hello!  =D

I am just curious as to what thinkatheist has to offer on the possibilities of intelligent design vs abiogenesis.

Remember that ID is NOT religion and doesn't even imply the existence of a deity. It is simply the idea that even the most basic theoretical form of sustained life is so complex, it couldn't possibly have started by itself without any intelligent intervention.

 

Thank you for your replies :)

 

Tags: :), abiogenesis, design, don't, else, for, here, i, intelligent, know, More…my, put, reading, tags, thank, to, what, you

Views: 951

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I think this comment just created a paradox in the WTF matrix of the universe and spawned a new hyper-reality beyond spaced-out time.

If I recall correctly, Smith sufficiently addresses the philosophical problems with a "transcendental god" in "Atheism- the Case Against God."

Please ... ID is Christianity on a silver platter.  You can't spread this propaganda on this site.  

 

Name me one proponent of intelligent design that does not believe in God.  

Yes, but this is why believing in God leads one automatically to real science.

Just one tiny example. How would evolution explain horses don't have wheels? Wheels are very energy efficient for a horse and would have been selected for. Wheeled horses would have been the first to arrive at the sporadic green pastures on the plains where they live. And since there weren't any fences put around them yet, legs weren't needed to jump over them. A wheeled horse could drive right through, spend less energy so wouldn't have to eat as much and have way more leisure time to spare to create new wheeled foals than his poor tired legged cousins.

But only an intelligent designer would have known there weren't any roads built yet. And so he made horses with legs despite them being better off with wheels. Besides he would have foreseen big accidents happening with humans driving their horses before inventing traffic regulation, which in turn proves that the designer is a supremely benevolent designer. (I feel a syllogism coming up.)

This sort of intelligent deliberation and weighing of pros & cons form a much simpler explanation of apparent "designer flaws" than evolutionists can and therefore Ockhams razor resolutely excises gradual adaptations gone awry and unnecessarily complicating things from time to time from serious scientific consideration. The designer has reasons for clumsy designs, because why else wouldn't he as the omnipotent, omniscient and all foreseeing designer that he is have done a better job?

And so ID is a science because it predicts correctly that horses come with legs instead of wheels, while Darwin can't explain it. And this is why Hitler was a Darwinist.

Albert, you sir, could troll professionally! You could do a radio show just to get atheists freaked out and have christian followers not even having a clue that the joke is on them. Phil Hendrie does something similar if you've never heard him. He even does the voices for the outrageous callers to get it started. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjTXK4e925w

I very much doubt it, but thanks and thanks for pointing me to Phil Hendrie. I'm going to have a wonderful time catching up. He is absolute master!!

Woe to thee, unbeliever. Even humans would design horses with wheels, as they did so from ancient times as thine eyes behold. Open them to the truth I revealed. Wouldst thou rear thine tongue with such blasphemous credulity that humans are more wise than their creator who in his wisdom fitted this noble creature with proper extensions?

 

No, but you did with me. I have shown you horses in theory would have had wheels but in reality they do have legs. So come to the light poor lost soul, come walk to the light with me. All praise be to the designer for bringing you home.

The last steps I'll invite you to walk alone. I must quit now, for this is so easy it might be addictive.

Well said.

I would like to point out that scientific hypotheses provide prediction... ID does not. Therefore ID is not a scientific hypothesis.

 

If ID could spell out HOW life was designed, then maybe we could call it a hypothesis.

 

Remember that ID is NOT religion and doesn't even imply the existence of a deity

oh really? who is the designer then? since the whole premise of ID is that designs require designers, it is quite obvious that for ID to be truth, there MUST be a designer.

By definition ID/IC DOES require a deity - even if you use the deist concept of "watchmaker" kickstarting everything. The first part of the name itself - "Intelligent" - infers deific/supernatural intervention; and if not, how would you explain it?

Don't try to skirt that premise when we all know it is a core part of the (ahem) "theory" - doing so insults our intelligence, as well as your own. If you want to have a rational discussion, then you must put all of your cards on the table.

I have an awful feeling that we just got trolled hard by a poe.

RSS

Blog Posts

The tale of the twelve officers

Posted by Davis Goodman on August 27, 2014 at 3:04am 0 Comments

Birthday Present

Posted by Caila Rowe on August 26, 2014 at 1:29am 3 Comments

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service