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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Raphael said:Some of the chief principals and scientific proofs regarding the origin of life are intricately tied and founded on other proofs. For example beginning with "Prime Cause", then combining prime cause with "Intellectual Motion", and the Highbredization of the species due to genetic disposition connected to both "Divine Providence," and Predestination of the individual we arrive not just at the origin of life but of specific intended individuals. These philosophies are understood in the light of concepts tied to the immutable existance of the origin of motion, and of its Infinite Knowledge and Power. IE. Eternal, Omnipresence, and Omnipotence.
kbc_1963 said:high complexity
order
irreducible complexity
all of which is not allowed to be considered by peer review so basicly there will be nothing to post here so this should be a short topic.
Man has determined to disprove God, I believe, to justify operating outside the moral (law) confines of a Moralistic, righteous, merciful,gracious and purposful Inteligent Designer who has set these standards in all of us and will judge us accordingly, whether we agree or not.
The Voice of Reason said:Roli -
I mean no disrespect, but I got absolutely nothing from your post. That is to say, I was hoping that someone on the Theist side of the aisle would respond with something along the lines of:
The following empirical evidence shows the validity of Intelligent Design -
(and then you would list as many pieces of evidence that you could find). If you believe that no empirical evidence is needed, but that logic and reason can lead one to conclude that Intelligent Design is a valid viewpoint, please feel free to take that line of thought. I don't mean to speak for Pah - but I think he would welcome an argument on that front as well.
I read your post and the only thing I got out of it was the usual argument that Intelligent Design is beyond the reasoning of man, and by the way, don't question it - if you do, you'll go to Hell.
If I missed some of the empirical evidence that Pah seems to be asking for, please forgive me - I just didn't see it.
ROLI RESPONSE
I see no evidence in my thread that would indicate I was stating directly that Intelligent design is beyond the reasoning of man, on the contrary, I did indicate that we will be without excuse before God, just from what is created and that we over rationalize so many issues in this life that tend to take us down the proverbial path of thought.
My point is that when I look at the complexities of nature ,life, the human eye for instance, not to mention the laws that intrinsically govern and regulate such existence, I can't even imagine that their is no intelligent design behind such things.
To begin to actually list all the evidences for Intelligent design from an already axiomatic scenario of design would be an insult to your rational mind, and insinuate your complete ignorance to what you sense through your sensory perception or do we use that form of perception anymore in the logical and intellectual spectrum.
I try not to get too elaborate, but how many things outside the realm of such theistic topics as , God Morality, standards ,Heaven etc .etc. do you need such empirical evidence, such as when you sit down to eat in a restaurant. Do you actually require evidence that the food is clear of poison or bacteria ,you never have actual proof of anything, but you eat it ,regardless of your assumptions or do you check the breaks on your vehicle before you drive away.
I would think there may be some rational thought of speculation if these questions arise but rarely , if anytime ,will you check them out explicidly,evaluate and rationalize them.
For the question at hand, the answer is self evident ,if you can look at the world around you rationally it denotes something more intelligent is behind design.
That may of course be insuffcient for those of you who are looking for more to philosophize on, but I value my time a little more then to prove something self evident, no offense intended
Can I give scientific evidence about design, where would you like me to begin, the
physiological, chemical, universal or biological or natural evidence .
I will get back with something you can feed on,as these are not my areas of expertise, rather then my logical perspective based on what is all around me ie: the oxygen , gravity, cell structure and healing of the cells, migration of certain birds naturally to warm climates, what do these do if not prove intelligent design
God says, man will be without excuse about who GOD is, his attributes , creation and his divine Godhead., just from the creation that already exists around man, does God insinuate you have to use visual perception coupled with rational thought to see the emperical evidence , I would tend to lean that direction
roli said:To begin to actually list all the evidences for Intelligent design from an already axiomatic scenario of design would be an insult to your rational mind, and insinuate your complete ignorance to what you sense through your sensory perception or do we use that form of perception anymore in the logical and intellectual spectrum.
I don't think I understand your question then.pah said:We are not here to discuss philiosophy in this thread. This post is off-topic
Sorry, a more appropiate forum would be World Philosophies in the dicussion section.
-pah-
Or are you asking if genetic evolution occured as a result of design or random chance? This is a philosophical discussion in science.
You evaded my question. Design of what?pah said:
Proofs go to the science and not the philiospohy of science which is opinion. I'm after the scientific proofs of Inteligent Design.
You're kidding - right? You don't know what Inteligent Design (with capital's) is?chlotilde said:You evaded my question. Design of what?
You seem to think your question is not philosophical?
But you know enough to think there is a hypothesis.Intelligent design is a hypothesis.
As far as I know, evolution has not ended.
It is unethical in the scientific method to draw conclusions before an experiment is over. (sorry, just playing by the rules)
..Genetic evolution by Intelligent design or random chance are hypotheses.
There is no science in Philosophy although there are rules in some sub-disciplines. Rules do not a science make.Hypotheses fall to philosophy, theories fall to scientific proof.
Ahhh, now I see what your asking!Now if you can not present scientific evidence for Intelligent Design, I feel you are wasting our time in this thread.
chlotilde said:
Ahhh, now I see what your asking!
You are referring to intelligent design as pertains to creationism, not as it refers to evolution theory. No wonder I was confused by your point.
Sorry, I can't help you here then.
I am not a creationist. I happen to believe in evolution.
Now, I suppose I could try to debate for the fun of it. But I don't like to debate just for the fun of it (I'd rather learn or teach something...but I'm off on a tangent).
[/QUOTE
Please before you state your belief in evolution so openly,excercise due diligence in researching out all the proof available out there that disproves evolution, from leaders in scientific community etc.
This is one of the leading evidences evolutionists tend to adhere .