Undeniable Proof of Intelligent Design.

reply to post by NewAgeMan

Sure.
Don't matter if it ain't perfect. God did it.
I know this because I know God did it.

Did I do it right? Is that how it goes?

"Undeniable". Right.

When the argument for ID completely fails, and data and evidence are undeniably against ID, the OP and proponents of this fallacy will just move onto something else. Find a gap somewhere else.
They won't stop believing.

It's fun watching them squirm, though.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


The moon might seem a hell of a coincidence, but think about this, there are billions upon billions of planets with satellite's, the odds of at least one being as the earth and it's moon, is pretty high.

reply to post by ANOK

You missed it. The OP says that would also be proof of intelligent design.

Just as perfection is, as well as imperfection.

See, everything is proof if intelligent design if you include one crucial ingredient. Faith.

Faith is fine. The problem is when someone who has it tries to tell everyone else that they are wrong.

I have no problem with people of faith. Except when they impose their faith on me and claim "undeniable proof" when there is nothing.

You believe. Fine. Best leave science out of it because it doesn't support you. Isn't your own faith good enough for you? Why do you have to "prove" it?

reply to post by Phage


Agreed..
It is only by questioning that we can learn and grow. By saying it can't possibly be due to random chance, therefore a god or a designer must have made it and we've got a book where it says what actually happened. Problem solved! Science is pointless! don't ask any more questions!.. We may as well go back to the stone age.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Afewloosescrews

 

Good question. It keeps me sharp. This is my version of Sudoku. To me, the premise of this thread is the mathematical equivalent of a grammatically incorrect sentence. Like, severely grammatically incorrect. It looks the slightest bit wright, so it's perfect, because he wants it to be. You can rationalize any lie if you want to.

And like poor grammar, I don't see any reason to be even remotely satisfied with this theory.

edit on 1-6-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

"slightest bit wright"...I don't see any reason to be even remotely satisfied with your grasp on what constitutes proper grammar. Perhaps sudoku is a more suitable past-time for ya.

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Originally posted by Badgered1
When the argument for ID completely fails, and data and evidence are undeniably against ID, the OP and proponents of this fallacy will just move onto something else. Find a gap somewhere else.
They won't stop believing.

It's fun watching them squirm, though.

Uh oh. There's the "U" word again. Where is this so called evidence? And don't expect Phage to have your back on this one. We've already come to an agreement. In a discussion on origins, there can be no falsifiable evidence that could possibly constitute undeniable proof. If you disagree, all I can say is good luck on your quest.

reply to post by flyingfish


I don't think anyone here is encouraging a ban on asking questions, much less throwing out science. In fact, I am not aware of anyone advancing the idea that it isn't possible for chance to hold all the cards. As I understand it, the crux of this thread was to bring to light the observation that when balancing the likelihood of our system in all it's wonderful intricacy coming about by chance vs the likelihood that it is intentionally designed, the more common sense conclusion falls on the side of design.

Sorry if this is inconvenient for you, but if you truly hold to your philosophy of questioning, you must consider all sides.

reply to post by Afewloosescrews

As I understand it, the crux of this thread was to bring to light the observation that when balancing the likelihood of our system in all it's wonderful intricacy coming about by chance vs the likelihood that it is intentionally designed, the more common sense conclusion falls on the side of design.

Replace "observation" with "opinion" and you've got it.

reply to post by Phage


So it all boils down to faith vs. science does it? Interesting.

Let me ask you something. Do you believe that anything exists outside of the universe?

Observation which has formed my opinion.

reply to post by Afewloosescrews

I don't discount the possibility. I don't think there is sufficient information to come to any conclusion about it and I have doubts that there ever will be.

Do you? Did God make it too?

reply to post by Afewloosescrews

Observation which has formed my opinion.

An interpretation of observation. An interpretation predicated on the existence of a "designer".

reply to post by Afewloosescrews

more common sense conclusion falls on the side of design.

How so? Who designed the designer?
I'll give you a hint...It's bipedal.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Afewloosescrews

 

I don't discount the possibility. I don't think there is sufficient information to come to any conclusion about it and I have doubts that there ever will be.

Do you? Did God make it too?

edit on 6/2/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

So you're saying there's a chance?

As you know, I do.

Even if one is to put all his stock in science to provide his philosophical framework there is still a compulsory element of faith involved. To frame two competing theories of origins of life as science vs faith is intellectually dishonest and as I perceive you to be a smart man, I don't think I even have to explain why.

Originally posted by Afewloosescrews
reply to post by Phage

 

So it all boils down to faith vs. science does it? Interesting.

Let me ask you something. Do you believe that anything exists outside of the universe?

I see your argument as god existing outside the universe..correct?
The problem with this logic is, if existance requires design, but god doesn't because he is outside of existance, then oddly enough, you are making a case for "god doesn't exist."

reply to post by Afewloosescrews

Even if one is to put all his stock in science to provide his philosophical framework there is still a compulsory element of faith involved.

No.

A "philosophical framework" is only required if one is concerned with "why". Science is not concerned with "why", but with "how". Science assumes no purpose. Faith does.

Faith is not concerned with "how". Only "why". And for those of faith there is only one answer to both;
How? "God did it"
Why? "It's God's will."

Maybe you can explain why those of faith find it necessary to "prove" that the basis of that faith is true.

Originally posted by flyingfish
reply to post by Afewloosescrews

 

more common sense conclusion falls on the side of design.

How so? Who designed the designer?
I'll give you a hint...It's bipedal.

I'm sure you've all heard plenty of analogies which illustrate the problem of chance-origins, so I'll try and conceive my own to keep things interesting.

Let's say I am walking along the Oregon coast one sunny afternoon and I happen to trip on something hard and metallic. I quickly pick up the object and pull off the seaweed to realize I've just stumbled on what looks to be some sort of portable computer. Obviously being tossed to and fro in the ocean has taken its toll on the laptop, but just for curiosities sake I open it up to take a look. To my complete and utter surprise the moment I open it up, the monitor flickers on. Without even attempting to locate information that might shed light on who the owner or manufacturer might be, I quickly close it, stuff it in my duffel bag, and remark "Hmmm...what an amazing seashell."

Now, keeping in mind that the odds of our insurmountably complex system resulting out of chaos and disorder are infinitesimally smaller than the odds of a fully functioning laptop being somehow assembled from scratch by the Pacific ocean, how can I not conclude that there is an intelligent designer behind our universe? Could it be that naturalists have committed themselves to blinding themselves to the multitude of creator's signatures dispersed throughout our world?

As to your second question, I believe it was meant to be rhetorical, so I'll leave it be.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Afewloosescrews

 

Even if one is to put all his stock in science to provide his philosophical framework there is still a compulsory element of faith involved.

No.

A "philosophical framework" is only required if one is concerned with "why". Science is not concerned with "why", but with "how". Science assumes no purpose. Faith does.

Faith is not concerned with "how". Only "why". And for those of faith there is only one answer to both;
How? "God did it"
Why? "It's God's will."

Maybe you can explain why those of faith find it necessary to "prove" that the basis of that faith is true.

edit on 6/2/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Definition of faith I ascribe to: the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen.
Definition of faith as defined by you: no evidence, no reason, just God.

Where do you get the notion that those of faith are only concerned with "why", and have no interest in the questions of "how"? It is exactly the questions of how that have led to me to believe there must be a creator. In my experience, the question of how will inevitably lead to the question of why.

And how is it that science can base its evidence on merely questions of "how" without first explaining "why"?

Whether you want to admit it or not, science is inextricably bound to the "laws of the universe" which in and of themselves are allegedly transcendent (existing outside of this universe). Consequently, the very foundation of science relies on exactly the same kind of faith as those who believe in a transcendent intelligent designer who set these laws in place.

For a more in depth commentary see the following link: www.nytimes.com...

reply to post by Afewloosescrews

Where do you get the notion that those of faith are only concerned with "why", and have no interest in the questions of "how"?

Because the answer is easy for those of faith; "God made it that way."

In my experience, the question of how will inevitably lead to the question of why.

That has not been my experience.

And how is it that science can base its evidence on merely questions of "how" without first explaining "why"?

Because "why" cannot be answered by means of the scientific method. "Why" has no place in science. "How did the Moon come to be"...yes. "Why is the Moon there"...no.

Whether you want to admit it or not, science is inextricably bound to the "laws of the universe" which in and of themselves are allegedly transcendent (existing outside of this universe).

Um. How can the "laws of the universe" exist outside the universe? How can science explore what is outside of our existence?

For a more in depth commentary see the following link

Like I say to the Witnesses when they come around. "No thank you, have a nice day."

You didn't answer my question about why there seems to be a need to "prove" that there is God. Isn't faith enough?