Intelligent Design is Self-refuting

  • Thread starter Thread starter rossum
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Evolution explicitly denies God and any other god. That’s what’s been going on here for years.
 
edwest211 said:
Evolution explicitly denies God and any other god. That’s what’s been going on here for years.
Click to expand...
Gravity explicitly denies God and any other god. That’s what’s been going on in science for years. Where does Gravity allow for God to push the planets round in their orbits I ask you?
 
edwest211 said:
Evolution explicitly denies God and any other god. That’s what’s been going on here for years.
Click to expand...
Then it will be as easy as falling off a log for you to produce a quote from anyone here that confirms that. Shouldn’t take but a minute or two. Let’s see how long it does take you.

And when you don’t produce anything at all, I think we can safely say that you were wrong.
 
You are arguing for your worldview here, that’s all. I am presenting what the Church actually teaches, especially when it states that human beings, and their identity, cannot be decided by science. As I wrote elsewhere, this reduces human beings to walking bags of chemicals who are not exceptional. This counters what the Church is telling us.
 
Yes, yes, the endless chess game with the cards artificially stacked against certain people. Do you think that’s not obvious? That careful word choices allow for certain questions to be asked?

Obviously, I do amuse you.
 
Bradskii said:
If it [M-Eve] referred to a single woman from whom all people have descended then there would be no conflict with some Christians and evolution.
Click to expand...
It appears the ignorance here is not just with Christians. As you say, M-Eve and Eve are not synonyms so let’s not post as if they were.
 
Last edited:
edwest211 said:
Yes, yes, the endless chess game with the cards artificially stacked against certain people. Do you think that’s not obvious? That careful word choices allow for certain questions to be asked?

Obviously, I do amuse you.
Click to expand...
I don’t know if I should mention this, but if you make comments such as you have and don’t back them up with anything resembling a coherent quote then what you have presented will be treated with all the respect it deserves.

People will read what you write and realise: ‘Hey, there’s nothing to back up that comment whatsoever. It sounds like he just made it up’.
 
Prod as you will. Amusement time is over. Have a good rest of the day.
 
o_mlly said:
40.png
Bradskii:
If it [M-Eve] referred to a single woman from whom all people have descended then there would be no conflict with some Christians and evolution.
Click to expand...
It appears the ignorance here is not just with Christians. As you say, M-Eve and Eve are not synonyms so let’s not post as if they were.
Click to expand...
Who posted that they were?

This is worth reading and may clear confusion: What, if anything, is a Mitochondrial Eve?
 
Last edited:
edwest211 said:
This counters what the Church is telling us.
Click to expand...
Since I am Buddhist, that is not something I am very concerned with. Your religion does not get a free pass in the world.

Catholics and Buddhists agree on the material components of a human being, the physical body. We disagree on the immaterial components. Buddhists do not believe in a soul; Catholics do not believe in samskaras (karma-formations).

Science does not say anything about either souls or samskaras. Those additional parts can be taught in religion classes, not science classes.
 
Actually I am wondering that how one can prove that uncaused cause has to be intelligent.
 
STT said:
Actually I am wondering that how one can prove that uncaused cause has to be intelligent.
Click to expand...
There’s lots wrong with the “un-caused cause”. Along your line of thought:
  1. It doesn’t have to be intelligent
  2. There can be more than one
  3. It does not have to exist now
  4. It could be random
  5. It does not have to be omnipotent
  6. It does not have to be omniscient
In addition, the entire argument is a logical fallacy, and suffers from special pleading. Further, the cause must have a medium. No one on philosophy takes the argument seriously.
 
Bradskii said:
Who posted that they were?
Click to expand...
Some apologists in this thread claim that M-Eve (or Y-Adam) proves all humans evolved from one ancestor, which fits with the concept of Original Sin. This is not true, and completely unnecessary. The Catechism states that there was one and only one human being given a soul at some point in our past. This man (or woman) rejected God (first sin). No one else had a soul, even though thousands or even millions could have been alive at the time. All other genetic lines died out.

You don’t need Y-Adam or M-Eve to justify this. It’s easy. For example, about 1 in 16 people today are descended from Charlemagne. Get some of Charlemagne’s DNA, test everyone alive today, then kill or sterilize those males that do not have his Y-Chromosome (patrilinear descent). Bingo - declare Charlemagne as the first human with a soul, and Original Sin is justified.

I don’t know why Christians on this site are pushing that. The point is not that Original Sin is biologically possible, it’s that you have to come up with crazy scenarios like the above to incorporate Evolution into Christian dogma. It becomes really silly and so improbable that it should just be given up.
 
edwest211 said:
Evolution explicitly denies God and any other god. That’s what’s been going on here for years.
Click to expand...
Evolution doesn’t say anything about any supernatural power. It says that the diversity of life on Earth can be explained by (among other things) genetic mutation, natural selection, population growth, and time.

It’s your hangup about God and Evolution. Evolution DOES say the diversity of life can be explained WITHOUT the supernatural. But so does EVERY other theory. The theory of electricity, for example, doesn’t disprove God. But it DOES show that you can turn on a light without a supernatural being involved.

But if you define God as that which caused the diversity of life, 6000 years ago from scratch. Well, I then CAN use Evolution to prove you wrong. For example, I invent a hammer. You claim only God can nail two boards together. Well, I can use my hammer to prove you wrong. But that is YOUR issue. The hammer is just a hammer. You are the one making the mistake.
 
Not true. I promote what the Church actually tells us and I post supporting documents. You are arguing with the Church, not me. The Church does not have limits like science does. The Church can combine scientific information with Divine Revelation.

All I’m seeing here is some fearful people who think that some Christian will do an ‘end run’ and get God - any god - into the classroom. That’'s not me. Regarding evolution, I only believe what the Church is telling us. This is not about what I personally decided. Science, as described here, is the only source of true knowledge. The Church says otherwise.
 
LateCatholic said:
40.png
edwest211:
Evolution explicitly denies God and any other god. That’s what’s been going on here for years.
Click to expand...
Evolution doesn’t say anything about any supernatural power. It says that the diversity of life on Earth can be explained by (among other things) genetic mutation, natural selection, population growth, and time.

It’s your hangup about God and Evolution. Evolution DOES say the diversity of life can be explained WITHOUT the supernatural. But so does EVERY other theory. The theory of electricity, for example, doesn’t disprove God. But it DOES show that you can turn on a light without a supernatural being involved.
Click to expand...
Well, actually, neither the “diversity of life” nor “EVERY other theory” can be used to resolve the question of the supernatural until the question of a sufficient explanation for the material world can be answered.

Big Bang cosmology gets us to the beginning of space, time, matter and energy, but it doesn’t provide anything like a sufficient explanation. It certainly doesn’t rule out the necessity of the supernatural. You are jumping the gun just a little.

Let us anticipate the “god of the gaps” objection here, and point out that, until the question of a completely sufficient explanation is resolved, the “god of the gaps” is, itself, susceptible to a science of the gaps retort. So that gets us, precisely, no where.

Neither the diversity of life nor any other theory completely explain anything until a completely sufficient explanation for everything is achieved.
 
LateCatholic said:
40.png
STT:
Actually I am wondering that how one can prove that uncaused cause has to be intelligent.
Click to expand...
There’s lots wrong with the “un-caused cause”. Along your line of thought:
  1. It doesn’t have to be intelligent
  2. There can be more than one
  3. It does not have to exist now
  4. It could be random
  5. It does not have to be omnipotent
  6. It does not have to be omniscient
In addition, the entire argument is a logical fallacy, and suffers from special pleading. Further, the cause must have a medium. No one on philosophy takes the argument seriously.
Click to expand...
That was an awful mess of assertions. Care to make at least one argument for one of them? Or are you content with proof by assertion, appeal to ridicule, or just plain bandwagon logic?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top