A simple case for intelligent design

[Timothy Spurlin]

Ok! That is your opinion which is not mine to place a disagreement! My difinition of the word “GOD” May be different to some! Ones define in whole selfs through which beliefs becoming godly to our own goddess, but we are the controlling of our own being as gods. There is but one True God we cannot define “Divine God”

Science is man made from godly like

There are but only one True God and the many truth God. (Two Gods)
(1) is the one True God that works in many different understandings(religions).

And the other is (2) evil which can create in the thousands or millions where science is one of em.
But can not define in (1)

What objective evidence do you have a god exist?
What evidence do you have that your god is not a human construct?

Yes, science is manmade, not from god. What evidence do you have that science is evil?

 

[Timothy Spurlin]

When oneself doesn’t believe in no gods, then he believes in his own self being goddess in science,
(Science) is man made!
You are given a free will to choose three gods for own beliefs! Your belief in God, the devil himself is another god, or neither! Leaving yourself to Living as a godly.
One thing that one must understand if you don’t have a belief, then what you become of is a Genius, finding all sorts of questions and answers then solving em creating more better knowledge from their many questions and answers..But! that’s the problem, one will not stop! Do you know why geniuses are good at what they do? Because they are unaware of being LOST! Becoming A man of. Questions!
A Lost person asks a lot of good questions and looks to find good answers even strives for the better in questioning to a point where one will not accept one answer, for knowledge being perfected with in their questions never finding peace.

Which god are you talking about? The devil is a god?
So your free to choose any of the human constructed gods, including your god.

 

[Workman]

The problem with making a false idol of the Bible, as creationists do, is that if one understands the science that means that that person is calling God a liar. When I was a Christian I did not believe that God lies so I could not believe the myths of Genesis.

The problem is science is how we speak of what we know in today, which is why one cannot understand the true meaning of a word and their mystery behind it! Misleading to not understanding. Nothing is mis-interpreted except the ones ownself.
I owe my understanding to the letters! I read through a letter and what it carries with it(sound), my understanding is through tongues.

A letter doesn’t lie but a word will.

 

[Timothy Spurlin]

The problem is science is how we speak of what we know in today, which is why one cannot understand the true meaning of a word and their mystery behind it! Misleading to not understanding. Nothing is mis-interpreted except the ones ownself.
I owe my understanding to the letters! I read through a letter and what it carries with it(sound), my understanding is through tongues.

A letter doesn’t lie but a word will.

So a letter (written words) can't lie, but one word can. Words makeup a letter, so a letter can lie. So your saying that only words lie?

The more science learns about life, the more the god of the gaps argument shrinks.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The problem is science is how we speak of what we know in today, which is why one cannot understand the true meaning of a word and their mystery behind it! Misleading to not understanding. Nothing is mis-interpreted except the ones ownself.
I owe my understanding to the letters! I read through a letter and what it carries with it(sound), my understanding is through tongues.

A letter doesn’t lie but a word will.

Can you try again without the word salad?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Papers? I think you mean essays.

I have several volumes of CRSQ and have read dozens of 'technical' papers by creation scientists, most of whom, by the way, write well outside of their actual field of expertise.

Nearly all such papers are just attacks on evolution, usually premised on flawed reasoning or even fabrication. I have never seen a paper by any creation scientist that purported to have tested some aspect of creationism. They never will, probably out of fear.
I am aware of what used to be called the Baraminology Study Group, lead by Todd Wood and Kurt Wise, creation scientists who are unique in that they have both admitted that the evidence does point to evolution, but that they reject this due to their Faith in Scripture.
The BSG now either has a new name of is defunct, but for a time they sought to examine, using science, the relationships between 'baramina' (created Kinds).
It was funny and sad to see their work - an honest analysis supported evolution, but they employed what they called "the Scriptural criterion" - this allowed them to dismiss results that did not comply with their interpretation of scripture (such science!).
More recently, we have people like Jeff Tomkins trying to 'undo' pretty much any genetics-related evidence putting chimps and humans together as having a shared ancestry. Jeff relies on his target audience not understanding the technical details of his output, and leaping to his defense when he is outed as making errors or worse. He has, for example, tried to nullify the 'percent similarity' issues, as well as the chromosome 2 thing (which he misrepresents from the outset). Pity that his efforts have been largely exposed as deceptive or error-riddled (one example here).

But I am sure that the creation scientist papers you hint at are totally legit and accurate.

I know that I cannot say that there is not going to be something useful come out of the creation pseudoscience literature, but I would not kid myself that I could turn to it as a mainstay source or that it is not a pseudoscience whose goal is creationism and not science.

I can only assume that it is bias on those that turn to it as evidence that they cannot see that it is biased.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Ok! That is your opinion which is not mine to place a disagreement! My difinition of the word “GOD” May be different to some! Ones define in whole selfs through which beliefs becoming godly to our own goddess, but we are the controlling of our own being as gods. There is but one True God we cannot define “Divine God”

Science is man made from godly like

There are but only one True God and the many truth God. (Two Gods)
(1) is the one True God that works in many different understandings(religions).

And the other is (2) evil which can create in the thousands or millions where science is one of em.
But can not define in (1)

I think you are trying to express your philosophy here, but science is not evil. It is a body of knowledge, methods, theories and includes the people that carry out the work regardless of belief and without need of some inherent quality of good or evil. Science can be carried out for good or evil and the information and conclusions of science can be used to good or evil ends, but that is not a inherent property of science.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The problem is science is how we speak of what we know in today, which is why one cannot understand the true meaning of a word and their mystery behind it! Misleading to not understanding. Nothing is mis-interpreted except the ones ownself.
I owe my understanding to the letters! I read through a letter and what it carries with it(sound), my understanding is through tongues.

A letter doesn’t lie but a word will.

I do not understand this at all. Words are made of letters. Words have meaning and they can be used to speak or write the truth or lies or just thrown together in a group with little or no meaning apparent.

 

[Workman]

A letter is a picture of its story!
It cannot lie! But putting a story together can make up anything! I won’t be explaining more to the science for it doesn’t matter! What matters is I understand and don’t need to explain myself to anyone unless he himself asks..

I’ll tell you one example!
1 or I=refers to one persons of any such!
S= is snake that tempted Eve!
If you join them together
=$ meaning one is tempted (money)

 

[ImmortalFlame]

A letter is a picture of its story!
It cannot lie! But putting a story together can make up anything! I won’t be explaining more to the science for it doesn’t matter! What matters is I understand and don’t need to explain myself to anyone unless he himself asks..

I’ll tell you one example!
1 or I=refers to one persons of any such!
S= is snake that tempted Eve!
If you join them together
=$ meaning one is tempted (money)

This is a thread about evolutionary theory and intelligent design. Do you have any thoughts or opinions on these subjects?

 

[ecco]

IN THE BEGINNING...

People tend to complicate things, but the concept of intelligent design (as proposed by Behe, Demski and many others) is very simple and easy to understand.

Well, here we are a hundred pages in. LeRoy was right when he said...

the concept of intelligent design is very simple and easy to understand.​

I agree. The concept of intelligent design is: GodDdIt.

Of course, like everything attributed to GodDidIt, it is completely wrong. Simplistic answers cannot address complex problems no matter how much simplistic people would wish it were so.

 

[Workman]

What objective evidence do you have a god exist?

You and I! Speaking from our subjectives.

What evidence do you have that your god is not a human construct?

The many questions!
God only Answers.

Yes, science is manmade, not from god. What evidence do you have that science is evil?

By facts showing evidence itself!
Basing objectives refers to the elimination of the subjective perspectives and a process that is purely based on hard facts.

 

[Workman]

Can you try again without the word salad?

You see the word, then you spoke of it!..”Impossible”
But you don’t see the letter speaks!
“Im possible”.

 

[Workman]

I think you are trying to express your philosophy here, but science is not evil. It is a body of knowledge, methods, theories and includes the people that carry out the work regardless of belief and without need of some inherent quality of good or evil. Science can be carried out for good or evil and the information and conclusions of science can be used to good or evil ends, but that is not a inherent property of science.

Sorry I should have been more clearer about it! And yes I agree.
What I meant to say is a doorway to evil

 

[Subduction Zone]

You see the word, then you spoke of it!..”Impossible”
But you don’t see the letter speaks!
“Im possible”.

So word salad is all that you have.

I find reason and evidence to be much more reliable.

 

[Workman]

So word salad is all that you have.

Yes! I have all the ingredients(letters) to find its tasting of any such salads(words).

I find reason and evidence to be much more reliable.

Quite tasty isn’t it! Its the most popular salads the majority keeps eating, not knowing what ingredients their tastes. I won’t! For there’s a sour taste that’s poisonous.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes! I have all the ingredients(letters) to find its tasting of any such salads(words).

Quite tasty isn’t it! Its the most popular salads the majority keeps eating, not knowing what ingredients their tastes. I won’t! For there’s a sour taste that’s poisonous.

No, it is rather bland and insipid. But then when one cannot support one's beliefs what else can one do?

 

[Workman]

No, it is rather bland and insipid. But then when one cannot support one's beliefs what else can one do?

The poison is;
Making one talk!..but not YET speak of one.
Making one know!..but not YET knew one.
Making ones wall!..but not YET see next ones other side.
Making one the same!.. YET nothing will change.

What else can’t you do?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The poison is;
Making one talk!..but not YET speak of one.
Making one know!..but not YET knew one.
Making ones wall!..but not YET see next ones other side.
Making one the same!.. YET nothing will change.

What else can’t you do?

Can someone pass the Italian dressing please?

 

[Workman]

Can someone pass the Italian dressing please?

When one can’t speak, one starts to hide behind laughter.
Lol..at you! not with you.