Why Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory - A response to npage85 (part1)

[TheJflow008]

I find it interesting that you would suggest that typical creationists are uneducated. Now if we use common sense, logic and honesty to oneself as a necessity to form a conclusion I believe that one would think this an absurd conclusion considering the number of creationists in the world and the locations that they populate. Its funny how most atheists seem to adhere to these methods of false realities, contradicting requirements of science, misleading, and playing blind when faced w/evide

[bottledsoul]

@TheJflow008 "Its funny how most atheists seem to adhere to these methods of false realities, contradicting requirements of science, misleading, and playing blind when faced w/evide"

You finished your defense of creationists by pegging atheists. Think about what you are saying

[TheJflow008]

@bottledsoul No doubt that many creationists do and nearly all used to. Regardless of what you choose to believe I set here knowing how I came to believe in my beliefs, I know what I see Christians doing for other people and I see the happiness they have. Not all are truly as they seem but most are. Now nearly every atheist tells me about how all of these things are and they are not anything like reality. They say God is not real because of ....and when the same is asked of them...[tbc1]

[TheJflow008]

[1cont] they say it is not required for them to answer this or just work around with another theory. Atheists also act as if all scientists are atheists and all evidence points towards evolution when in fact this is not true. If confronted with the fact that this is not true then all the scientists who disagree are delusional. So I ask if this were a debate that you cared nothing about would you not say that this covers each of those descriptions? Ill match them up if I need.

[bottledsoul]

@TheJflow008 Atheists come in all shapes and sizes, just like theists. Everyone is a person at their core. What they believe or what they do not believe does not change their human composition.

[TheJflow008]

@bottledsoul Yes I do not disagree with you at all on this. People are people and we all have strengths and faults, good and bad. I guess I get tired of being told what I believe and why so then I sometimes take a what I feel is the same approach. Wrong and stupid of course but it happens. I agree with your point and do not dislike people due to their beliefs, I just despise being told what and why I do what I do when people could not be much farther off. So thanks for a fair point.

[wendighoul]

@TheJflow008 You obviuosly don't get the difference between a negative and a positive assertion. A positive assertion is a statement of fact, you are caliming that something exists, in most cases this is pretty straightforward, "Puppies exist, look there is one". The existence of God is not only a positive assertion, but an extradordinary one as you are claiming that something exists which viloates virtually all known physical laws. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

[wendighoul]

@wendighoul A negative assertion, on the other hand, can never have proof. "Puppies don't exist, look, there isn't one" doesn't work, you cannot prove a negative. Negative assertions, the claim that something is NOT or DOESN"T exist needs no proof, in any rational debate, the onus is ALWAYS on the person making the positive claim to provide evidence. No rational person would ever accept "You can't prove it's isn't true, so it is" as a valid argument, for anything!

[TheJflow008]

@wendighoul You obviously dont get the difference between what my words are meant to say and what you have determined them to say in order to validate your own conclusions. You are partly right in that I dont know what my negative assertion is. Maybe that Darwinian evolution does not exist? Please specify. For one your explanation of my "extraordinary" assertion is only based on what we have accepted as so. For example, the big bang and prior to it is extraordinary if we see it for what it is

[TheJflow008]

The fact that scientists have a theory and can explain in words and calculations does not make the entire universe with all matter, time, and space itself contained in "nothing" hibernating for no apparent reason, until well you know, this is extraordinary by any reasonable thinking. A little electricity and some elements birthing life that for no reason has a goal of producing is extraordinary. Yet this is not why I do not accept it, that would be complete arrogance.

[wendighoul]

@TheJflow008 It is not a suggestion, it is a proven fact. There are now multiple studies (from as far back as 1975, and as recently as 2004) that show a direct negative correlation between religious beleif and education (note, this is not the same as intelligence, though there have been some studies suggesting a negative correlation there too). You can think it absurd, but it is backed up by demostrable science.

[TheJflow008]

@wendighoul I dont think its absurd, if i said that my mistake. I think its completely narrow minded and reaching. There have been studies to show just about everything and in many cases they have a reasonable amount to learn from. The problem with your argument is that I live life, not a study. In my life I see many many Christians going to school day to day trying to get an education no matter what they believe about evolution. If I do a study in backwoods nowhere then sure, it would show this

[TheJflow008]

sorry but i will finish up tomorrow. but....

Studies can be a great tool for those who realize that they have as much misinformation to be had as they have info. Ill find some studies and present them as proven fact and see if you will accept them, unless you care to acknowledge now that a study is not proven fact? If not then I guess you will have to say that you accept the studies ill find to be fact. We should try not to have double standards correct?

[wendighoul]

@TheJflow008 Well, of course those studies don't necessarily say that any individual Theist is necessarily uneducated, they only show a general trend, ther will always be those who buck the trend. That having been said, studies are presented as evidence in courts of law all the time, and acceped as fact there. An individual study may be in error, which is why they are duplicated by other researchers, to make the margin of error as small as possible.

[TheJflow008]

@wendighoul Come on now wendi, so are you telling me that what the courts say is they method at which you use to determine your core values...or even just values? I know for me the courts, no matter whether supreme or...., the courts are nothing more than a tool for those who disagree or for punishment. Couple questions: 1) Based on your argument you must think that homosexual's should be locked up? At least not so long ago it was illegal in many states for many sexual behaviors...[tbc1]

[TheJflow008]

[1 cont]...that are practiced by most Americans, but are I think safe to say necessary for gays to have sexual relations. Does the court have any bearing on your opinion of this?

2) Does the court determine your decision on whether a business owes a robber money for the robber being injured while breaking into this store? Now TO ANYONE who takes offense or has any input keep in mind I am not expressing any views other than the court bears no weight in my "right and wrong."  You Wendi?

[wendighoul]

@TheJflow008 No, I agree to that absolutely, I believe that morals, "right and wrong" is something internal, and not determined by an outside agency such as a court. My point of contention was simply that there IS evidence, in a form a court would accept (note, this is a standard of EVIDENCE, not a moral standard) that there is an inverse correlation between religiosity and education. I stress again, this does not mean intelligence, nor does it say anything about any individual theist.

[wendighoul]

@TheJflow008 You could argue that no study can prove anything on an individual basis, and I would accept that, but the fact is there have been many studies, over a long period, and they have all come back with virtually the same results. If you deny those, then you may as well deny smoking causes cancer, or that drikning while pregnant causes FAS, those statements are generally accpeted as true, by the medical community, and society in general, and those statements come from studies.

[TheJflow008]

@wendighoul Well my biggest argument is simply that as I said, any study can show anything. In all fairness I will do some searches into these and then Ill be more specific. Once again I am pointing out apples and oranges to people who would be "scientific." Statistics on education involving those of religion to cancer??? Although you reach far you are grabbing air. Speaking of statistics, in my search for yours I come up short. I usually dont ask due to those who do are typically just..[tbc]

[wendighoul]

@TheJflow008 Once again, I think you misconstrue my argument. I was simply suing the cancer and FAS studies to show that studies are accepted as evidence in many cases. It is not a case of "apples and oranges" at all, you claim the whole notion of a study is flawed and meaningless (not in those words) and I used examples to disprove that specific point.

[TheJflow008]

@wendighoul I feel this, while your point may be different, is in fact apples and oranges. One is the study of human behaviors which is an interaction of 2 conscious parties and making millions of decisions before getting to an end result which would be the end of the study. The other is a study of effects of an obviously toxic activity that was common sense in the first place. My point is, while I understand you are not correlating the 2 studies in that regard most people do not, IMO.

[TheJflow008]

So therefore I believe suggesting that your point may be reasonable in the respect that you chose to use it, it would be also suggesting that If I accept the result of one I also accept the other. I do consider one a fact, yet the other just a statistic. Again, I appreciate not having spent this much time with a "frothing" atheist just as you Im sure appreciate not having to lock horns with a "bible is my fact" siting evangelical Christian. Such wastes of time but so hard to lettheignorance go.

[wendighoul]

@TheJflow008 AS to which study I was referring to, specifically it was the 2004 U.S. General Social Survey, which can be found at gss(dot)norc(dot)org.

[TheJflow008]

ok i just accidentally erased my entire box of text i just wrote some how. It all just went "poof," damn the Devil...just kidding..about the devil part. Anyways I may miss where i left prior to this but oh well Ok, so I cant find your studies and now believe you may be stating fact from the well known "How to Destroy Religions By Any Means!" atheist fact book. Ok there is no such book but there should be due to all the easily falsified "facts" out there. Please give me 4 sources to read. ty

[wendighoul]

@TheJflow008 I hardly think it in my power to destroy any religion, nor would I want to. I was simply trying to correct what I felt was a small error on your part regarding the specific issue of a lack of evidence for the inverse correlation. I feel I have been quite reasonable, even making pains to any sweeping statements. I'll even add another qualifier, correlation does not prove causation, and it is possible there may have been other factors that were not covered in the studies concerned.

[wendighoul]

@TheJflow008 I am simply saying, there is evidence, not proof, to back up that particular statement. If you want a frothing deicidal atheist to lock horns with, there are plenty out there, but I am not one.

[TheJflow008]

@wendighoul lol. I cannot argue that. I also did not mean to seem truthful in my insinuations that you were. I was simply making humor of so many "facts" that I feel need correcting as impossible as it is, with a typical atheist. Due to the limits, I of course did not give enough of an indicator as it is easy to get focused on getting ones own interest clear at sacrifice of being true to both parties. I appreciate and respect your rational and completely relevant points.

[TheJflow008]

@wendighoul A couple more things. I will read the study you gave as I always do my best to be as informed as i am vocal.

Lastly I wanted to use an example of the ignorance that I mentioned and very frequently have to go over. Below gekapat says "If ...designer...who is.." and I hope you would agree with the logic that if one is to follow this principle then no theory with the specific answer to the beginning is valid or plausible. Also when i return the?I get "not evolution but abiogenisis!"

[TheJflow008]

Of course that puts a smile on my face but this in turn does nothing to point out that I feel this is simply sidestepping a question that was ones own. Be sure that I am aware of the same faulty and IMO cowardly and self defeating practices by those of religion as well.

[wendighoul]

@TheJflow008 I think we can both agree that is a human quality, not one specific to either theists or atheists. I DO believe that abiogenesis does offer a plausible explanation for the origin of life, but I do not maintain that this is a proven hypothesis, and it says nothing about the "why" of existence.

[gekapat]

If there is a "Intelligent" designer... who designed the designer?

[LDNLeon]

Votebotted methinks.

[aurista25]

He cannot be reasoned with.

If he is a rationalist as he likes to thing he is, he's succumbed to *his* "dogma," and is blind to evidence that disproves his beliefs.

It takes 1 instance of clear evidence that a theory is untrue for it to be invalidated.

Where as ID can never be proven untrue, b/c it is based on the premise of a god. God's existence is untestable! Not a theory. Not science.

He's a hypocrite. I'm a biochemist, you're a biologist. He's the church and we're Galileo. Dark ages!

[jnathan310]

hallelujah! lol

[jebus6kryst]

This npage85 seems very willfully ignorant.