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

check it out...

watch the atheists get OWNED by the Intelligent Designers!   

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"> ;

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: 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' )

Quote from: st james on February 03, 2015, 06:39:37 PM

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?

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' )

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?

Quote from: FalseProphet on March 13, 2015, 05:16:42 AM

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.

Quote from: Rama Set on March 13, 2015, 06:02:50 AM

Quote from: FalseProphet on March 13, 2015, 05:16:42 AM

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?

Quote from: FalseProphet on March 13, 2015, 06:16:43 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on March 13, 2015, 06:02:50 AM

Quote from: FalseProphet on March 13, 2015, 05:16:42 AM

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?

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?

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.

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?

Quote from: Lemmiwinks on March 13, 2015, 12:45:03 PM

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.

Quote from: FalseProphet on March 13, 2015, 05:16:42 AM

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.

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.

Quote from: FalseProphet on March 13, 2015, 01:48:23 PM

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.

Quote from: BiJane on March 13, 2015, 02:15:26 PM

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.

Quote from: FalseProphet on March 13, 2015, 02:30:23 PM

Quote from: BiJane on March 13, 2015, 02:15:26 PM

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.