• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

I'm new here!

exchemist

Veteran Member

PureX

Veteran Member
That existence expresses both design and intelligence is obvious to anyone that is not absurdly biased against the idea. If it did not, there would be nothing for scientists to explore or study. So I have no issue at all with the assertion of "intelligent design" as an eistential fact. The problems come when someone tries to make more of that fact than we humans can possibly determine. Asserting that the intelligence expressed has an intelligent source, for example. Or that the design expressed has a predetermined purpose. These both may be so, or they may not be so. We humans are unable to make that determination. And we may never be able to. So for me, that's where it stands, and where it stays.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Greetings!
I recommend putting the claims of the linked article in
your own words. The abstract doesn't shed much light.

Now, join us for breakfast in the staff cafeteria.
We're discussing which has the better grasp of
nanocomposit materials, Sufis or Scientologists.
giphy.gif
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
You again.:rolleyes:

This looks like crank rubbish, trying to capitalise on Covid in order to gain traction. In my experience, any material that refers to "origins" without qualification is written by creationists.

If you have an argument to make, make it here, in your words. Don't send us all off to your own website.
You do 'clock' 'em!
Luv it ..... :D
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
You do 'clock' 'em!
Luv it ..... :D
This guy showed up a few days ago on a science forum that I subscribe to. Seems to be in the "not even wrong" category of crankery - too long-winded and garbled (not to mention self-regarding) to make sense of.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Of course, it depends on how you attack ToE. If you attack ToE in its Tail, then, you save the Head... then, you lose.
I didn't know the ToE supposedly had a "head", so what's this "head"?

BTW, I'm going to be signing off for the rest of the weekend, so please have patience. And have a Most Blessed Lord's Day.
 
Top