Intelligent Design and The Holy Bible

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
wow thats bitter, waz up, can you not handle any alternatives to materialism? such a narrow minded perspective is hard to respect. The difference between creationists and materialists is that creationists have not limited their search for truth to unintelligent agencies.

The argument here is not over whether or not ID or creationism is true.
Or whether or not people should believe it.

But whether or not it's science.

It isn't.

As you say that naturalism (materialism, of the "everything is made of stuff not
spirit" kind) that is the bedrock of the scientific world view is not the same as
the creationist view. You believe in an alternative idea.

Ok, fine, but stop calling it science. Or claiming that science supports or agrees with
your position.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
why dont you address the science instead of attempting rather predictably to attack the personalities behind the movement, what exactly was unscientific about Behe's assertion of intelligent design and irreducible complexity?

where have i attacked a personality?


behe doesnt provide anything in the way of falsifiable or experimental evidence. in fact he argues that its up to evolutionists to come up with experiments to prove he is wrong, which is unscientific.
all of his main theories have been proven to be inaccurate and ill thought out. even his favorite analogy of the moustrap has been proven to be illogical.

if you think im wrong show me the science.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
where have i attacked a personality?


behe doesnt provide anything in the way of falsifiable or experimental evidence. in fact he argues that its up to evolutionists to come up with experiments to prove he is wrong, which is unscientific.
all of his main theories have been proven to be inaccurate and ill thought out. even his favorite analogy of the moustrap has been proven to be illogical.

if you think im wrong show me the science.

its not unscientific if you believe that evolution is science, for its well known and understood that the theory itself cannot be subject to falsification so make with the reddies Jeeves, how is irreducible complexity unscientific?

Originally posted by RJHinds
The atheist and evilutionist Richard Dawkins has stated that Intelligent Design could be true. Why would he now state such a thing that is opposite from what he teaches?

The Instructor

indeed, like me, he has realized that everything he is teaching could be completely wrong! it is good to doubt your own intelligence/works in order to attempt to surpass yourself and the knowledge you hold. some do it just to keep an open mind to cover all the odds and ends

i don't believe that dawkins thinks ID is true, but he acknowledges the possibility of ID which i agree with 🙂

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
its not unscientific if you believe that evolution is science, for its well known and understood that the theory itself cannot be subject to falsification so make with the reddies Jeeves, how is irreducible complexity unscientific?

evolution is falsifiable. scientists make predictions based upon their theory of evolution. so for example science predicted that humans came from apes. they predicted we would have the same chromosomes. even when it was discovered that we had one less than apes, science predicted that the missing chromosome would be there and eventually it was found. if it wasnt found then we would know they were wrong. if we didnt find various missing links we would know we were wrong. if fossils were found in different geological strata than we predict we would know we were wrong. if carbon dating give us different results to what we thought we would know we were wrong. evolution has lots of proof, proof that has been tested, if it failed the tests we would know something was up.

irreducible complexity has done none of this. could you point me towards any scientific experiments or data the show irreducible complexity?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
evolution is falsifiable. scientists make predictions based upon their theory of evolution. so for example science predicted that humans came from apes. they predicted we would have the same chromosomes. even when it was discovered that we had one less than apes, science predicted that the missing chromosome would be there and eventually it was found. i ...[text shortened]... . could you point me towards any scientific experiments or data the show irreducible complexity?

what complete and utter tosh, the actual amount of so called evidence, that is evidence you can actually touch with your hands for the alleged transition from human to apes fits on a coffee table and even then its subject to interpretation. Even attempts to prove transmuation of species have failed, Drosophila, the fruit fly experiments, literally thousands of mutations over decades produced no new species, the best that you can proffer and lets be clear this is actually the best that you have is that ecoli bacteria can synthesise sugars. They have not changed into something else, they still remain ecoli bacteria,

You have not a single observable instance of Darwinian evolution, that is transmutaion from one species to another and that is why your theory cannot be subject to falsification for it relies on unobserved phenomena, now you can accept the fact and stop pretending that its anything other than what it is.

Predicted, that's a laugh, I dont believe that, hard to respect it is, you people believe that the whale, evolved in the sea, came to land and then went back to the sea, you believe the whales nearest relative is a Hippo and the reason that it went back to the sea is that aquatic dear have been observed jumping into water to evade predators, you are mental!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
what complete and utter tosh, the actual amount of so called evidence, that is evidence you can actually touch with your hands for the alleged transition from human to apes fits on a coffee table and even then its subject to interpretation. Even attempts to prove transmuation of species have failed, Drosophila, the fruit fly experiments, literally t ...[text shortened]... is that aquatic dear have been observed jumping into water to evade predators, you are mental!

did you enjoy your little rant?

regardless if you think there is a large enough quantity of evidence its evidence non the less.

now would you like to provide evidence of irreducible complexity and then some experiments or studies supporting it? for some reason you forgot all about it during your creationist tub thumping.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
did you enjoy your little rant?

regardless if you think there is a large enough quantity of evidence its evidence non the less.

now would you like to provide evidence of irreducible complexity and then some experiments or studies supporting it? for some reason you forgot all about it during your creationist tub thumping.

I am essentially non confrontational, i rarely enjoy battling against dogma, its tiresome, never the less, i am sure thats Hinds posted some details, Behe himself had a blog i don't know if he continues it.

Originally posted by googlefudge
The argument here is not over whether or not ID or creationism is true.
Or whether or not people should believe it.

But whether or not it's science.

It isn't.

As you say that naturalism (materialism, of the "everything is made of stuff not
spirit" kind) that is the bedrock of the scientific world view is not the same as
the creationist view ...[text shortened]... t stop calling it science. Or claiming that science supports or agrees with
your position.

Or insisting that it be taught in our schools alongside real science.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
what complete and utter tosh, the actual amount of so called evidence, that is evidence you can actually touch with your hands for the alleged transition from human to apes fits on a coffee table and even then its subject to interpretation.

Funny how you repeat this lie over and over despite being corrected many times in the past. If you had a case, you wouldn't need to lie.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
have you read the link you posted?

where is the science?
the i.d. people dont actually provide any science supporting i.d. they just [hidden]try to (thanks googlefudge)[/hidden]refute claims made by evolutionist science.
so where is the science rj? you must have something more solid than quoting evolutionists out of context, surely?

so, what scientific theories do they have?

Yes I read it. I know it is not easy for everyone to understand, especially for someone named stellspalfie, who is doing good to spell that name, much less pronounce it. What a crazy name.

The science that was conducted was explained in the papers. It is not possible to do the science on the internet, numbnuts.

The Instructor

Originally posted by googlefudge

Intelligent Design is true science too....

What? are you 8 yrs old?

You're like a little kid on the school playground stamping your foot and
throwing a tantrum.

Things are not true because you, or anyone else, asserts them.
Belief is not knowledge.

It doesn't matter how much you believe something, wishing something
was tru ...[text shortened]... at.

And this poses you a problem, because science does not support your position.
At all.

No, the entire biological sciences DO NOT say that I am wrong. I have just presented a link giving peer-reviewed and peer-edited scientific publications supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design. Biological sciences have not even come close to proving that God did not create biological life as stated in the Holy Bible. So I am right and you are wrong. 😏

The Instructor

Originally posted by stellspalfie
not sure if ive got the time to go through all the 'peer reviewed' publications listed. after having a look at the first two, we have-

m.j. behe - who's theories about complex design were proven to be non scientific famously in the dover area school board court case. where his theory was torn easily torn apart so easily that even a creationist judge ...[text shortened]... had no scientific content.

read about the Sternberg peer review controversy for more info.

Courts are incapable of deciding what is science and what is not. Courts only give opinions and unscientific opinions at that. The scientific opinions of scientist themselves are still mixed and a final decision has yet to be made on the subject, since it is still being tested and debated. I have confidence that my God and the Holy Bible will be vindicated in the end.

The instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
Courts are incapable of deciding what is science and what is not. Courts only give opinions and unscientific opinions at that. The scientific opinions of scientist themselves are still mixed and a final decision has yet to be made on the subject, since it is still being tested and debated. I have confidence that my God and the Holy Bible will be vindicated in the end.

The instructor

it wasnt a court. it was a judge, a christian apologetic judge. who when faced with the overwhelming facts had to rule that it wasnt science. watch the documentary i provided.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Yes I read it. I know it is not easy for everyone to understand, especially for someone named stellspalfie, who is doing good to spell that name, much less pronounce it. What a crazy name.

The science that was conducted was explained in the papers. It is not possible to do the science on the internet, numbnuts.

The Instructor

its two dogs names squeezed together. not that amazing or crazy.