"evolutionists" get chewed up and SPAT out by Intelligent Design heavy-weghts!

  • 148 Replies
  • 21284 Views
?

st james

  • 105
  • a sinner saved by grace
check it out...

watch the atheists get OWNED by the Intelligent Designers!   ;D

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank"> ;
nisi Dominus frustra

*

kman

  • 990
  • Pastafarian
I am more interested in a debate right here right now then listening to others on youtube.
...why don't you make some points?
Quote from: Excelsior John
[USA TODAY and NPR] are probaley just a bunch of flippin wite sapremist websites you RASCIST
Quote from: modestman
i don't understand what you are saying=therfore you are liar

*

Orifiel

  • 226
  • Stalwart Pumpkin god supporter
Evolution can be induced though...we've done it...farmers, scientists, breeders...
Je parle Franšais and yes, I am une fille

Pumpkin god 4 lyf

*

Lemmiwinks

  • 2161
  • President of the Non-Conformist Zetetic Council
Heavy weights*
I have 13 [academic qualifications] actually. I'll leave it up to you to guess which, or simply call me a  liar. Either is fine.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

*

Scroto Gaggins

  • 671
  • Hobbiton represent
check it out...

watch the atheists get OWNED by the Intelligent Designers!   ;D

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank"> ;


could you please summarise the video, i didn't watch all of it.

I get a rash when i am exposed to too much retard
They are taking the hobbits to Isengard.

Are people still going on about intelligent design?

It's one of those dead ends that doesn't please Christian fundamentalists as it has nothing to do with their biblical creation myth, and it's hated by scientists as it's bullshit.
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

?

st james

  • 105
  • a sinner saved by grace
Quote from: JimmyTheCrab
It's one of those dead ends that doesn't please Christian fundamentalists as it has nothing to do with their biblical creation myth, and it's hated by scientists as it's bullshit.

let's turn all that around shall we, eh?

its embraced by BIBLE-believing Christians (the only "game" in town! ) because it backs up the Scriptures 100%;

its feared and hated by so-called "scientists" because it obliterates their "village idiot", atheistic world view......and....so......they try to use the BOGUS meme of "methodological naturalism" in a vain attempt to censor legitimate discussion in peer-reviewed journals (like, for instance, the atheistic so-&-so who 'edits' Nature...'John Maddox' )
nisi Dominus frustra

*

sokarul

  • 18477
  • Discount Chemist
Quote from: JimmyTheCrab
It's one of those dead ends that doesn't please Christian fundamentalists as it has nothing to do with their biblical creation myth, and it's hated by scientists as it's bullshit.

let's turn all that around shall we, eh?

its embraced by BIBLE-believing Christians (the only "game" in town! ) because it backs up the Scriptures 100%;

its feared and hated by so-called "scientists" because it obliterates their "village idiot", atheistic world view......and....so......they try to use the BOGUS meme of "methodological naturalism" in a vain attempt to censor legitimate discussion in peer-reviewed journals (like, for instance, the atheistic so-&-so who 'edits' Nature...'John Maddox' )

Why are old world monkeys only found in Africa and Asia, and new world monkeys found in South America?
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

?

BJ1234

  • 1931
Quote from: JimmyTheCrab
It's one of those dead ends that doesn't please Christian fundamentalists as it has nothing to do with their biblical creation myth, and it's hated by scientists as it's bullshit.

let's turn all that around shall we, eh?

its embraced by BIBLE-believing Christians (the only "game" in town! ) because it backs up the Scriptures 100%;

its feared and hated by so-called "scientists" because it obliterates their "village idiot", atheistic world view......and....so......they try to use the BOGUS meme of "methodological naturalism" in a vain attempt to censor legitimate discussion in peer-reviewed journals (like, for instance, the atheistic so-&-so who 'edits' Nature...'John Maddox' )

Why are old world monkeys only found in Africa and Asia, and new world monkeys found in South America?
Because that is where God put them Duh!!!! ::) ;D

*

mikeman7918

  • 5431
  • Round Earther
Quote from: JimmyTheCrab
It's one of those dead ends that doesn't please Christian fundamentalists as it has nothing to do with their biblical creation myth, and it's hated by scientists as it's bullshit.

let's turn all that around shall we, eh?

its embraced by BIBLE-believing Christians (the only "game" in town! ) because it backs up the Scriptures 100%;

its feared and hated by so-called "scientists" because it obliterates their "village idiot", atheistic world view......and....so......they try to use the BOGUS meme of "methodological naturalism" in a vain attempt to censor legitimate discussion in peer-reviewed journals (like, for instance, the atheistic so-&-so who 'edits' Nature...'John Maddox' )


I am a Christian and I disagree with you.  I am all for science because it is simply learning via experimentation and it has to be backed up by tons of evidence to become recognized as valid.  As for how the creation of the (round) Earth truly happened I simply do not know, but because of evidence I know that evolution was involved and of course the Bible has a thing or two to say about creation, but I just don't know exactaly how it all fits together and I don't want to just make assumptions.

By the way, why do you always use a blue 12 point times new roman font?  Why not just use the default black text?  I am just curious.
I am having a video war with Jeranism.
See the thread about it here.

So evolution starts with the single cell amoeba that eats bacteria and continues to evolve ? Is this the start?
Search for the truth. Ask questions. Think for yourself.

*

kman

  • 990
  • Pastafarian
No. Do you understand the theory if evolution (which is incidentally completely different from abiogenesis, what you seem to be referring to)?
Quote from: Excelsior John
[USA TODAY and NPR] are probaley just a bunch of flippin wite sapremist websites you RASCIST
Quote from: modestman
i don't understand what you are saying=therfore you are liar

*

FalseProphet

  • 3696
  • Life is just a tale
One I would like to know. Can somebody

1. believe in God

2. but nevertheless refuse "Intelligent Design"

Or wouldn't such refusal make God conpletely useless?

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
One I would like to know. Can somebody

1. believe in God

2. but nevertheless refuse "Intelligent Design"

Or wouldn't such refusal make God conpletely useless?

A deistic God is totally compatible with Evolution and really the only viable notion of God.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

FalseProphet

  • 3696
  • Life is just a tale
One I would like to know. Can somebody

1. believe in God

2. but nevertheless refuse "Intelligent Design"

Or wouldn't such refusal make God conpletely useless?

A deistic God is totally compatible with Evolution and really the only viable notion of God.

You cannot pray to it, it doesn't interact in any way with its creation. It is nothing more than a placeholder. so why should one believe in it instead of just being a humble agnostic?

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
One I would like to know. Can somebody

1. believe in God

2. but nevertheless refuse "Intelligent Design"

Or wouldn't such refusal make God conpletely useless?

A deistic God is totally compatible with Evolution and really the only viable notion of God.

You cannot pray to it, it doesn't interact in any way with its creation. It is nothing more than a placeholder. so why should one believe in it instead of just being a humble agnostic?

That is a personal choice I suppose. I would not proceed as if such a being existed and will enlighten me upon passing to the other side.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

FalseProphet

  • 3696
  • Life is just a tale
One I would like to know. Can somebody

1. believe in God

2. but nevertheless refuse "Intelligent Design"

Or wouldn't such refusal make God conpletely useless?

A deistic God is totally compatible with Evolution and really the only viable notion of God.

You cannot pray to it, it doesn't interact in any way with its creation. It is nothing more than a placeholder. so why should one believe in it instead of just being a humble agnostic?

That is a personal choice I suppose. I would not proceed as if such a being existed and will enlighten me upon passing to the other side.

So the deistic God

1. is the cause of the universe
2. is whom we'll going to meet face to face in the afterlife

but doesn't do anything inside the universe he|she|it created. But, actually, why? obviously he could. Who forbids that he does?

*

Vauxhall

  • 5914
  • dark matter does not exist
So the deistic God

1. is the cause of the universe
2. is whom we'll going to meet face to face in the afterlife

but doesn't do anything inside the universe he|she|it created. But, actually, why? obviously he could. Who forbids that he does?

Something something freewill.
Read the FAQS.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer

So the deistic God

1. is the cause of the universe
2. is whom we'll going to meet face to face in the afterlife

but doesn't do anything inside the universe he|she|it created. But, actually, why? obviously he could. Who forbids that he does?

You are not only assuming that god wants to interfere, but that god is being forbidden from doing so.  I am sorry, but none of that makes sense to me.

If there is a god, then perhaps this universe is as meaningful to it as a fart and could care less about it's existence.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

Lemmiwinks

  • 2161
  • President of the Non-Conformist Zetetic Council
I personally think of God as a gardener of a massive beautiful botanical garden and the Earth and us as one flower in it. He tends the garden lovingly and carefully because he created it and he loves it. But one flower out of millions does not hold his attention anymore than another. If it dies and falls to the ground he wont notice it.

Humans being created in his image and being special to him is just a human construct in my opinion. We are no more special than any one other thing he created.

Now back to my pizza.
I have 13 [academic qualifications] actually. I'll leave it up to you to guess which, or simply call me a  liar. Either is fine.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

*

FalseProphet

  • 3696
  • Life is just a tale
I personally think of God as a gardener of a massive beautiful botanical garden and the Earth and us as one flower in it. He tends the garden lovingly and carefully because he created it and he loves it. But one flower out of millions does not hold his attention anymore than another. If it dies and falls to the ground he wont notice it.

Humans being created in his image and being special to him is just a human construct in my opinion. We are no more special than any one other thing he created.

Now back to my pizza.

That's clearly Intelligent Design trying to sound cool.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
One I would like to know. Can somebody

1. believe in God

2. but nevertheless refuse "Intelligent Design"

Or wouldn't such refusal make God conpletely useless?

Define useless: and, for that matter, define intelligent design. It's entirely possible (using the term loosely) God made early life and let it evolve on its own terms. It's also entirely possible God made the early universe, and life developed naturally, with no direct intervention. It still required a deity to design the universe, but there was no direct intervention for the development of life. That seems to be the closest a typical theist could come to refusing intelligent design.
Otherwise God might arbitrarily create universes, and things would develop by luck: and there's no design (or, necessarily intelligence) in that situation, but God was still very much required and far from useless.

Long story short: with badly defined terms, anything's possible. After all, strictly speaking pandeism is a form of theism which still lets you honestly state "God does not exist." You really need to define what you're talking about when it comes to religion.

*

Lemmiwinks

  • 2161
  • President of the Non-Conformist Zetetic Council
I personally think of God as a gardener of a massive beautiful botanical garden and the Earth and us as one flower in it. He tends the garden lovingly and carefully because he created it and he loves it. But one flower out of millions does not hold his attention anymore than another. If it dies and falls to the ground he wont notice it.

Humans being created in his image and being special to him is just a human construct in my opinion. We are no more special than any one other thing he created.

Now back to my pizza.

That's clearly Intelligent Design trying to sound cool.

First off, its not trying to sound cool, it is cool.

Second, that doesn't presuppose whether God created everything whole cloth or God simply set off the big bang and let things sort themselves out.

I'm of the opinion its the latter.
I have 13 [academic qualifications] actually. I'll leave it up to you to guess which, or simply call me a  liar. Either is fine.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

*

FalseProphet

  • 3696
  • Life is just a tale
One I would like to know. Can somebody

1. believe in God

2. but nevertheless refuse "Intelligent Design"

Or wouldn't such refusal make God conpletely useless?

Define useless: and, for that matter, define intelligent design. It's entirely possible (using the term loosely) God made early life and let it evolve on its own terms. It's also entirely possible God made the early universe, and life developed naturally, with no direct intervention. It still required a deity to design the universe, but there was no direct intervention for the development of life. That seems to be the closest a typical theist could come to refusing intelligent design.
Otherwise God might arbitrarily create universes, and things would develop by luck: and there's no design (or, necessarily intelligence) in that situation, but God was still very much required and far from useless.

Long story short: with badly defined terms, anything's possible. After all, strictly speaking pandeism is a form of theism which still lets you honestly state "God does not exist." You really need to define what you're talking about when it comes to religion.

Definition:
"Intelligent design" = any theistic standpoint postulating a Godhead that is not thoroughly useless.

Clarification:
Regardless how early you postulate the last interference of the Godhead with the universe, it is still some form of design.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Definition:
"Intelligent design" = any theistic standpoint postulating a Godhead that is not thoroughly useless.

Clarification:
Regardless how early you postulate the last interference of the Godhead with the universe, it is still some form of design.

Then a typical theist probably couldn't, but you'd still get plenty of conceivable possibilities (eg: Greek mythology) which posits a great deal of interference post-creation.
Unless design constitutes any influence on humanity, in which case it's logically impossible to provide what you're asking for.

*

FalseProphet

  • 3696
  • Life is just a tale
That Greek Mythology thing gave me a funny idea. Since we all know, thanks Daeniken, that the Gods were nothing but alien astronauts...

Postulation 1: Life is a principally understandable and reproducable matter of chemical reactions

If this is true,we can expect that mankind sometime will be able to create artificial life. If we have enough time we will also be able to induce this artificial life on other planets.
That would probably mean that even if there is naturally developed life on other planets, most life occuring in the galaxy will be generated by "intelligent design" = by us, for it would take longer for life to generate in the natural way than it takes to be generated artificially.

Postulation 2: We are not the first intelligent species in our galaxy.

In this case we can assume, hat they did the same. That means, IF there has ever been an intelligent species in the past of our galaxy, and even if life can develop in a natural way, it is more probable that life on our planet was generated by them rather than naturally, that is, by Intelligent design.

« Last Edit: March 13, 2015, 09:40:01 PM by FalseProphet »

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690

Postulation 2: We are not the first intelligent species in our galaxy.

In this case we can assume, hat they did the same... it is more probable that life on our planet was generated by them rather than naturally, that is, by Intelligent design.

The problem here's that the original life could apparently develop naturally. Alone that makes postulation 2 rather more questionable, but renders the conclusion from it highly unjustified.

*

FalseProphet

  • 3696
  • Life is just a tale

Postulation 2: We are not the first intelligent species in our galaxy.

In this case we can assume, hat they did the same... it is more probable that life on our planet was generated by them rather than naturally, that is, by Intelligent design.

The problem here's that the original life could apparently develop naturally. Alone that makes postulation 2 rather more questionable, but renders the conclusion from it highly unjustified.

Nope. It is irrelevant how questionable the postulation is. It's an if-then-thingie. Sorry, I do not know how to write the sign for Implication with my laptop.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
The problem here's that the original life could apparently develop naturally. Alone that makes postulation 2 rather more questionable, but renders the conclusion from it highly unjustified.

Nope. It is irrelevant how questionable the postulation is. It's an if-then-thingie. Sorry, I do not know how to write the sign for Implication with my laptop.

I questioned the conclusion too.
Plus it's always worth acknowledging postulations are unlikely. If-then implications (mathematically speaking, => might be what you're looking for) are only meaningful so long as the 'if' is.

*

FalseProphet

  • 3696
  • Life is just a tale
The problem here's that the original life could apparently develop naturally. Alone that makes postulation 2 rather more questionable, but renders the conclusion from it highly unjustified.

Nope. It is irrelevant how questionable the postulation is. It's an if-then-thingie. Sorry, I do not know how to write the sign for Implication with my laptop.

I questioned the conclusion too.
Plus it's always worth acknowledging postulations are unlikely. If-then implications (mathematically speaking, => might be what you're looking for) are only meaningful so long as the 'if' is.

You try to be boring again. Don't bother for the postulation, it's just a game. What is wrong with the conclusion?