Conclusive evidence for Design!

[Peter_Plato]

I refuse to comment because I will be banned by having to explain evolution to you. Since that topic is still banned here, and you all parade your anti evolution garbage here I will continue to object. You can not have it both ways. This is not the mid ages all over again. You will not be able to stuff **** on to people by force anymore. Defend your position or shut the heck up.

I have defended my position each time without any intelligible response from you.

My guess is that you are trying to turn this into a banned thread by your off-topic posts.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Really?

Read forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=408684

Apology #4.

Nonsense! ID is a philosophical position supported by scientific evidence.

There is no known molecular or physical cause for the nucleotide bases to form the elaborate DNA code found in cells. The information embedded in the code is incredibly complex, decipherable and produces the protein mechanisms to allow for the replication of life and transfer of vast amounts of vital information. All of this is scientifically demonstrated.

The claim that the code could have intelligent origin is open to philosophical and scientific dispute. There is no appeal to theology, here.

Apology #5… (You are deeper in debt!)

Just because you want to lump things together to muddy the water, does not mean everyone else has to follow your compulsion.

No one has to follow reason and logic, yet the Catholic Church says that they do.
If challenged, they simply bann any views that clearly shut them down.

It is that simple.

I refuse to respond to your post for the simple reason that I would have to explain a banned topic to you that you do not understand and that this site has banned from conversation, so have a great talk with other like minded individiuals that have to pull the party line.

 

[Peter_Plato]

No one has to follow reason and logic, yet the Catholic Church says that they do.

Silly me! I have been operating under the assumption that reason and logic were compelling me to follow reason and logic. Well there you go! It is a confusing business after all.

If challenged, they simply bann any views that clearly shut them down.

It is that simple.

I refuse to respond to your post for the simple reason that I would have to explain a banned topic to you that you do not understand and that this site has banned from conversation, so have a great talk with other like minded individiuals that have to pull the party line.

Try using reason and logic rather than going on about your addiction to evo doctrine. Surely, you can think outside the parameters set by evol, no?

You do seem fixated and in the early stages of withdrawal, however! Are you getting the DTs, staring out into space a lot and hallucinating about monkeys?

Aim to live up to your signature line.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Silly me! I have been operating under the assumption that reason and logic were compelling me to follow reason and logic. Well there you go! It is a confusing business after all.

Try using reason and logic rather than going on about your addiction to evo doctrine. Surely, you can think outside the parameters set by evol, no?

You do seem fixated and in the early stages of withdrawal, however! Are you getting the DTs, staring out into space a lot and hallucinating about monkeys?

This is the point where logical respectful conversation in a philosophy forum deteriorates if one does not go along with the program.

This is a very good example of how not to promote the idea of non science ID.

Tell people what to think, and if they do not agree they have no choice but to be banned.

 

[Peter_Plato]

This is the point where logical respectful conversation in a philosophy forum deteriorates if one does not go along with the program.

This is a very good example of how not to promote the idea of non science ID.

Tell people what to think, and if they do not agree they have no choice but to be banned.

I must be getting tired. :yawn: All your words are coming across muddled and incoherent. :hypno:

Time for some sleep! Good night SJ!

 

[Bradski]

Actually, that would seem to be convincing evidence that the “answer” is complicated, difficult to ponder and easy to get confused about.

It certainly is if you start to investigate the alternatives to the one you were born with because there are so many conflicting views. In all the years I have been posting on a variety of forums, and all the thousands of people I have talked with on-line, the general consensus between Christians seems to be: wasn’t it fortuitous that we were born into a culture that had the right answer.

I think you’re a smart guy. Doesn’t that tickle your intellectual curiosity? Why should almost everyone in the world feel exactly the same way.

 

[Bradski]

ID is a philosophical position supported by scientific evidence.

It’s Creationism wearing a wig and a false nose. The Design Institute had no problem in admitting that they were pushing Creationism until they realised they couldn’t get it into schools. Then it was a simple matter of changing a few words here and there and hope nobody noticed. Or didn’t care.

 

[pig]

Nice own goal. That simply shows the accuracy of the original point.

If you’re brought up in the boondocks of Mississippi, then it’s pretty well certain that you’ll be a Christian who believes in Creationism. If you were born in Oxford, England, there’s a fair chance you’ll be an Anglican who has no problem with evolution.

Note that D’Sousa asked why should this matter as to the truth of the matter. It doesn’t. The fact that people in the UK believe in evolution doesn’t make it true and the fact that people in Mississippi don’t believe in it doesn’t make it false. But the undeniable fact is that if you are brought up in a particular country you will generally embrace the culture of that country. And that includes, to a significant degree, the religious beliefs of that country.

Loftus is not saying that because people born in India are Hindu therefore Christianity is false. He is saying that what is true is that people invariably follow the religion which formed an integral part of their upbringing, with all the attendant implications of that. I can’t see how that can be denied.

This may not be treated with the seriousness it deserves by people of faith. Mainly because they believe, without any doubt whatsoever, and understandably so, that the other guy is simply wrong.

For an atheist, the more religions there are who say they have the answer, the more denominations within each religion who say that they have the answer and the more arguments within each denomination as to who has got the right answer, the more convincing it becomes that there is no real answer at all.

Well I for one am glad somebody said this.

Because if there were literally no answer at all then we just could not be here at all. It is only because we know we are here that we know there is in fact an answer.

Christianity, the great finishing point of Judaism, I’m sure, proclaims this belief - there is an answer because we are here.

The answer to why and how we are here has never been a rock or a stick. The pagan’s stick satisfies a certain and definite need for an answer to this problem; but the stick inevitably fails to interest when faced with a more inspiring and attractive solution.

The pure and attractive answer is: an unknown God - a God who has kept hidden and silent but is as obviously there as we are obviously here.

For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you. - St. Paul in Athens

13 Moses said to God: Lo, I shall go to the children of Israel, and say to them: The God of your fathers hath sent me to you. If they should say to me: What is his name? what shall I say to them? 14 God said to Moses: I AM WHO AM. He said: Thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel: HE WHO IS, hath sent me to you.

 

[tonyrey]

Another new development - climbing DNA.

Laser Spotlight Reveals Machine ‘Climbing’ DNA

…

Up until now conventional techniques of biological physics or biochemistry have not been sufficiently fast or precise to monitor such tiny machines inside living cells at the level of single molecules.

‘Each machine functions in much the same way as rock-climber clinging to a cliff face,’ says Mark Leake of Oxford University’s Department of Physics, 'it has one end anchored to a portion of cellular DNA while the other end opens and closes randomly by using chemical energy stored in a ubiquitous bio-molecule called adenosine triphosphate, or ‘ATP’: the universal molecular fuel for all living cells.

‘This opening and closing action of the machine is essentially a process of mechanical ‘grabbing’, in which it attempts to seize more free DNA, like the rock-climber searching for a new handhold.’

Many thanks for that reference to the incredible power and flexibility of DNA - claimed by materialists to be no more than a purposeless mechanical process!

 

[tonyrey]

Well I for one am glad somebody said this.

Because if there were literally no answer at all then we just could not be here at all. It is only because we know we are here that we know there is in fact an answer.

Christianity, the great finishing point of Judaism, I’m sure, proclaims this belief - there is an answer because we are here.

The answer to why and how we are here has never been a rock or a stick. The pagan’s stick satisfies a certain and definite need for an answer to this problem; but the stick inevitably fails to interest when faced with a more inspiring and attractive solution.

The pure and attractive answer is: an unknown God - a God who has kept hidden and silent but is as obviously there as we are obviously here.

For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you. - St. Paul in Athens

13 Moses said to God: Lo, I shall go to the children of Israel, and say to them: The God of your fathers hath sent me to you. If they should say to me: What is his name? what shall I say to them? 14 God said to Moses: I AM WHO AM. He said: Thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel: HE WHO IS, hath sent me to you.

To deny there is an explanation is both unscientific and unrealistic…

 

[tonyrey]

Well I for one am glad somebody said this.

Because if there were literally no answer at all then we just could not be here at all. It is only because we know we are here that we know there is in fact an answer.

Christianity, the great finishing point of Judaism, I’m sure, proclaims this belief - there is an answer because we are here.

The answer to why and how we are here has never been a rock or a stick. The pagan’s stick satisfies a certain and definite need for an answer to this problem; but the stick inevitably fails to interest when faced with a more inspiring and attractive solution.

The pure and attractive answer is: an unknown God - a God who has kept hidden and silent but is as obviously there as we are obviously here.

For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you. - St. Paul in Athens

13 Moses said to God: Lo, I shall go to the children of Israel, and say to them: The God of your fathers hath sent me to you. If they should say to me: What is his name? what shall I say to them? 14 God said to Moses: I AM WHO AM. He said: Thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel: HE WHO IS, hath sent me to you.

To deny there is an explanation is both unscientific and unrealistic in the face of all the evidence for Design…

 

[tonyrey]

ID is purely theology and has no bearing on science at all.
The Templeton foundation is trying very hard to woo everyone into thinking there is some talk to be had.
They can go fly a kite.
And so can anyone else who decides to close a conversation and simply put out dogma on a philosophy forum and still pride themselves on being an apologist.

It has been pointed out many times that Design is not ID but a philosophical interpretation of reality based on** the primacy of reason**.

 

[tonyrey]

It’s Creationism wearing a wig and a false nose. The Design Institute had no problem in admitting that they were pushing Creationism until they realised they couldn’t get it into schools. Then it was a simple matter of changing a few words here and there and hope nobody noticed. Or didn’t care.

It has been pointed out many times that Design is totally unrelated to Creationism and is a philosophical interpretation of reality based on the primacy of reason.

 

[tonyrey]

If you think design is not an argument against evolution, you do not understand evolution. This site has banned it from discussion so that your ID people can take over the discussion. You can win everytime when you bann anyone who does not agree.

I hate the dishonesty here. Either open up Evolution as a non banned topic, or stop spoon feeding everyone into ID. And stop pretending this is an apologetics forum. Call it what it really is.

The recognition of evolution by the Church demonstrates that it doesn’t conflict with Design unless it is atheistic.

 

[Bradski]

It has been pointed out many times that Design is totally unrelated to Creationism and is a philosophical interpretation of reality based on the primacy of reason.

So totally unrelated that the book that Dembski co-wrote, Of Pandas and People, had all the instances of the word ‘creationism’ replaced by ‘ID’.

Many of the book’s arguments are identical to those raised by creationists, which have been dismissed by the scientific community.[35] In fact, a comparison of an early draft of Of Pandas and People to a later 1987 draft showed how in hundreds of instances the word “creationism” had been replaced by “intelligent design” and “creationist” replaced by “intelligent design proponent”, while “creator” was replaced by “agency” or “designer”.[36]In his 2007 book Monkey Girl Edward Humes describes how this change was made after Edwards v. Aguillard settled that teaching “Creation Science” in public schools was unconstitutional.[37]

Why do you think they did that?

 

[prodigalson2011]

If you’re brought up in the boondocks of Mississippi, then it’s pretty well certain that you’ll be a Christian who believes in Creationism. If you were born in Oxford, England, there’s a fair chance you’ll be an Anglican who has no problem with evolution.

Note that D’Sousa asked why should this matter as to the truth of the matter. It doesn’t. The fact that people in the UK believe in evolution doesn’t make it true and the fact that people in Mississippi don’t believe in it doesn’t make it false. But the undeniable fact is that if you are brought up in a particular country you will generally embrace the culture of that country. And that includes, to a significant degree, the religious beliefs of that country.

But that fact is irrelevant, as you admit, to the truth of one’s belief. That’s the point. The question of religious truth is a question that has to be addressed through philosophical arguments, not appeals to disparity of opinion.

Loftus is not saying that because people born in India are Hindu therefore Christianity is false. He is saying that what is true is that people invariably follow the religion which formed an integral part of their upbringing, with all the attendant implications of that. I can’t see how that can be denied.

Invariably? Then explain the millions of Christian converts in the world? Or Muslim converts?

Take my own country for example:
*
[In America] Nearly a quarter of the Muslims are converts to Islam (23%), mainly native-born. Of the total who have converted, 59% are African American and 34% white. Previous religions of those converted was Protestantism (67%), Roman Catholicism (10%) and 15% no religion.*

Or look at places like China (a traditionally Buddhist and now officially atheistic country), where Christianity is spreading like wildfire.

This may not be treated with the seriousness it deserves by people of faith. Mainly because they believe, without any doubt whatsoever, and understandably so, that the other guy is simply wrong.

This is a faulty generalization and a red herring.

For an atheist, the more religions there are who say they have the answer, the more denominations within each religion who say that they have the answer and the more arguments within each denomination as to who has got the right answer, the more convincing it becomes that there is no real answer at all.

And here you introduce a new fallacy: the inflation of conflict.

Inflation of Conflict - the experts of a field of knowledge disagree on a certain point, so the scholars must know nothing, and therefore the legitimacy of their entire field is put to question.

Let’s look at this problem from another angle. I will simply reword your own statement:

For a non-economist, the more leaders who say they can balance the budget, the more factions within each party who say they can balance the budget and the more arguments within each faction as to who knows the right way to balance the budget, the more convincing it becomes that the budget cannot be balanced.

Now, it may be true that you are convinced there is no real answer. But, if widespread disagreement about the answer is the foundation of your conviction, then it is not logical and, in the case of the budget, almost certainly erroneous.

Further, if you’re basing this on popular discourse, then a load of scientific theories are immediately thrown into upheaval. Does the widespread disputation of Darwin’s theory provide a credible basis for discrediting Darwin?

In the realm of scholarship, does the range of disagreements between historians suggest that there is no historical truth?

 

[buffalo]

Athiesm is not a banned topic.
Evolution is.

Please understand the difference.

ID is purely theology and has no bearing on science at all.
The Templeton foundation is trying very hard to woo everyone into thinking there is some talk to be had.
They can go fly a kite.
And so can anyone else who decides to close a conversation and simply put out dogma on a philosophy forum and still pride themselves on being an apologist.

There is ID the science -
Is intelligent design a scientific theory?

                                      Yes. The scientific method is commonly described  as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments,  and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that  intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI).   Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it  will contain high levels of CSI.  Scientists then perform experimental  tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and  specified information.  One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible  complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally  reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of  their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity  in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.

and ID the philosophy.

 

[buffalo]

This is the point where logical respectful conversation in a philosophy forum deteriorates if one does not go along with the program.

This is a very good example of how not to promote the idea of non science ID.

Tell people what to think, and if they do not agree they have no choice but to be banned.

From my experience the banning comes from uncivil debate. Most often, the *73(kdf advocate resorts to name calling and personal attacks which is the reason the topic is banned.

 

[buffalo]

It’s Creationism wearing a wig and a false nose. The Design Institute had no problem in admitting that they were pushing Creationism until they realised they couldn’t get it into schools. Then it was a simple matter of changing a few words here and there and hope nobody noticed. Or didn’t care.

Why would anyone be against teaching truth to our children?

 

[Peter_Plato]

It certainly is if you start to investigate the alternatives to the one you were born with because there are so many conflicting views. In all the years I have been posting on a variety of forums, and all the thousands of people I have talked with on-line, the general consensus between Christians seems to be: wasn’t it fortuitous that we were born into a culture that had the right answer.

You are presuming that these alternatives offer some “other” view of truth rather than some portion of it. I haven’t so much looked at alternative possibilities and dismissed them because they necessarily are opposite, but recognize they offer some part of an answer but not the complete answer.

I think you’re a smart guy. Doesn’t that tickle your intellectual curiosity?

Ooh! Flattery and temptation in one offer.

Why should almost everyone in the world feel exactly the same way.

Because truth is non-contradictory so all discordant positions can’t be correct.