind, as you will not look objectively at evidence. I understand your point 100%. You, like most theists, are trying to rationalize your fairy tale by downplaying everything that is contrary to your belief system.
I do not need any help, I do not have any beliefs- I do not need them. I have evidence, and I have science, and you have neither. That is why my position is based on facts and yours is based on fantasy.
@gregrutz Wow, if that is your argument, then scientist have a real problem in proving their many theories that can not be reproduced in a control environment.
@gregrutz Wow, if that is your argument, then scientist have a real problem in proving their many theories that can not be reproduced in a control environment.
@lightsoutnow30 Why are all creationists experts on what it takes to be science. You have never opened a science book in your life. You don't need to create a universe a lab to study it.
Go dig your own fossils in a controled inviroment.
the questions of who is the designer, when did he design, where did he do this design, how did he implement his designs, was he the maker or did something else put his design into effect ? None of these questions seems to be addressed by ID. Humans are not even very good at correctly identifying human design, how would we know what signs a superhuman alien creator would leave , much less a GOD ? How did God create the Earth ? he poofed it from nothing ? wut ?
However, it is embarrassing for Dembski that he says "ID is logically separate from Judeo-Christian doctrine" when it says "Jesus" in the upper left corner of the video. LOL! I agree that it is logically separate in theory, but in practice this is apparently not the case.
The notion that intelligence was involved in the evolution of life is not the same thing as creationism. Creationism is based on the Biblical account or creation in Genesis. ID is insulated from any particular religious tradition. ID posits an ambiguous intelligence. Unlike creationism, ID accepts scientific evidence such as the established age of the universe, age of the earth, and the fossil record.
@creaturebotman creationism takes it to the extreme by claimning the earth was created 6000 years ago and that dinosaurs lived along humans 3000 years ago lol
@strattgatt any relevance to what I said? Back in Bacon's time there was modern evolutionary theory was not known about so of course he would've believed in that, most great minds back then were creationists, but they had nothing telling them it was just a myth, it's morons like these guys who believe in creationism in the face of mountains of evidence against it that are stupid
@strattgatt Back to your first comment, bacon believed in creation not intelligent design. Tell me why atheists reject religious notions and why they are wrong and why your religious beliefs are right (no use of scripture). Fact is that religion is slowly dying because people are getting smarter
@strattgatt you have it the wrong way around, an Agnostic or Atheist has no reason to be a Theist, if their were any reasons then they would be Theists. Now most Theists have no reason to be Theist either, but that is their choice.
If the court had ruled in favour of ID, you'd be the first to tell us that "Courts of law have nothing to do with science." You'd be (rightly) arguing that science is resolved in the laboratory, not in courts of law.
@tubewatch59 You also ignore the fossil record, comparative anatomy, embryology, genetics, comparative biochemistry, observe speciation, and on and on and on...
There's no reason at all that science wouldn't study products of intelligence. Whenever science studies manmade systems such as machines, then we're in the situation where science is studying the products of intelligence.
You already knew that - so what was your point getting at?
Science studies both. But just because biology isn't manmade, doesn't mean that it also isn't "God-made". It certainly doesn't seem to be the result of mindless nature. All we know is that it exists as part of mindless nature (except it's also true that biological machines have minds).
The problem I had was that they used this man as some sort of authority figure. They gave his occupation and everything. If it didn't matter, why put his occupation in the description.
Also, ID is creationism. They just changed some of the terms to sound more scientific. It's the same bullshit wrapped in a pretty little package.
When scientists claim that ID cannot be used because it's not science, then scientists are no longer concerned with the truth or best explanation for physical phenomenon. Logically and scientifically, there is good reason to take into consideration the possibility of intelligence behind something when a natural explanation is insufficient. When scientists exclude a rational explanation, it is either due to faulty reasoning or the frightening thought that there is a God.
@gregrutz ID is not necessarily the supernatural. All it is saying is that the best explanation is that there was some designer behind it. Don't you think that it is possible that there is a designer behind the complexity of life? If it is possible, and science is truly concerned with the truth, or best explanation of physical phenomenon, then science must consider ID. If not, then why even attempt to explain the origin of life if you are not going to consider all possibilities?
@gregrutz Of course I would say God made the universe. But not just any God, but the God of the Bible. ID, however, does not specify who the designer is. It just recognizes that that is the best explanation given the overwhelming problems of trying to explain it by evolution.
Science deals with the material world. It doesn't deal with magical phenomenon. Also, we don't just jump to a position because someone throws it at us. We have to test it. If we can't test it, it isn't science related and it's scrapped. Just like any claims of invisible pink unicorn sightings. If there is no way to test it, it isn't science related. Even if it contains big fancy words. Unnatural explanation = not science. Magic is not a scientific answer so stop acting like it.
@Skrothn If you could only be consistent, then I would be happy. You say that if it is not testable, then it is scrapped. Are apes evolving into man, testable? There are absolutely no tests anyone can perform that will show one species evolving into another species. You assume that having a designer and builder constitutes magic. This is absurd.
I'm not being inconsistent. Apes aren't evolving into man. And they haven't in the past either. We are cousins however that share a common apelike ancestor.
Also, your position is all about the magic. You take the stance that since science can't answer all your questions right now, a creator did it using his powers. That's magic. Sugar coat it however you like, you still can't get rid of that fact.
so evo isnt silly? complex fine tuned obviously engineered beings &universes over billions of yrs from nothing? give ur head a shak. ...at least id science is beinghonest w/evidence...they claim that there is a "possibility" of a infinite creator..they dont claim it absolutely....id is NOT creationism..but of course you dont know that....cause you could care less to read a book..rather just quote verbatim your dear evo leaders....feel sorry for you cute little evos &ur religion
@gregrutz are you THAT blind?. Nothing is too complex...yaaawn...are u serious? when you get a cut, your blood clots...at what point did this clotting "evolve" would be pretty serious to human evolution wouldnt it? one of a million fine tuned engineered systems within our own bodies, not even going into the universe and its PERFECT placement for life
I get it...you dont like God...fine..but pls dont embarrass yourself anymore..just say it.:i hate anything God” would respect u more
Evolution has been proven with loads of evidence. ID is just a guess saying "Hey guys, all this might be created by an intelligent creator because it is complex and shit." While evolution has far more evidence than even gravity. It's not a theory for nothing.
Evolution is not founded on lies of evidence. It's perfectly honest with the evidence. If you claim otherwise, you don't know what you're talking about.
@Skrothn “Evolution has been proven with loads of evidence. While evolution has far more evidence than even gravity. It's not a theory for nothing” LOL!!! “Evolution is not founded on lies of evidence.” LOL!!!!!!! pilt down man lucy nebraska man LIES any bells a ringing troll....your little evo scientists have been less than truthful with MANY discoveries...
You do know that mistakes are not lies, right? They aren't lying about evidence to deceive us. They are trying to interpret the evidence we have and find the most probable answer. When more evidence is brought to the table, we sometimes find out that what we thought was true, isn't. Also, evolution isn't based off of those errors. Make make mistakes sometimes so stop acting like they are lies, troll.
@gregrutz "Same KIND? Yes! Dogs make dogs. Apes make apes. That is why humans are still apes. And all apes are still monkeys. And all monkeys are still primates. And all primates are still mammals. And all mammals are still tetrapods " wow! the ignorance is overwhelming.....you keep ur religion, ill kep mine...see how that works out for ya!
Creationism is ID + a belief in the Biblical account of creation.
What you're saying is the same thing as if I said that evolution has been found to be atheism. Not true, as evidenced by the fact that theistic evolutionists exist. Of course, ID is far more compatible with creationism than it is with atheism, but on the other hand, ID goes rather well with agnosticism. And evolution is more compatible with atheism than theism, but some would disagree.
It was an attempt to break the stranglehold of naturalism. You don't like it because many people who realize naturalism is nuts, will go on to believe in God. But that's not something over which you have any control. The governemnt has insisted that religion is not to be taught in schools. ID is not the teaching of religion, it's the science related to the inference of design.
Religion isn't part of science class. The denial of design, isn't part of science class either.
Testability? We're talking about one off historical events. So it's not that easy.
Take for instance a new regime of testing I propose to test both possibilities. We can test the emergence of life via intelligent design - by waiting for it to happen, (with an announcement from God and an explanation). Or - we can also do the same thing for nature, with our observations filling in for the explanation.
So... While we are waiting, which one is the more scientific?
The one that is more scientific is the one we are actually able to test and are testing. That's the Big Bang. Waiting for an answer to come to us is not scientific and fuck you if you think it is.
We can test (using the science of the material world) the idea that nature explains everything. That idea isn't a given. And at the moment it seems to be incorrect. Science is limited to studying the material universe. But science uses logic and can point to an origin that must have come from outside.
We can't scientifically study such outside agents. Correct. Science sometimes may point towards a cause that cannot be scientifically investigated. Do you disagree with that?
In the meantime, based on current knowledge, we can look into figuring out which is the more likely to have occurred. When it comes to origins, nature hasn't been so forthcoming with her "secrets". This is either because we've just been unlucky so far, or perhaps more likely, the secrets of origins aren't nature's to tell us in the first place.
Nature isn't a conscience being. It's just the material world and by testing, we can find answers to our questions. Science takes time. It isn't like theology where you can automatically claim truth yet know nothing. We have to do tests. Sometimes we don't have good enough technology. Sometimes test the wrong things. You have to be patient with science. You're never going to get real answers over night.
You're speaking as if I'm holding out against science. I'm not. Most of my reasoning is based on the science we know now. I'm saying that science itself is showing us that MATERIALISM - the idea that there was nothing apart from mindless nature itself - has given rise to everything - is likely bogus.
We don't know that 100% yet (and never will - unless we met God of course) but based on what we know NOW (from science) we can say that materialism seems a very poor explanation.
Science hasn't led down that path. You have no idea what science is or how it works. You can't prove materialism wrong with science. To prove materialism is wrong, you have to show how science in and of itself is wrong. Science works off of materialism and nothing else. You'll never get a metaphysical answer with science.
Materialism stands. If you want to show me how it's wrong or problems with it, tell me. And get ready to prove science 100% wrong to prove your point.
Again, you're conflating materialism with science. You're confusing the philosophy of materialism, with the study of the material world. Materialism doesn't stand, at least not at the moment. Why? Because science doesn't allow it to. There are too many problems with a purely material explanation.
You're the one who must show that science is wrong. Why would I want to do that? You're the one denying that science outlines the difficulties with materialism. Not me.
Explain to me how science does not allow materialism. All I hear is you saying they don't work together. Back up your bullshit or stop talking about things you have no understanding of.
I am not going to prove science wrong because I am on the side of science. If you want to prove science being non materialistic, show me a scientific answer that is not materialistic. And tell me wat are the problems with materialism.
Science allows materialism for any phenomena where there turns out to be a feasible materialistic explanation. In the case where there are no materialistic explanations, and especially where there seem to be many difficulties involved in proposing such explanations, then we have two choices of what to believe.
1. Have faith in nature. Trust that in the future, we'll figure it out materialistically.
2. For now, allow that something beyond nature may explain the phenomena.
Neither of them are accurate. You seem to think nature is a conscience being when it isn't. It hasn't given us any answers. Never has and never will. We do experiments to understand parts of nature. We don't go up and wait for the answers to come to us. So no faith is involved. The waiting part is true though. We have to wait until we find the answer materialistically.
Now the second answer is not science. It involves making an assumption about something we don't understand yet.
Seriously, despite being a scientist, you have shown that you have faith in nature. You're absolutely committed to the idea that materialism is sufficient to explain everything. You don't know that, but you're committed to that. You've excluded a whole set of possible answers because they do not conform to the materialistic mindset. That's not scientific thinking, that's dogmatism. Very akin to a religious faith, except it's faith in nature, rather than god(s).
I'm of the opinion that science should be taken seriously when it demonstrates that (for now) there are no feasible natural explanations.
It's OK for you as a committed materialist, to believe that philosophy in your heart, as the explanation you favour the most. You have faith in nature's ability to have produced biology for example.
But in public, since science points to serious difficulties with such views, then you must admit that in public. Take science more seriously.
Science doesn't ever demonstrate that there are no answers. There are questions outside of science but that doesn't mean we won't have an answer for it.
This isn't about philosophy. It's about science and how it works. It isn't about opinion. I don't have faith that nature will give me answers to my questions. Nature hasn't produced biology. Man has.
You still have yet to show me the difficulties with materialism. I am a scientist so fuck off about me taking it seriously.
Science doesn't ever demonstrate that there are no materialistic answers?
We know that it's always possible for it in the future to come up with an answer - maybe so, maybe not. But what about the science in the here and now?
The future results of science are inaccessible to us, so we must take seriously TODAYS good explanations, or lack of them. I'm not saying you MUST belive in the supernatural. I'm saying that you cannot dismiss it out of hand, and think thats truth.
By the way, don't get me wrong on one point. I sid that science shows "... there are no feasible natural explanations."
I didn't mean "no natural explanations - ever"!
I meant that for certain phenomena (such as biological life) in the origins debate, there are no feasible natural explanations. Of course, for many phenomena, there certainly are feasible natural explanations.
The grand (and unproven) axiom of materialism is that there are no non-materialistic explanations.
Science never shows that there are no feasible answers. We sometimes have unanswered, untested questions but that doesn't mean there aren't any feasible natural explanations.
Just because we don't have an answer for it doesn't mean there is no possible answer. It just means we don't understand it yet. Also, biology has nothing to do with the origin of life. Cosmology does.
Prove materialism wrong instead of just saying it's wrong please.
It is quite possible that in the future, what seemed a complete mystery to us now, will be resolved with materialistic explanations. However that may not be the case. Science has provided us with material explanations of HOW THINGS OPERATE. But in many areas, mainly within biology, it has not been able to explain HOW THINGS ORIGINATE.
The demonstrated natural OPERATION of a system, doesn't demonstrate the natural ORIGIN of the system.
Science doesn't have to answer the origin question to be materialistic. And just because there is no scientific explanation (actually, there is, but let's assume there isn't for sake of the argument) doesn't mean there is no possible answer.
And fuck you for acting like you are for science and I am against it. You don't seem understand science. It can only deal with the material world because nothing in the supernatural world (not proven to exist) can be tested with science.
Hey! You seem to be getting a little upset about me calling you out, yet it seems that I didn't get too upset when you belittled me. You have to have a thicker skin than that. I pointed out that you don't take science seriously, and my criticism stands, because you're only prepared to accept the science that agrees with materialism, and you'll reject that which doesn't. You're a scientist? OK. You need to become a better one. Think more logically and a little less dogmatically.
Science argues against materialism, because science isn't the same thing as materialism. Materialism is a way of looking at the world, a worldview. It's not the same as science. Science studies the material world only. But merely by studying it, science has built a case against the idea that materialism explains the origins of (at the very least) biology .
I'm not saying the case against materialism is 100% proven. OK? But in science, many things are not 100% proven.
In science, nothing is 100% proven. Science is based off of materialism. You'll never see a supernatural scientific explanation. You can't test magic with science. Science is founded on an idea of materialism and that everything has a non-magic explanation. To suggest otherwise is pure ignorance of science.
No, science is not based in materialism. Science is the study of the material (not the supernatural) world. Where do you get the idea that science is based in materialism? While science can only study the material world, it can certainly point to an origin of a material world that lies beyond a materiualistic explanation.
I know you can't test magic with science. I never said that. I'm claiming that science can detect, but not investigate, such causes beyond the material.
Science is based off of materialism simply because it can only study that of a materialistic world. Nothing outside of that. If science was not materialistic, we'd have no answers because there will always be the "God did it" explanation that we can't get rid of. We'd know nothing at all if science wasn't materialist based. No answer will ever be super naturalistic. Nothing. Ever. You can't have a God did it explanation in science. It is impossible.
Firstly, science in the west was pioneered by creationists. I think they "did OK" and gave us a whole pile of answers about the natural world. Those answers they gave us were in a sense materialistic, in that we were able to find natural explanations to phenomena without invoking "God did it". So you're wrong there because science (while being carried out by those with a nonmaterialistic worldview) came to materialistic answers where such existed...
Just because they contributed to science doesn't mean their whole belief set is right. They used materialistic science to test things yet believed in the supernatural. People aren't science. They just happened to be wrong on a few things that they didn't test (supernatural.) Also, I think it's safe to say that Muslims were better contributers to science than creationists. Remember: People's beliefs while testing, aren't scientific.
Now if you want to prove why science isn't materialistic, fine. Prove your point. You can't get by saying it's wrong without stating why. You might be right, but being right doesn't excuse you from supporting your position.
Your whole position is that science can lead to a magical answer yet cannot investigate that magical answer. No matter how much you butter it up, you can't change that fact. No reason to be ashamed of your position unless you don't know what you're talking about.
I know it for a fact since science can only tell us naturalistic answers. Science can only test the natural therefore there can only be naturalistic answers.
That's nice and all but it's not possible. Science can't lead us into or even near the supernatural, magic world. If you think it does, you don't understand science. If it could, we'd have no answers because we'd never be able to get rid of the "because of magic" answer.
Science can only give naturalistic answers. Aha! But what if the answer is supernatural? In that case, science that is on the correct track, will not be able to provide any answers. Because you cannot have "magic" as the answer to a scientific question. All science can say in that case, is that there is no (materialistic) explanation.
If the answer really is supernatural, it WILL be proved (for you) in a time period of probably less than 80 years. I'd hope when it is proven (if it is) then you'll be of a mind to appreciate rather than dread it.
No! Why would proof of the supernatural then mean it's natural? It depends very much on what you mean by nature. If nature is all that exists, then God is also part of nature. But that isn't the general use of the term nature, is it. Nature is generally taken to be the laws of physics and energy and matter.
Not true. Once we meet God, then the supernatural is proven to exist. Until then, it's an uproven concept, that is rather useful in explaining that which at the present has no other explanation.
In order to falsify the "God might have done it" tentative conclusion, all we have to do is to find a materialistic explanation. Finding a genuinely feasible materialistic explanation (that's not merely wild speculation) suffices to falsify the "God did it" possibility.
But how can we falsify the materialistic (not so tentative) conclusion?
As long as you reject the possibility - that when science has no materialistic explanations, that may mean that there could be a supernatural explanation - if you reject that possibility out of hand - then you're committing the "sin" of dogmatic presumption, and you have put materialism into an unfalsifiable status! And that a very bad thing, as far as science is concerned.
Just to make the point - as we had both realized in private messaging - I have been a little hard on you in some of my criticisms. We obviously don't agree on origins. But some of what I said about you wasn't valid, as I had apparently misinterpreted what you had said on here. Just letting people know that I was (unintentionally) a bit out of line. You weren't as dogmatically inclined as I had initially thought. I just wanted to clear that up for the record.
Let's write it as an equation, applied to any religious systems.
creationism = ID + religious teachings on origins.
Thus:
ID = creationism - religious teachings on origins.
Take away any religious statements from creationism, and it becomes nothing more than an assertion that there was a "creation of some sort". That is "creationism", but not as we know it. Rather, it is ID, which has no requirement to hold to a religious poistion, even though many IDists do.
The only difference between creationism and ID is that ID replaces 'God" with "Intelligent designer" and the phrases are changed to sound more scientific. It still isn't a science.
way to use already coined terms and claim they’re yours....u have no idea what ur talking about do you? If dawkins, krauss, harris never existed ..you would have to actually think about replies, rebuttals urselve ..scary I know...
Did I ever claim that argument was mine? No. Even if I did, would you pointing out my use of someone else's argument prove that I am wrong? No. I already figured out that ID = Creationism. They just said it more eloquently than I could ever do so I used their argument. You say the same basic answers too so don't think that my unoriginality justifies yours. Fuck off troll.
Stephenwraysf: Sometimes science can't do for us what we need done, that is a
miracle. As defined by Webster a miracle is, "an extraordinary or unusal event that
is considered to be a manifestation of divine or supernatural power". Medicine can on go so as many doctors have attested to the fact of giving up on their patients only to see something happened that they can only describe as a miracle, ie, the influence of a power greater than medicine.
Didn't Dembski take his Autistic son to a 'faith healer' to 'cure him' of his autism. If this is true then it shows that Dembski has a very poor understanding of science.
TheKumby: I answered you on the email you sent me about 20 scientist that were Christian. Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Fleming,Cuvier, Babbage, Dalton, Maury, Joule, Simpson, Agassiz, Mendel, Pasteur, Kelvin to name a few. Look them up on Google and see what science they founded and what they believed about the Lord. You won't learn that in today's science books because they don't won't you to know these great men were believers in a God they say don't exist.
we can't and shouldn't compare religion to science. Science is mainly a tool used to predict the future and have real world applications whereas religion doesn't.
eg. we can't predict the weather with religion.
Religion also doesn't explain how things work, which makes it inapplicable to the real world.
eg. how does God create beings?
We can live with science and without religion, but not with just religion.
Science is a system of thought that can be of great utility to us now. True religion (obviously not false religion) is of use in that it tells us of things that we could not determine through science or other ways of investigation. And has great utility to our relations with our Creator, and thus our eternal future. True religion is thus in the long run, far more important than science is.
Science is not just about now. It's the past, the present, and the future, but in this world that we can detect. Also, it is about the how, which religion doesn't provide. So, you can not say I choose religion over science b/c you can't tell what kind of disease you have with religion. You can, however, feel more at ease thinking there is God when you are sick. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
I realize that, but I'm saying that to be scientific, we can't just say that we don't know how something works now, but we will in the future. We don't know if we will or not. We can't know how something happens - if it actually doesn't happen. You see what I mean? Take abiogenesis for instance. Many are convined it happenned. They think it must have. But for all we know (and the evidence so far is in favour of this particular viewpoint) it may be an impossibility.
@tubewatch59 So because science proved evolution happened, you move the goal posts and say abiogenisis can't be proven. And when they show how that happens you will say it does not expalin the Big Bang.
Science has only proved that evolution happens to cause slight changes. Science has definately not shown that we descended from single celled ancestors. THAT belief is opinion. I don't have to "move the goalposts". It's just that using abiogenesis as an example, saves arguing about micro vs. macroevolution. If abiogenesis didn't happen, then neither did macroevolution, (as far as athiests are concerned). You require abiogenesis to be a fact, since you believe it started life.
For evolution to happen, life MUST exist first. You absolutely depend on abiogenesis being true, in order for macroevolution to be true.
Are you saying that you don't have to believe your mother existed, in order to believe that you exist? You absolutely depend on your mother's existence, for your existence. Abiogenesis (in your worldview) is the "mother of all life". So without it, nothing living exists. You need abiogenesis to be true, in order for evolution to be true.
When I said religion (true religion obviously) is far more important than science is, I'm talking of course about eternal life and how we relate to God in eternity. This far outweighs whether or not we know about various facets of knowledge of use here, including medical knowledge. On the other hand, they certainly aren't mutually exclusive, and there is no reason why a person cannot follow both scientific and religious adherences. (ie. Missionaries who were medical doctors.)
So understanding our imaginary friends' wishes and building relations with said friend is more useful to us than science which has multiplied our Average death age, has kept us healthy from disease, has provided us with electricity and information on basically anything you can think of? All technology comes from science.
What kind of shit are you smoking because I want some?
If our not so imaginary friend has created all that there is, then I'd say definately yes. Your courageous bluster now, won't cut it on judgement day. And what is technology of all kinds based on? Intelligent design, via the knowledge of science. I don't recall the last time nature obtained her science or engineering degree! And I don't smoke sir, I drink! Fine old Kentucky straight bourbon sippin' whiskeys. Mmmmm! (But just a sip mind you. Too much will fry your insides!)
Intelligent design is the exercise of "proof by ignorance". It invokes personal incredulity , or lack of understand as to how something could have happened, often after science HAS explained how it DID happen.
Intelligent design looks at the explanation by (big) science of how nature is supposed to have come up with what we have, and sees the flaws in the arguments. Of course it's based on incredulity. Otherwise known as justifiable skepticism that nature can do this kind of thing.
There's no scientific evidence that nature does this. The evidence suggests that only a mind can plan out such processes to bring about life, etc.
You're just trying to justify ignoring God. Silly.
If scientists actuially said that - that they don't know what the explanation is - then that would be far more acceptable. In practise very few do that. Instead many (though not all) say that science has donbe away with any need for a creator God. Yet they have no feasible explanations in place. It's apparent in that case that they're just trying to convince themselves that there is no God (when they have little reason to assume that is the case). THAT conclusion is silly.
@tubewatch59 "If scientists actuially said that - that they don't know what the explanation is - then that would be far more acceptable"
Scientists DO say that! - If they don't they are not scientists. Science is an enquiry into the unknown, by observing and understanding what is known as fact. If they get things wrong they have no choice but to correct it immediately
Science never concludes anything with speculation or fantasy. That is the realm of religion, as in I.D. and creationism.
@tubewatch59 Scientists don't consider the need for god. ATHEISTS don't believe in, or think that there is any need for god. You need to understand the difference!
WE have only the apparatus to examine the material world....therefore it is pointless to speculate in fantasy, as in "intelligent design" or creationism. I agree with both scientists, who publish peer review observations, AND atheists.
There is no point in speculating in what can't be observed or demonstrated.
Wow, only 2 seconds before a lie. New creatard vidio record.
ID is not science.
gregrutz 1 month ago
What a failure.
uriituw 4 months ago
Utter nonsense. How do you find "traces of design" when it's your theory that everything is designed? It's not like an archaeologist finding an arrowhead. An arrow can be differentiated from the surrounding material. The traces are intelligent HUMAN design can be seen in an arrowhead because it's different from the rock.
But if you assume it's all designed how to pick out the arrowhead?
It's only an assumption that rock was designed, nothing more.
dimbulb23 5 months ago
Dumbski is just another Liar for Jesus - it says so right there on the video. How do these hypocrites sleep, I wonder, breaking that commandment about not bearing false witness? You know - LYING! Hard to tell them from the muslims when they engage in the same tactics of LYING to the infidel, ain't it? Birds of a feather, folks.
hznfrst 8 months ago
Boy does he need to get laid and have some shock therapy.
You can not go through life like this it is a waste of Oxygen.
VideoAudioDisco09 9 months ago
Warning , 0:00 - 1:27 contains dishonesty.
SonytoBratsoni 9 months ago
"I believe God created the world for a purpose. The Designer of intelligent design is, ultimately, the Christian God. The focus of my writings is not to try to understand the Christian doctrine of creation; it’s to try to develop intelligent design as a scientific program." William Dembski, Millstatt Forum, Strasbourg, France, August 1998.
So much for the objective and separate view of ID from religion. Don't be fooled by ID advocates. They are priests in sheep's clothing.
charadester 10 months ago
"If you want to know who God is, you need to know God through both creation and redemption. According to Scripture, the angels praise God chiefly for two things: God's creation of the world and God's redemption of the world through Jesus Christ. Let us follow the angels' example." William Dembski, Millstatt Forum, Strasbourg, France, August 10, 1998.
Don't be fooled. This man's sole mission is to subjugate science to the will of fundamentalist Christianity.
charadester 10 months ago
The fog of semantics cannot be trivialized. Intelligent Design argues that the fundamental principle of living systems are 'endowed' by its structure in an 'un-described' process that precludes naturalistic agencies, to a degree, where humans can recognize but incapable to preclude 'intent'. Life is complex;but using assumptions that it can only be derive 'by intent' frames opinion as proof. I am more interested in evidence than 'final proof', biology is founded on working ideas not beliefs.
granddad2002 10 months ago
ID is not controversial because it challenges the theory evolution.
ID is controversial because it was PROVED in a court of LAW to be nothing more than creationism repackaged.
read: "Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District"
What William Dembski has done is this video is lie to people when he says (at 1:00 ) it is not, and lying to make your case, besides being un-scientific, is decidedly un-Christian as well.
PaulinaPaulino 11 months ago 12
@PaulinaPaulino So, just because a judge says it is one way, that is suppose to be the right way. I could point out many cases were either the judge got it wrong, or that there was some sort of bias in his or her thought process. That is human nature for you.
lightsoutnow30 6 months ago
@lightsoutnow30 Look, do you WANT to be an ignorant moron all your life? That's FINE if you do, as long as you admit it.
My point was NOT just that "a judge says so", it is that even a religious, conservative judge, when presented with actual evidence, came to the correct conclusion that ID is Creationism repackaged.
You can either be a stupid ass and deny that, or you can accept the fact that he is correct.
PaulinaPaulino 6 months ago
@PaulinaPaulino Yes, when one can not change a person's mind kindly resort to some form of unflattering and just plain angry words that border on violent tendencies. You need help. If you did not understand my point, thats ok. I am not trying to change your mind, and I dont want to.Because what you believe is what you believe, Wow, that sounds like a form of religion.
lightsoutnow30 6 months ago
@lightsoutnow30 I have no intention to change your mind, as you will not look objectively at evidence. I understand your point 100%. You, like most theists, are trying to rationalize your fairy tale by downplaying everything that is contrary to your belief system.
I do not need any help, I do not have any beliefs- I do not need them. I have evidence, and I have science, and you have neither. That is why my position is based on facts and yours is based on fantasy.
PaulinaPaulino 6 months ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
@PaulinaPaulino Do you believe in what you are saying?
lightsoutnow30 6 months ago
@lightsoutnow30 It was a judge the creationists liked. LOL
People showed a text book with 'ID' replacing 'Creation Science' in the identical sentence.
ID is an argument for God, it is not science and can never be proven.
gregrutz 5 months ago
@gregrutz Wow, if that is your argument, then scientist have a real problem in proving their many theories that can not be reproduced in a control environment.
lightsoutnow30 5 months ago
@gregrutz Wow, if that is your argument, then scientist have a real problem in proving their many theories that can not be reproduced in a control environment.
lightsoutnow30 5 months ago
@lightsoutnow30 Why are all creationists experts on what it takes to be science. You have never opened a science book in your life. You don't need to create a universe a lab to study it.
Go dig your own fossils in a controled inviroment.
gregrutz 5 months ago
The argument from ignorance is not anything but a fallacy.
qwertypoiu4321 11 months ago
the questions of who is the designer, when did he design, where did he do this design, how did he implement his designs, was he the maker or did something else put his design into effect ? None of these questions seems to be addressed by ID. Humans are not even very good at correctly identifying human design, how would we know what signs a superhuman alien creator would leave , much less a GOD ? How did God create the Earth ? he poofed it from nothing ? wut ?
SqueakerAlpha 1 year ago
He lost when he said "ID is a science..."
skepticnyc 1 year ago
However, it is embarrassing for Dembski that he says "ID is logically separate from Judeo-Christian doctrine" when it says "Jesus" in the upper left corner of the video. LOL! I agree that it is logically separate in theory, but in practice this is apparently not the case.
craigblack1234 1 year ago
The notion that intelligence was involved in the evolution of life is not the same thing as creationism. Creationism is based on the Biblical account or creation in Genesis. ID is insulated from any particular religious tradition. ID posits an ambiguous intelligence. Unlike creationism, ID accepts scientific evidence such as the established age of the universe, age of the earth, and the fossil record.
craigblack1234 1 year ago
188 atheists are too intellectually dishonest to admit to what Dembski is saying
horsie111 1 year ago
What is the difference between intelligent design and creationism?
Not a GOD damn thing.
creaturebotman 1 year ago
@creaturebotman creationism takes it to the extreme by claimning the earth was created 6000 years ago and that dinosaurs lived along humans 3000 years ago lol
quagmire444 11 months ago
What is the difference between intelligent design and creationism? Lligentdeign. And of course they are both unsupported by any facts what so ever.
TheTomtompiper 1 year ago
If the organisms all around us are too complex to have evolved on their own, how could the "creator", a much more complex entity, have appeared?
dermasterpeef 1 year ago
This guy needs bigger glasses.
kaifroland 1 year ago
Tha was really funny
elbowrinkles 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
these people are so dumb
FockerTheLopper 1 year ago
@FockerTheLopper Actually the Scientific Method was created by a guy who believed in Intelligent Design. Francis Bacon. But whatever.
strattgatt 1 year ago
@strattgatt any relevance to what I said? Back in Bacon's time there was modern evolutionary theory was not known about so of course he would've believed in that, most great minds back then were creationists, but they had nothing telling them it was just a myth, it's morons like these guys who believe in creationism in the face of mountains of evidence against it that are stupid
FockerTheLopper 1 year ago
@FockerTheLopper Pretty sure atheists had reasons for being atheists back in Bacon's time. Their reasons are always paper thin.
strattgatt 1 year ago
@strattgatt Back to your first comment, bacon believed in creation not intelligent design. Tell me why atheists reject religious notions and why they are wrong and why your religious beliefs are right (no use of scripture). Fact is that religion is slowly dying because people are getting smarter
FockerTheLopper 1 year ago
@strattgatt you have it the wrong way around, an Agnostic or Atheist has no reason to be a Theist, if their were any reasons then they would be Theists. Now most Theists have no reason to be Theist either, but that is their choice.
TheTomtompiper 1 year ago
This was a failure right off the bat when he said "Intelligent Design is the science..." No dude, ID is not a science.
paolo27th 1 year ago
The courts ruled, ''Science is what scientists do, and the don't do ID''
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz
If the court had ruled in favour of ID, you'd be the first to tell us that "Courts of law have nothing to do with science." You'd be (rightly) arguing that science is resolved in the laboratory, not in courts of law.
tubewatch59 1 year ago
ID is the science.... NO, it is not science. Not even close.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz
When an anti-IDist says that ID isn't science, then one tends to ignore such a statement.
tubewatch59 1 year ago
@tubewatch59 You also ignore the fossil record, comparative anatomy, embryology, genetics, comparative biochemistry, observe speciation, and on and on and on...
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz
I don't ignore those subjects. They are (to various degrees - some more than others) quite compatible with ID and creationism.
tubewatch59 1 year ago
Science does not study ''products of intelligence'' IDiot.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz
There's no reason at all that science wouldn't study products of intelligence. Whenever science studies manmade systems such as machines, then we're in the situation where science is studying the products of intelligence.
You already knew that - so what was your point getting at?
tubewatch59 1 year ago
@tubewatch59 So ID is all about machines and man made things!
Science studies nature. Physics, chemistry, etc., not manmade machines.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz
Science studies both. But just because biology isn't manmade, doesn't mean that it also isn't "God-made". It certainly doesn't seem to be the result of mindless nature. All we know is that it exists as part of mindless nature (except it's also true that biological machines have minds).
tubewatch59 1 year ago
@tubewatch59 '' just because biology isn't manmade''
Biology is a manmade science.
Just like your religious stories are manmade.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz
The science of biology is manmade. Biology isn't manmade. Which you already knew, so I guess you're arguing for the sake of it.
tubewatch59 1 year ago
No, it is not science, it is not even a theory. ID lost in court. ID = creationism.
gregrutz 1 year ago
The problem I had was that they used this man as some sort of authority figure. They gave his occupation and everything. If it didn't matter, why put his occupation in the description.
Also, ID is creationism. They just changed some of the terms to sound more scientific. It's the same bullshit wrapped in a pretty little package.
Skrothn 1 year ago
And how does a Mathematician have any authority in this type of discussion?
Oh and good job retard for not understanding your own position.
Skrothn 1 year ago
I wish they taught creationism and noah's story in schools.
I want to know why the salt water fish didn't die in the fresh rain water.
And who on the Ark had the STDs.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Sorry, that was my bad. I couldn't help myself looking at all those animals so I went a little overboard if you know what I mean.
Skrothn 1 year ago
When scientists claim that ID cannot be used because it's not science, then scientists are no longer concerned with the truth or best explanation for physical phenomenon. Logically and scientifically, there is good reason to take into consideration the possibility of intelligence behind something when a natural explanation is insufficient. When scientists exclude a rational explanation, it is either due to faulty reasoning or the frightening thought that there is a God.
YHWHisSovereign 1 year ago
@YHWHisSovereign
great comment!
infinitemika 1 year ago
@infinitemika Thanks
YHWHisSovereign 1 year ago
@infinitemika
You best be using sarcasm or else you don't understand science.
Skrothn 1 year ago
@YHWHisSovereign Science does not use the supernatural.
There is nothing that can't be explained in nature.
They didn't understand the sun, so they had a sun god.
So if you don't understand evolution, you need a designer god?
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz ID is not necessarily the supernatural. All it is saying is that the best explanation is that there was some designer behind it. Don't you think that it is possible that there is a designer behind the complexity of life? If it is possible, and science is truly concerned with the truth, or best explanation of physical phenomenon, then science must consider ID. If not, then why even attempt to explain the origin of life if you are not going to consider all possibilities?
YHWHisSovereign 1 year ago
@YHWHisSovereign My next door neighbor is a designer, maybe she made the universe? OR maybe you mean GOD.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz Of course I would say God made the universe. But not just any God, but the God of the Bible. ID, however, does not specify who the designer is. It just recognizes that that is the best explanation given the overwhelming problems of trying to explain it by evolution.
YHWHisSovereign 1 year ago
@YHWHisSovereign
Science deals with the material world. It doesn't deal with magical phenomenon. Also, we don't just jump to a position because someone throws it at us. We have to test it. If we can't test it, it isn't science related and it's scrapped. Just like any claims of invisible pink unicorn sightings. If there is no way to test it, it isn't science related. Even if it contains big fancy words. Unnatural explanation = not science. Magic is not a scientific answer so stop acting like it.
Skrothn 1 year ago
@Skrothn If you could only be consistent, then I would be happy. You say that if it is not testable, then it is scrapped. Are apes evolving into man, testable? There are absolutely no tests anyone can perform that will show one species evolving into another species. You assume that having a designer and builder constitutes magic. This is absurd.
YHWHisSovereign 1 year ago
@YHWHisSovereign
I'm not being inconsistent. Apes aren't evolving into man. And they haven't in the past either. We are cousins however that share a common apelike ancestor.
Also, your position is all about the magic. You take the stance that since science can't answer all your questions right now, a creator did it using his powers. That's magic. Sugar coat it however you like, you still can't get rid of that fact.
Skrothn 1 year ago
ID is not even a theory, just a silly argument.
It is complex, I don't understand, so gawd musta dun it.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz
so evo isnt silly? complex fine tuned obviously engineered beings &universes over billions of yrs from nothing? give ur head a shak. ...at least id science is beinghonest w/evidence...they claim that there is a "possibility" of a infinite creator..they dont claim it absolutely....id is NOT creationism..but of course you dont know that....cause you could care less to read a book..rather just quote verbatim your dear evo leaders....feel sorry for you cute little evos &ur religion
infinitemika 1 year ago
@infinitemika Check the court records, ID lost because it is religion.
Evolution is Science.
Nothing is too complex it needs a god to explain it.
Nothing is fine tuned for anything.
Nothing is engineered.
We have the forces of nature.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz are you THAT blind?. Nothing is too complex...yaaawn...are u serious? when you get a cut, your blood clots...at what point did this clotting "evolve" would be pretty serious to human evolution wouldnt it? one of a million fine tuned engineered systems within our own bodies, not even going into the universe and its PERFECT placement for life
I get it...you dont like God...fine..but pls dont embarrass yourself anymore..just say it.:i hate anything God” would respect u more
infinitemika 1 year ago
@infinitemika Who said anything about god? the whole point of ID is to take god out of the picture so you can teach your creation story in schools.
You are upset because evolution proves your bible wrong, but not God.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz
"@infinitemika Who said anything about god? the whole point of ID is to take god out of the picture so you can teach your creation story in schools.
You are upset because evolution proves your bible wrong, but not God.
"
thats ur fear, NOT mine. iF UR LITTLE EVO GUESS IS SOOOOOO factual..what do you fear? not sure I understand
infinitemika 1 year ago
@infinitemika the only thing I fear is RELIGION.
Terrorists and people who want their creation story taught in science class.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Evolution has been proven with loads of evidence. ID is just a guess saying "Hey guys, all this might be created by an intelligent creator because it is complex and shit." While evolution has far more evidence than even gravity. It's not a theory for nothing.
Evolution is not founded on lies of evidence. It's perfectly honest with the evidence. If you claim otherwise, you don't know what you're talking about.
Skrothn 1 year ago
infinitemika 1 year ago
You do know that mistakes are not lies, right? They aren't lying about evidence to deceive us. They are trying to interpret the evidence we have and find the most probable answer. When more evidence is brought to the table, we sometimes find out that what we thought was true, isn't. Also, evolution isn't based off of those errors. Make make mistakes sometimes so stop acting like they are lies, troll.
Skrothn 1 year ago
Same KIND? Yes!
Dogs make dogs.
Apes make apes.
That is why humans are still apes.
And all apes are still monkeys.
And all monkeys are still primates.
And all primates are still mammals.
And all mammals are still tetrapods.
gregrutz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
infinitemika 1 year ago
The courts found out ID is Creationism. Shot down as religion.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz
Creationism is ID + a belief in the Biblical account of creation.
What you're saying is the same thing as if I said that evolution has been found to be atheism. Not true, as evidenced by the fact that theistic evolutionists exist. Of course, ID is far more compatible with creationism than it is with atheism, but on the other hand, ID goes rather well with agnosticism. And evolution is more compatible with atheism than theism, but some would disagree.
tubewatch59 1 year ago
@tubewatch59 So my next door neighbor is a designer, do you think she made the world?
Calling God an IDer is stupid. Do you really think people as so dumb that they don't know God is your designer.
It was an attempt to put your religion in schools, it failed.
ID = Creation Science = Creationism = bible story = religion.
Science only in science class!
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz
It was an attempt to break the stranglehold of naturalism. You don't like it because many people who realize naturalism is nuts, will go on to believe in God. But that's not something over which you have any control. The governemnt has insisted that religion is not to be taught in schools. ID is not the teaching of religion, it's the science related to the inference of design.
Religion isn't part of science class. The denial of design, isn't part of science class either.
tubewatch59 1 year ago
Can intelligent design be tested experimentally? No it can't. Therefore, it isn't science. Keep your theology bullshit in theology classrooms.
Skrothn 1 year ago
@Skrothn
Testability? We're talking about one off historical events. So it's not that easy.
Take for instance a new regime of testing I propose to test both possibilities. We can test the emergence of life via intelligent design - by waiting for it to happen, (with an announcement from God and an explanation). Or - we can also do the same thing for nature, with our observations filling in for the explanation.
So... While we are waiting, which one is the more scientific?
tubewatch59 1 year ago
@tubewatch59
The one that is more scientific is the one we are actually able to test and are testing. That's the Big Bang. Waiting for an answer to come to us is not scientific and fuck you if you think it is.
Skrothn 1 year ago
@Skrothn
We can test (using the science of the material world) the idea that nature explains everything. That idea isn't a given. And at the moment it seems to be incorrect. Science is limited to studying the material universe. But science uses logic and can point to an origin that must have come from outside.
We can't scientifically study such outside agents. Correct. Science sometimes may point towards a cause that cannot be scientifically investigated. Do you disagree with that?
tubewatch59 1 year ago
@Skrothn
In the meantime, based on current knowledge, we can look into figuring out which is the more likely to have occurred. When it comes to origins, nature hasn't been so forthcoming with her "secrets". This is either because we've just been unlucky so far, or perhaps more likely, the secrets of origins aren't nature's to tell us in the first place.
tubewatch59 1 year ago
@tubewatch59
Nature isn't a conscience being. It's just the material world and by testing, we can find answers to our questions. Science takes time. It isn't like theology where you can automatically claim truth yet know nothing. We have to do tests. Sometimes we don't have good enough technology. Sometimes test the wrong things. You have to be patient with science. You're never going to get real answers over night.
Skrothn 1 year ago
@Skrothn
You're speaking as if I'm holding out against science. I'm not. Most of my reasoning is based on the science we know now. I'm saying that science itself is showing us that MATERIALISM - the idea that there was nothing apart from mindless nature itself - has given rise to everything - is likely bogus.
We don't know that 100% yet (and never will - unless we met God of course) but based on what we know NOW (from science) we can say that materialism seems a very poor explanation.
tubewatch59 1 year ago
@tubewatch59
Science hasn't led down that path. You have no idea what science is or how it works. You can't prove materialism wrong with science. To prove materialism is wrong, you have to show how science in and of itself is wrong. Science works off of materialism and nothing else. You'll never get a metaphysical answer with science.
Materialism stands. If you want to show me how it's wrong or problems with it, tell me. And get ready to prove science 100% wrong to prove your point.
Skrothn 1 year ago
@Skrothn
Again, you're conflating materialism with science. You're confusing the philosophy of materialism, with the study of the material world. Materialism doesn't stand, at least not at the moment. Why? Because science doesn't allow it to. There are too many problems with a purely material explanation.
You're the one who must show that science is wrong. Why would I want to do that? You're the one denying that science outlines the difficulties with materialism. Not me.
tubewatch59 1 year ago
Explain to me how science does not allow materialism. All I hear is you saying they don't work together. Back up your bullshit or stop talking about things you have no understanding of.
I am not going to prove science wrong because I am on the side of science. If you want to prove science being non materialistic, show me a scientific answer that is not materialistic. And tell me wat are the problems with materialism.
Skrothn 1 year ago
@Skrothn
Science allows materialism for any phenomena where there turns out to be a feasible materialistic explanation. In the case where there are no materialistic explanations, and especially where there seem to be many difficulties involved in proposing such explanations, then we have two choices of what to believe.
1. Have faith in nature. Trust that in the future, we'll figure it out materialistically.
2. For now, allow that something beyond nature may explain the phenomena.
tubewatch59 1 year ago
Neither of them are accurate. You seem to think nature is a conscience being when it isn't. It hasn't given us any answers. Never has and never will. We do experiments to understand parts of nature. We don't go up and wait for the answers to come to us. So no faith is involved. The waiting part is true though. We have to wait until we find the answer materialistically.
Now the second answer is not science. It involves making an assumption about something we don't understand yet.
Skrothn 1 year ago
@Skrothn
Seriously, despite being a scientist, you have shown that you have faith in nature. You're absolutely committed to the idea that materialism is sufficient to explain everything. You don't know that, but you're committed to that. You've excluded a whole set of possible answers because they do not conform to the materialistic mindset. That's not scientific thinking, that's dogmatism. Very akin to a religious faith, except it's faith in nature, rather than god(s).
tubewatch59 1 year ago
@Skrothn
I'm of the opinion that science should be taken seriously when it demonstrates that (for now) there are no feasible natural explanations.
It's OK for you as a committed materialist, to believe that philosophy in your heart, as the explanation you favour the most. You have faith in nature's ability to have produced biology for example.
But in public, since science points to serious difficulties with such views, then you must admit that in public. Take science more seriously.
tubewatch59 1 year ago
Science doesn't ever demonstrate that there are no answers. There are questions outside of science but that doesn't mean we won't have an answer for it.
This isn't about philosophy. It's about science and how it works. It isn't about opinion. I don't have faith that nature will give me answers to my questions. Nature hasn't produced biology. Man has.
You still have yet to show me the difficulties with materialism. I am a scientist so fuck off about me taking it seriously.
Skrothn 1 year ago
@Skrothn
Science doesn't ever demonstrate that there are no materialistic answers?
We know that it's always possible for it in the future to come up with an answer - maybe so, maybe not. But what about the science in the here and now?
The future results of science are inaccessible to us, so we must take seriously TODAYS good explanations, or lack of them. I'm not saying you MUST belive in the supernatural. I'm saying that you cannot dismiss it out of hand, and think thats truth.
tubewatch59 1 year ago
@Skrothn
By the way, don't get me wrong on one point. I sid that science shows "... there are no feasible natural explanations."
I didn't mean "no natural explanations - ever"!
I meant that for certain phenomena (such as biological life) in the origins debate, there are no feasible natural explanations. Of course, for many phenomena, there certainly are feasible natural explanations.
The grand (and unproven) axiom of materialism is that there are no non-materialistic explanations.
tubewatch59 1 year ago
Science never shows that there are no feasible answers. We sometimes have unanswered, untested questions but that doesn't mean there aren't any feasible natural explanations.
Just because we don't have an answer for it doesn't mean there is no possible answer. It just means we don't understand it yet. Also, biology has nothing to do with the origin of life. Cosmology does.
Prove materialism wrong instead of just saying it's wrong please.
Skrothn 1 year ago
@Skrothn
Science just keeps on chugging along.
It is quite possible that in the future, what seemed a complete mystery to us now, will be resolved with materialistic explanations. However that may not be the case. Science has provided us with material explanations of HOW THINGS OPERATE. But in many areas, mainly within biology, it has not been able to explain HOW THINGS ORIGINATE.
The demonstrated natural OPERATION of a system, doesn't demonstrate the natural ORIGIN of the system.
tubewatch59 1 year ago
Science doesn't have to answer the origin question to be materialistic. And just because there is no scientific explanation (actually, there is, but let's assume there isn't for sake of the argument) doesn't mean there is no possible answer.
And fuck you for acting like you are for science and I am against it. You don't seem understand science. It can only deal with the material world because nothing in the supernatural world (not proven to exist) can be tested with science.
Skrothn 1 year ago
@Skrothn
Hey! You seem to be getting a little upset about me calling you out, yet it seems that I didn't get too upset when you belittled me. You have to have a thicker skin than that. I pointed out that you don't take science seriously, and my criticism stands, because you're only prepared to accept the science that agrees with materialism, and you'll reject that which doesn't. You're a scientist? OK. You need to become a better one. Think more logically and a little less dogmatically.
tubewatch59 1 year ago
@Skrothn
Science argues against materialism, because science isn't the same thing as materialism. Materialism is a way of looking at the world, a worldview. It's not the same as science. Science studies the material world only. But merely by studying it, science has built a case against the idea that materialism explains the origins of (at the very least) biology .
I'm not saying the case against materialism is 100% proven. OK? But in science, many things are not 100% proven.
tubewatch59 1 year ago
@tubewatch59
In science, nothing is 100% proven. Science is based off of materialism. You'll never see a supernatural scientific explanation. You can't test magic with science. Science is founded on an idea of materialism and that everything has a non-magic explanation. To suggest otherwise is pure ignorance of science.
Skrothn 1 year ago
@Skrothn
No, science is not based in materialism. Science is the study of the material (not the supernatural) world. Where do you get the idea that science is based in materialism? While science can only study the material world, it can certainly point to an origin of a material world that lies beyond a materiualistic explanation.
I know you can't test magic with science. I never said that. I'm claiming that science can detect, but not investigate, such causes beyond the material.
tubewatch59 1 year ago
Science is based off of materialism simply because it can only study that of a materialistic world. Nothing outside of that. If science was not materialistic, we'd have no answers because there will always be the "God did it" explanation that we can't get rid of. We'd know nothing at all if science wasn't materialist based. No answer will ever be super naturalistic. Nothing. Ever. You can't have a God did it explanation in science. It is impossible.
Skrothn 1 year ago
@Skrothn
Firstly, science in the west was pioneered by creationists. I think they "did OK" and gave us a whole pile of answers about the natural world. Those answers they gave us were in a sense materialistic, in that we were able to find natural explanations to phenomena without invoking "God did it". So you're wrong there because science (while being carried out by those with a nonmaterialistic worldview) came to materialistic answers where such existed...
tubewatch59 1 year ago
Just because they contributed to science doesn't mean their whole belief set is right. They used materialistic science to test things yet believed in the supernatural. People aren't science. They just happened to be wrong on a few things that they didn't test (supernatural.) Also, I think it's safe to say that Muslims were better contributers to science than creationists. Remember: People's beliefs while testing, aren't scientific.
Skrothn 1 year ago
@Skrothn
Muslims are creationists, by the way. And they contributed quite a lot to science in the early days, as you have noted.
tubewatch59 1 year ago
@tubewatch59 Muslilms has not contributed to science ever since the fuddymentalist took over. Just like christians try to hold science back.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz
I disagree with you when you claim that Christians are trying to hold science back. (But we're all entitled to our opinions).
tubewatch59 1 year ago
Now if you want to prove why science isn't materialistic, fine. Prove your point. You can't get by saying it's wrong without stating why. You might be right, but being right doesn't excuse you from supporting your position.
Your whole position is that science can lead to a magical answer yet cannot investigate that magical answer. No matter how much you butter it up, you can't change that fact. No reason to be ashamed of your position unless you don't know what you're talking about.
Skrothn 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Skrothn
Then you go on to say "No answer will ever be super naturalistic. Nothing. Ever."
Really? How do you know that? You don't know that. You accept it as axiomatic. It's an axiom of the materialistic worldview.
You then say: "Your whole position is that science can lead to a magical answer yet cannot investigate that magical answer."
Well said! That is exactly what I intended to say. I'm not ashamed of that at all. I'm just glad you understood me correctly on that point.
tubewatch59 1 year ago
I know it for a fact since science can only tell us naturalistic answers. Science can only test the natural therefore there can only be naturalistic answers.
That's nice and all but it's not possible. Science can't lead us into or even near the supernatural, magic world. If you think it does, you don't understand science. If it could, we'd have no answers because we'd never be able to get rid of the "because of magic" answer.
Skrothn 1 year ago
@Skrothn
Science can only give naturalistic answers. Aha! But what if the answer is supernatural? In that case, science that is on the correct track, will not be able to provide any answers. Because you cannot have "magic" as the answer to a scientific question. All science can say in that case, is that there is no (materialistic) explanation.
tubewatch59 1 year ago
@tubewatch59 What if the answer is supernatural? Great ! Prove it !
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz
If the answer really is supernatural, it WILL be proved (for you) in a time period of probably less than 80 years. I'd hope when it is proven (if it is) then you'll be of a mind to appreciate rather than dread it.
tubewatch59 1 year ago
@tubewatch59 Prove the supernatural?!? Wouldn't it be natural then?
You only need 80 more years, you have had 2000 years and you can't even prove there was a global flood.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz
No! Why would proof of the supernatural then mean it's natural? It depends very much on what you mean by nature. If nature is all that exists, then God is also part of nature. But that isn't the general use of the term nature, is it. Nature is generally taken to be the laws of physics and energy and matter.
tubewatch59 1 year ago
@tubewatch59 Make up you mind, it is either natural, of this world, or it is supernatural, can't be see or proven to exist.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz
Not true. Once we meet God, then the supernatural is proven to exist. Until then, it's an uproven concept, that is rather useful in explaining that which at the present has no other explanation.
tubewatch59 1 year ago
@Skrothn
Science actually can get rid of the "magic answer" as you call it, simply by finding a materialistic answer.
Let me point out something you might not have thought of yet.
Materialism (as you follow it) cannot be falsified. Creationsim can be falsified.
Whgich is more scientific? Something which is capable of being falsified, or something which isn't?
tubewatch59 1 year ago
@Skrothn
In order to falsify the "God might have done it" tentative conclusion, all we have to do is to find a materialistic explanation. Finding a genuinely feasible materialistic explanation (that's not merely wild speculation) suffices to falsify the "God did it" possibility.
tubewatch59 1 year ago
@Skrothn
But how can we falsify the materialistic (not so tentative) conclusion?
As long as you reject the possibility - that when science has no materialistic explanations, that may mean that there could be a supernatural explanation - if you reject that possibility out of hand - then you're committing the "sin" of dogmatic presumption, and you have put materialism into an unfalsifiable status! And that a very bad thing, as far as science is concerned.
tubewatch59 1 year ago
@Skrothn
AAAAAAWE...princess...did I touch a nerve?? thin skinned liberal atheists.....wow!
infinitemika 1 year ago
@infinitemika
1. Way to show you're a troll.
2. I'm not a liberal so good job.
3. Good job not addressing any points and going straight for the ad hominem attacks.
Skrothn 1 year ago
@Skrothn
Just to make the point - as we had both realized in private messaging - I have been a little hard on you in some of my criticisms. We obviously don't agree on origins. But some of what I said about you wasn't valid, as I had apparently misinterpreted what you had said on here. Just letting people know that I was (unintentionally) a bit out of line. You weren't as dogmatically inclined as I had initially thought. I just wanted to clear that up for the record.
tubewatch59 1 year ago
@gregrutz
Let's write it as an equation, applied to any religious systems.
creationism = ID + religious teachings on origins.
Thus:
ID = creationism - religious teachings on origins.
Take away any religious statements from creationism, and it becomes nothing more than an assertion that there was a "creation of some sort". That is "creationism", but not as we know it. Rather, it is ID, which has no requirement to hold to a religious poistion, even though many IDists do.
tubewatch59 1 year ago
@tubewatch59
The only difference between creationism and ID is that ID replaces 'God" with "Intelligent designer" and the phrases are changed to sound more scientific. It still isn't a science.
Skrothn 1 year ago
@Skrothn
way to use already coined terms and claim they’re yours....u have no idea what ur talking about do you? If dawkins, krauss, harris never existed ..you would have to actually think about replies, rebuttals urselve ..scary I know...
infinitemika 1 year ago
@infinitemika
Did I ever claim that argument was mine? No. Even if I did, would you pointing out my use of someone else's argument prove that I am wrong? No. I already figured out that ID = Creationism. They just said it more eloquently than I could ever do so I used their argument. You say the same basic answers too so don't think that my unoriginality justifies yours. Fuck off troll.
Skrothn 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Stephenwraysf: Sometimes science can't do for us what we need done, that is a
miracle. As defined by Webster a miracle is, "an extraordinary or unusal event that
is considered to be a manifestation of divine or supernatural power". Medicine can on go so as many doctors have attested to the fact of giving up on their patients only to see something happened that they can only describe as a miracle, ie, the influence of a power greater than medicine.
rbosre 1 year ago
Stephenwraysf: Sometimes science can't do for us what needs to be done. that is
a miracle, defined by Webster's as "an extraordinary or unusal event that is
considered to be a manifestation of divine or supernatural power" and can be
verified by many doctors that have given up on patients only to see something
they cannot explain. Science can only go so far within the laws of medicine and
after that there is the supernatural, ie, God.
rbosre 1 year ago
Didn't Dembski take his Autistic son to a 'faith healer' to 'cure him' of his autism. If this is true then it shows that Dembski has a very poor understanding of science.
STEPHENWRAYSFORD33 1 year ago
TheKumby: I answered you on the email you sent me about 20 scientist that were Christian. Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Fleming,Cuvier, Babbage, Dalton, Maury, Joule, Simpson, Agassiz, Mendel, Pasteur, Kelvin to name a few. Look them up on Google and see what science they founded and what they believed about the Lord. You won't learn that in today's science books because they don't won't you to know these great men were believers in a God they say don't exist.
rbosre 1 year ago
we can't and shouldn't compare religion to science. Science is mainly a tool used to predict the future and have real world applications whereas religion doesn't.
eg. we can't predict the weather with religion.
Religion also doesn't explain how things work, which makes it inapplicable to the real world.
eg. how does God create beings?
We can live with science and without religion, but not with just religion.
bananian 1 year ago
@bananian
Science is a system of thought that can be of great utility to us now. True religion (obviously not false religion) is of use in that it tells us of things that we could not determine through science or other ways of investigation. And has great utility to our relations with our Creator, and thus our eternal future. True religion is thus in the long run, far more important than science is.
tubewatch59 1 year ago
@tubewatch59
Science is not just about now. It's the past, the present, and the future, but in this world that we can detect. Also, it is about the how, which religion doesn't provide. So, you can not say I choose religion over science b/c you can't tell what kind of disease you have with religion. You can, however, feel more at ease thinking there is God when you are sick. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
bananian 1 year ago
@bananian
I realize that, but I'm saying that to be scientific, we can't just say that we don't know how something works now, but we will in the future. We don't know if we will or not. We can't know how something happens - if it actually doesn't happen. You see what I mean? Take abiogenesis for instance. Many are convined it happenned. They think it must have. But for all we know (and the evidence so far is in favour of this particular viewpoint) it may be an impossibility.
tubewatch59 1 year ago
@tubewatch59 So because science proved evolution happened, you move the goal posts and say abiogenisis can't be proven. And when they show how that happens you will say it does not expalin the Big Bang.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz
Science has only proved that evolution happens to cause slight changes. Science has definately not shown that we descended from single celled ancestors. THAT belief is opinion. I don't have to "move the goalposts". It's just that using abiogenesis as an example, saves arguing about micro vs. macroevolution. If abiogenesis didn't happen, then neither did macroevolution, (as far as athiests are concerned). You require abiogenesis to be a fact, since you believe it started life.
tubewatch59 1 year ago
@tubewatch59 Why do creationists always get it backwards.
Evolution does not cause slight changes, slight changes allow for evolution.
I don't have to show how life started to prove evolution happened.
Darwin wrote ''Origin of Species. NOT origin of life.
There is no argument over m.or m. evolution, it is all related.
Micro is just variation in species, needed for evolution.
Dogs prove micro evolution. No mutations needed, no new information needed.
And dogs will always be dogs.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz
For evolution to happen, life MUST exist first. You absolutely depend on abiogenesis being true, in order for macroevolution to be true.
Are you saying that you don't have to believe your mother existed, in order to believe that you exist? You absolutely depend on your mother's existence, for your existence. Abiogenesis (in your worldview) is the "mother of all life". So without it, nothing living exists. You need abiogenesis to be true, in order for evolution to be true.
tubewatch59 1 year ago
@tubewatch59
Your existance also depended on your father's existance as well. (Not that it's relevant here, but I didn't want to leave him out.)
tubewatch59 1 year ago
@tubewatch59 So if science proves God made life, then you will accept evolution.
Is that your argument?
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz
no
tubewatch59 1 year ago
@tubewatch59 Then stop using abiogenisis to prove evolution can't happen.
Does not follow, not logic.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@bananian
When I said religion (true religion obviously) is far more important than science is, I'm talking of course about eternal life and how we relate to God in eternity. This far outweighs whether or not we know about various facets of knowledge of use here, including medical knowledge. On the other hand, they certainly aren't mutually exclusive, and there is no reason why a person cannot follow both scientific and religious adherences. (ie. Missionaries who were medical doctors.)
tubewatch59 1 year ago
@tubewatch59 'True religion''? Science proved the bible wrong so your religion must not be the right 'true religion'
gregrutz 1 year ago
@tubewatch59
So understanding our imaginary friends' wishes and building relations with said friend is more useful to us than science which has multiplied our Average death age, has kept us healthy from disease, has provided us with electricity and information on basically anything you can think of? All technology comes from science.
What kind of shit are you smoking because I want some?
Skrothn 1 year ago
@Skrothn
If our not so imaginary friend has created all that there is, then I'd say definately yes. Your courageous bluster now, won't cut it on judgement day. And what is technology of all kinds based on? Intelligent design, via the knowledge of science. I don't recall the last time nature obtained her science or engineering degree! And I don't smoke sir, I drink! Fine old Kentucky straight bourbon sippin' whiskeys. Mmmmm! (But just a sip mind you. Too much will fry your insides!)
tubewatch59 1 year ago
Tobytrim: Can a scientist be a Christian?
rbosre 1 year ago
@rbosre
Einstein and Newton were, I think.
bananian 1 year ago
@rbosre No. Sorry =/. lol
TheKumby 1 year ago
@rbosre No they can't be.
TheKumby 1 year ago
Intelligent design is the exercise of "proof by ignorance". It invokes personal incredulity , or lack of understand as to how something could have happened, often after science HAS explained how it DID happen.
This isn't science. It's not even rational!
Tobytrim 1 year ago
@Tobytrim
Intelligent design looks at the explanation by (big) science of how nature is supposed to have come up with what we have, and sees the flaws in the arguments. Of course it's based on incredulity. Otherwise known as justifiable skepticism that nature can do this kind of thing.
There's no scientific evidence that nature does this. The evidence suggests that only a mind can plan out such processes to bring about life, etc.
You're just trying to justify ignoring God. Silly.
tubewatch59 1 year ago
@tubewatch59 "You're just trying to justify ignoring God. Silly"
It's justifiable, even rational, to ignore what there is no evidence for.....particularly god.
It's perfectly feasible to say "science can't explain that therefore I don't know what the explanation is"
It's NOT feasible to say "Science can't explain that, therefore there MUST be a god"
You're the one who is being silly!
Tobytrim 1 year ago
@Tobytrim
If scientists actuially said that - that they don't know what the explanation is - then that would be far more acceptable. In practise very few do that. Instead many (though not all) say that science has donbe away with any need for a creator God. Yet they have no feasible explanations in place. It's apparent in that case that they're just trying to convince themselves that there is no God (when they have little reason to assume that is the case). THAT conclusion is silly.
tubewatch59 1 year ago
@tubewatch59 "If scientists actuially said that - that they don't know what the explanation is - then that would be far more acceptable"
Scientists DO say that! - If they don't they are not scientists. Science is an enquiry into the unknown, by observing and understanding what is known as fact. If they get things wrong they have no choice but to correct it immediately
Science never concludes anything with speculation or fantasy. That is the realm of religion, as in I.D. and creationism.
Tobytrim 1 year ago
@tubewatch59 Scientists don't consider the need for god. ATHEISTS don't believe in, or think that there is any need for god. You need to understand the difference!
WE have only the apparatus to examine the material world....therefore it is pointless to speculate in fantasy, as in "intelligent design" or creationism. I agree with both scientists, who publish peer review observations, AND atheists.
There is no point in speculating in what can't be observed or demonstrated.
Tobytrim 1 year ago