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

Many claim that Intelligent Design is a scientific theory none can show any evidence in support of it.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• atheism
• atheist
• creation
• creationist
• Intelligent
• Design
• npage85
• Venomfangx
• scientific
• theory
• evidence
• evolution

[jebus6kryst]

This npage85 seems very willfully ignorant.

[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!

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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]

@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.

[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.

[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.

[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