I'll pardon your pun.Give us time. Jesus.
See, therein lies the problem. One cannot prove definitively a negative hypothesis - i.e., "intelligent design is not true."
However, there is absolutely no credible evidence to suggest that it is true. Every shred of evidence offered up - from brute-force-chance calculations about evolution, to "irreducible complexity," - is wrong.
A hypothesis - such as intelligent design - is not true until there is evidence proving it to be so. As it stands, it is not true.
Pro scientia et humanitate.
Why do you religious people want precise and explicit explanations from atheists, but are content to take generalities and vagueries when it comes to their religion?Please explain precisely how you arrived here today as a result of a cosmic "Yahtzee" of some kind and precisely why we do not observe it happening here anymore nor anywhere we are able to look? Remember, precisely explain your theories. Broad references will not do.
besides, evolution doesnt actually say a damn thing about the origin or development of the earth. it only covers what happened to life on earth after life actually started. It doesnt include the origin of life, which would be chemistry. But, considering your lack of knowledge about general science, that doesnt really suprise me you dont know these things.
Last edited by xx_mortekai_xx; 27th May 2012 at 03:28 AM.
A good question about intelligent design:
Why would an intelligent designer create one insignificant speck on which life exists in such a vast expanse of a universe, filled conditions that are completely hostile to life?
Whoa... when did your post pop up? I could have sworn I only saw one reply yesterday... anyway moving on.
This science which is supposed to be rooted in that which is observable and falsifiable... has atheists strutting around claiming that only science can possibly divine the cause of the universe and therefore every other theory or idea out there must be BS unless it has been accepted and proven by science. Funny how a discipline that prides its methodology and empiricism supposedly know best about that which lies outside of their current scope and is in no way empirical.
Until science has time travel... they won't be able to properly research the cause of the universe. Right now... in my eyes scientific theories with regards to the cause of the universe are as speculative as anything else. After all... they are merely coming to conclusions from the little bit of knowledge that have managed to garner by studying one little planet and looking through telescopes at the rest of the galaxy.
My apologies if I do not bend knee and hail Atheists and their science as the only possible explanation for something which can not be directly explored or falsified. I am not even close to convinced that science has in any way so much as decreased the possibility of intelligent design.
Bringing light to the Elusive Truth that is life.
Its funny when christians try to explain what different scientific theories attempt to explain. very few times do i see those explanations actually being accurate to the actual theories, as it is with the above. (evolution is usually the worst, as the christian explanations usually run over into abiogenesis, astrophysics, and the big bang, to name a few)
What your definition is describing, IMO, is what consciousness accomplishes on the fly so to speak, most commonly noted when arising of a morning after several hours without any creation. Your description is, therefore, IMO not of Intelligent Design but of Consciousness. I have no firm consensus of opinion or idea what Intelligence is and only a vague concept of Design relating to sating appetites and desire. Just that it sure seems to me that your definition has nailed Consciousness.
If the terrain and the map do not agree, follow the terrain.
When motherhood becomes the fruit of a deep yearning, not the result of ignorance or accident, its children will become a new race.
Also, I find it interesting that my other posts have not been replied to... I wonder why? Oh, because intelligent design is bunk, and it's been shown to be so.
Pro scientia et humanitate.