The Miracle of Water.

[Bear Wild]

What video are you referring to?


Sorry. I am not following you.
Why do they need to find out the intelligent designer? They were not so bothered about the origin of life.
The intelligent designer can likewise be another field of study. Why not?

The Krauss, Meyer, Lamoureux: What’s Behind it all? God, Science and the Universe.
At Wycliffe College at the University of Toronto Debate.
To claim intelligent designer you would have to have a being capable of creating life which there is no evidence. At least you are saying it does not have anything to do with the god of the bible which does increase the possibilities but these are all far more improbable than any issue with theory of evolution.
I do not know what you mean they were not bothered about the origin of life since that is a part of the whole question of evolution or intelligent designer.
Do you know any study investigating who or what is the intelligent designer? Certainly not a study about the god of the bible since this is mythical or at least as mythical as any other god or goddess ever proposed.

 

[nPeace]

@SkepticThinker Please read the definition of Gish Gallop. You keep misapplying the term. I know it sounds interesting, but when a word, or expression is repeatedly used in a wrong context, if loses its flavor. It begins to sound...
@Kangaroo Feathers the post was purposefully designed... not just for you.

 

[nPeace]

The Krauss, Meyer, Lamoureux: What’s Behind it all? God, Science and the Universe.
At Wycliffe College at the University of Toronto Debate.
To claim intelligent designer you would have to have a being capable of creating life which there is no evidence. At least you are saying it does not have anything to do with the god of the bible which does increase the possibilities but these are all far more improbable than any issue with theory of evolution.
I do not know what you mean they were not bothered about the origin of life since that is a part of the whole question of evolution or intelligent designer.
Do you know any study investigating who or what is the intelligent designer? Certainly not a study about the god of the bible since this is mythical or at least as mythical as any other god or goddess ever proposed.

I started to look at that video before, but it did not interest me. It is not an explanation of intelligent design. Meyer gave many different lectures and had many debates, buy they were from different perspective, dealing with different topics.
For example, he does speak about a specific God, but that does not mean he includes that in the ID argument.
Many scientists believe in God, but they do not include that in their work in the lab.

All is needed is to demonstrate that a designer was required for life, nothing more.
I don't understand what you mean by this...

I do not know what you mean they were not bothered about the origin of life since that is a part of the whole question of evolution or intelligent designer.

Could you elaborate please.

 

[SkepticThinker]

@SkepticThinker Please read the definition of Gish Gallop. You keep misapplying the term. I know it sounds interesting, but when a word, or expression is repeatedly used in a wrong context, if loses its flavor. It begins to sound...
@Kangaroo Feathers the post was purposefully designed... not just for you.

I'm very familiar with the definition. Thank you.

 

[nPeace]

I'm very familiar with the definition. Thank you.

Good. So why may I ask, are you using the expression unwarranted?

 

[metis]

Pardon me? So they don't make assumptions, and many wrong ones at that... despite using the scientific method?

When you say "they", that pollutes the discussion because not all scientists do that which is right according to how we are taught to deal with evidence. It would be like negatively judging Christianity because of those preachers that were fraudulent.

Could you explain please, in what way are they assumptions?

Because the main impetus of the Bible is God did this and God did that, whereas we simply cannot in any way objectively verify that such events happened because of God.

For example, God supposedly caused it to rain 40 days and 40 nights with Noah and his family on the ark, so what objectively-derived evidence do you have to support that event? Even if it supposedly rained like that, how do you know God caused it?

The link above shows why patterns are no help to Darwinist.
How long is the 7th day?

That's quite a snide remark, plus I am not a "Darwinist" as our understanding of the ToE has much progressed well past anything he knew.

The word "yom" almost always means a day, and it can only taken on a symbolic meaning in a symbolic context. Shabbat is a day of the week, and since the six previous days lead up to that day, it makes no sense to conclude that "yom" refers to an era or epoch as that's simply not the context being used.

Are you making assumptions, as well as them?

That's a non-sequitur, so did you not understand what I actually wrote or are you just being obtuse?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

@SkepticThinker Please read the definition of Gish Gallop. You keep misapplying the term. I know it sounds interesting, but when a word, or expression is repeatedly used in a wrong context, if loses its flavor. It begins to sound...
@Kangaroo Feathers the post was purposefully designed... not just for you.

And the question STILL hasn't been answered.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Good. So why may I ask, are you using the expression unwarranted?

His use of the expression is perfectly apt.

Gish Gallop

 

[Bear Wild]

I started to look at that video before, but it did not interest me. It is not an explanation of intelligent design. Meyer gave many different lectures and had many debates, buy they were from different perspective, dealing with different topics.
For example, he does speak about a specific God, but that does not mean he includes that in the ID argument.
Many scientists believe in God, but they do not include that in their work in the lab.

All is needed is to demonstrate that a designer was required for life, nothing more.
I don't understand what you mean by this...

Could you elaborate please.

The debate was a balance presentation that's what made it different. No proof of intelligent designer with no idea who or what did the design thus no support for ID. Just because something in nature is complex does not mean it needs an intelligent design. There are many things in our universe which are complex that are no living. No evidence of the intelligent designer or who that designer was god, goddess, alien, spirit in the sky, then no evidence for intelligent design. Just because we have not advanced the science to understand all aspects does not degrade the science. Mythical beliefs in gods or goddesses explains nothing. Weather a scientist believes in a god, goddess, or any other supernatural force has no bearing on the theory of evolution and it becomes their wishful desires to believe so knowing there is no proof or evidence they can provide so they can only look for possible flaws in the evolution theory instead of providing real evidence.

 

[nPeace]

When you say "they", that pollutes the discussion because not all scientists do that which is right according to how we are taught to deal with evidence. It would be like negatively judging Christianity because of those preachers that were fraudulent.

Perhaps you can help me out then.
Are there scientists that deal with cosmology, and evolutionary biology who don't need to make assumptions?

Because the main impetus of the Bible is God did this and God did that, whereas we simply cannot in any way objectively verify that such events happened because of God.

For example, God supposedly caused it to rain 40 days and 40 nights with Noah and his family on the ark, so what objectively-derived evidence do you have to support that event? Even if it supposedly rained like that, how do you know God caused it?

Oh, do you mean like if one's wife says, she will be faithful, one needs to assume she will? Is that how you mean?

That's quite a snide remark, plus I am not a "Darwinist" as our understanding of the ToE has much progressed well past anything he knew.

Okay, so you don't use the same terminology Dawkins does. No problem. Understood.

The word "yom" almost always means a day, and it can only taken on a symbolic meaning in a symbolic context. Shabbat is a day of the week, and since the six previous days lead up to that day, it makes no sense to conclude that "yom" refers to an era or epoch as that's simply not the context being used.

Yes, a day.
How long was the day in Genesis 2 verse 2, and Genesis 2 verse 4?

That's a non-sequitur, so did you not understand what I actually wrote or are you just being obtuse?

It was rhetorically. Those were assumptions. No?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I always marvel at how accurate the Bible is

And I can't find much it gets right that isn't trivial.

What a darkness people are willing to put themselves in, and why? Satisfying their fleshly cravings -

Why shouldn't we satisfy our cravings? Because religious people disesteem them? I do continually with no regrets.

They want to be free to smoke their cigarettes, engage is sexual immorality and illicit lusts... without being made to feel guilty

Why shouldn't we be free? Because religious people don't want us to?

They know there is a creator, but they mask the truth, to live their life as they please.

Why shouldn't we live life as we please if we don't break the law or betray others? Because religious people object? I don't need to deny a creator to live life as I please.

You don't seem interested in what is explained to you,

I'm simply not convinced, not uninterested.

ID argument is not about patterns.

You keep telling us what the ID argument is not, but I am still waiting for you to elaborate what your argument is. Just write it out.

No one is talking about a process halting.

Creationists are. They are talking about evolution progressing only so far, then halting after encountering a barrier.

 

[nPeace]

And the question STILL hasn't been answered.

Looks more like a case of your not liking the answer given, maybe it shocked you that I could answer it, and now you just don't know how you can refute the answer given.

Only intelligent agents can design.

J. Craig Venter: Designing Life

The video clearly demonstrates that you cannot have design without a designer. Nothing is created without a creator.
Mankind can only mimic what is possible to mimic. He calls himself a creator which technically he is not, because he cannot create anything from what is not already there. He mimics the already existing designer, and he copies the design already designed - in nature.

No one can dispute what is obvious to everyone. No one can demonstrate that anything can be designed without a designer, or come into existence without being created. Sure they can appeal to illogical arguments, but shutting one's eyes to reality won't make it go away.

Each one of us is a machine, like an airliner only much more complicated. - Richard Dawkins

if there is no intelligent designer of nature, then there is no design in nature.
However, there is design in nature, therefore there must be a designer. Since a designer is intelligent, then mindless unguided processes are not responsible for the design in nature.
The Blind Watchmaker - natural selection -, is mindless.

Design is a specification of an object, manifested by an agent, intended to accomplish goals, in a particular environment, using a set of primitive components, satisfying a set of requirements, subject to constraints.
Planning is required to lead to purpose, and planning is of an intelligence.

When scientists set about "creating" synthetic life... When they bring together chemicals to accomplish their design, they are demonstrating how intelligent design works. The designer of life has accomplished this on a greater level. It's not magic.

Your first request...
Has anyone shown how Intelligent Design could have happened?
Answered twice.

Your second request...
Go ahead. Show me a single example demonstrating HOW ID happens?
Answered twice.

Your third request...
That doesn't demonstrate it happening in nature. Try again.
Answered twice.
If you disagree, or are unsatisfied, try this. Demonstrate how evolution above the species level happened in nature.
After you do so, I will know what you are unsatisfied with, and can then address it.

Is this relevant enough for you?

 

[nPeace]

Why shouldn't we satisfy our cravings? Because religious people disesteem them? I do continually with no regrets.

Why shouldn't we be free? Because religious people don't want us to?

Why shouldn't we live life as we please if we don't break the law or betray others? Because religious people object? I don't need to deny a creator to live life as I please.

Go right ahead. We are free agents, who will live with the consequences of our choices.

I'm simply not convinced, not uninterested.

Convinced about what? That you are talking about something totally different to what I am talking about?

You keep telling us what the ID argument is not, but I am still waiting for you to elaborate what your argument is. Just write it out.

Write it out again? Why?
Do we need to repeat things three or four times before it is understood?

Creationists are. They are talking about evolution progressing only so far, then halting after encountering a barrier.

Show me an example please.

 

[metis]

Perhaps you can help me out then.
Are there scientists that deal with cosmology, and evolutionary biology who don't need to make assumptions?

Generally speaking, we don't.

Listen, as one who has taught religion and science (anthropology) for many years, if you can't tell the difference between the two, it's no wonder that you're "out to lunch" on this. To equate the two is quite delusional as even their basic approach is completely different.

Oh, do you mean like if one's wife says, she will be faithful, one needs to assume she will? Is that how you mean?

They say "There's no such thing as a dumb question", but you found one.

Science teaches against being gullible, and it's called the "scientific method". And note that there is no "religious method" that equates to that.

Religious beliefs are not generated by objectively-derived evidence, and the fact that you couldn't even began to answer my questions put to you on my previous post, such as the one about Noah, pretty much shows that you actually do understand this inside, even if you can't bring yourself to admit it.
.

Yes, a day.
How long was the day in Genesis 2 verse 2, and Genesis 2 verse 4?

As I said before, note the context of how "yom" is being used there. If you can't see that, then I think I can safely say that Biblical study is simply not your forte.

And if you cannot even see the difference in the approaches of religion and science, then there's simply no where to go with this "discussion".

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Looks more like a case of your not liking the answer given, maybe it shocked you that I could answer it, and now you just don't know how you can refute the answer given.

Only intelligent agents can design.

J. Craig Venter: Designing Life

The video clearly demonstrates that you cannot have design without a designer. Nothing is created without a creator.
Mankind can only mimic what is possible to mimic. He calls himself a creator which technically he is not, because he cannot create anything from what is not already there. He mimics the already existing designer, and he copies the design already designed - in nature.

No one can dispute what is obvious to everyone. No one can demonstrate that anything can be designed without a designer, or come into existence without being created. Sure they can appeal to illogical arguments, but shutting one's eyes to reality won't make it go away.

Each one of us is a machine, like an airliner only much more complicated. - Richard Dawkins

if there is no intelligent designer of nature, then there is no design in nature.
However, there is design in nature, therefore there must be a designer. Since a designer is intelligent, then mindless unguided processes are not responsible for the design in nature.
The Blind Watchmaker - natural selection -, is mindless.

Design is a specification of an object, manifested by an agent, intended to accomplish goals, in a particular environment, using a set of primitive components, satisfying a set of requirements, subject to constraints.
Planning is required to lead to purpose, and planning is of an intelligence.

When scientists set about "creating" synthetic life... When they bring together chemicals to accomplish their design, they are demonstrating how intelligent design works. The designer of life has accomplished this on a greater level. It's not magic.

Your first request...
Has anyone shown how Intelligent Design could have happened?
Answered twice.

Your second request...
Go ahead. Show me a single example demonstrating HOW ID happens?
Answered twice.

Your third request...
That doesn't demonstrate it happening in nature. Try again.
Answered twice.
If you disagree, or are unsatisfied, try this. Demonstrate how evolution above the species level happened in nature.
After you do so, I will know what you are unsatisfied with, and can then address it.

Is this relevant enough for you?

Still not explaining how it happened in nature. You're just making an argument known as the divine fallacy. "I can't believe this happened without god, therefore god". It doesn't satisfy your claim of showing HOW ID works in nature, or that complexity necessarily implies a designer.

Hey, if you personally believe "life is really complicated, and I believe it needed a designer", that's fine. That's a perfectly valid belief. It is not a scientific argument, though.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Good. So why may I ask, are you using the expression unwarranted?

Well, that would be because I think it is warranted.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Looks more like a case of your not liking the answer given, maybe it shocked you that I could answer it, and now you just don't know how you can refute the answer given.

Only intelligent agents can design.

J. Craig Venter: Designing Life

The video clearly demonstrates that you cannot have design without a designer. Nothing is created without a creator.
Mankind can only mimic what is possible to mimic. He calls himself a creator which technically he is not, because he cannot create anything from what is not already there. He mimics the already existing designer, and he copies the design already designed - in nature.

No one can dispute what is obvious to everyone. No one can demonstrate that anything can be designed without a designer, or come into existence without being created. Sure they can appeal to illogical arguments, but shutting one's eyes to reality won't make it go away.

Each one of us is a machine, like an airliner only much more complicated. - Richard Dawkins

if there is no intelligent designer of nature, then there is no design in nature.
However, there is design in nature, therefore there must be a designer. Since a designer is intelligent, then mindless unguided processes are not responsible for the design in nature.
The Blind Watchmaker - natural selection -, is mindless.

Design is a specification of an object, manifested by an agent, intended to accomplish goals, in a particular environment, using a set of primitive components, satisfying a set of requirements, subject to constraints.
Planning is required to lead to purpose, and planning is of an intelligence.

When scientists set about "creating" synthetic life... When they bring together chemicals to accomplish their design, they are demonstrating how intelligent design works. The designer of life has accomplished this on a greater level. It's not magic.

Your first request...
Has anyone shown how Intelligent Design could have happened?
Answered twice.

Your second request...
Go ahead. Show me a single example demonstrating HOW ID happens?
Answered twice.

Your third request...
That doesn't demonstrate it happening in nature. Try again.
Answered twice.
If you disagree, or are unsatisfied, try this. Demonstrate how evolution above the species level happened in nature.
After you do so, I will know what you are unsatisfied with, and can then address it.

Is this relevant enough for you?

I still see assertions with no demonstration of their veracity. And logical fallacies.

How did you determine nature is designed?
It is not obvious to everyone that nature was designed (by the God you believe in or some others), and yet you keep making that assertion as well.
How did you determine that life has purpose and what that purpose is?
How did the God you believe in design everything?
Your big argument seems to be that because humans can't create life from scratch then life must have been created by some Designer, because designs only come from designers. But of course, that's just question begging, since your premise assumes the truth of your conclusion.

And let's not kid ourselves, you have a very specific designer in mind. Even if you could demonstrate that intelligent design occurred at the "creation" of the universe, you have a lot of work left to do in order to connect that to the specific God you believe in.

Unfortunately, your entire argument still amounts to an argument from personal incredulity.

 

[ecco]

Great. Welcome to our world. We existed fine for centuries without Darwin's hypotheses.

Humans existed fine for centuries without knowledge of parasites.
Humans existed fine for centuries without knowledge of a spherical earth.
Humans existed fine for centuries without knowledge.

What's your point?

 

[ecco]

Hence the surprise when a new University of California, Berkeley, study of the largest family of salamanders produced a genetic family tree totally inconsistent with the accepted classification, which is based primarily on physical features.

What's your point? Mankind's knowledge advances. That's a good thing. Nothing in the article makes evolution wrong.

Perhaps you were happier with the overly simplistic erroneous classification of "kinds" used in the Bible.

 

[ecco]

All is needed is to demonstrate that a designer was required for life, nothing more.

If that's all that is needed, then it should be easy for you to provide evidence thereof.


Please note, you will also have to provide evidence that no designer was required to design the designer.