The design argument

Originally posted by sonship
JS357, if ID is not falsifiable how come so much effort has been advanced to in fact [b]falsify it ?

Would you say, for instance, biologist Ken Miller has not put forth much effort to falsify Intelligent Design ?[/b]

I don't think scientists have focused on falsifying ID, when doing science. I think they have focused on understanding the natural world. Lots of scientists are theists, after all.

Ken Miller seems to focus on defending science, as at:

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/CSHL-2009.pdf

So I'd say his motivation is to keep science methodologically naturalistic and keep ID out of science class.

There are good reasons to believe that ID and YEC enthusiasts want their ideas taught in science class, see Kitzmiller v. Dover School Board.

Do you think ID should be taught in science class? What about YEC-ism?

I will be gone for a few days. Merry Christmas!

Originally posted by JS357
I don't think scientists have focused on falsifying ID, when doing science. I think they have focused on understanding the natural world. Lots of scientists are theists, after all.

Ken Miller seems to focus on defending science, as at:

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/CSHL-2009.pdf

So I'd say his motivation is to keep science methodologically na ...[text shortened]... taught in science class? What about YEC-ism?

I will be gone for a few days. Merry Christmas!

If the theory of evolution and billions of years is taught in school then YEC-ism should be given equal time.

Originally posted by RJHinds
If the theory of evolution and billions of years is taught in school then YEC-ism should be given equal time.

Maybe it would if you had anything more than just quacking biased religious based politicized video's that are nothing and I do mean nothing, more than opinion pieces that they know full well has been refuted a hundred times over.

The REAL reason there are no YEC papers is because they are not submitting them, not because of some vast atheistic conspiracy as much as I personally would LOVE to see such a thing, it in fact does not exist.

Only your delusional thinking, actually, the thinking of other people, THEIR delusional politicized thinking is a scourge on science and rational thinking.

Originally posted by KellyJay
"you believe that the universe must be designed because it had a beginning.....and you believe it had a beginning because the designer you believe in says it did. "

The assumption you made was that my beliefs are based on, must be on my
faith about the designer I have. Why else would you write this? It sure
didn't come from my posts since they didn't p ...[text shortened]... iew has nothing to do with the things I
have been saying, but only on what you think I believe.

in reply to my question - why does the universe require a designer and yet the designer doesnt require a designer - you replied..

"I believe the universe has a beginning and my God doesn't."

so you are quite clearly stating that the universe is designed because it has a beginning. your evidence comes from the words of god in the bible.


no 'assumption' was made kelly. these are your beliefs, as written by your own fair hand.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
in reply to my question - why does the universe require a designer and yet the designer doesnt require a designer - you replied..

"I believe the universe has a beginning and my God doesn't."

so you are quite clearly stating that the universe is designed because it has a beginning. your evidence comes from the words of god in the bible.


no 'assumption' was made kelly. these are your beliefs, as written by your own fair hand.

You asked why I believe one did and the other did not, I told you the truth.
Yes, I believe the universe did have a beginning, and I've given non
scriptural reasons for that. I've also given reasons I believe it is designed
and also gave no scriptural reasons for that as well.

You asked why I felt one was created the other not, my answer was very
clear and plain. Not sure why you find fault, and why you bring in the
Bible since I have not. You really should learn to stick with the arguments
being presented to you instead of those you want to make up and fight
against.

Originally posted by RJHinds
If the theory of evolution and billions of years is taught in school then YEC-ism should be given equal time.

Not in science class. Perhaps in some sort of civics class covering the first amendment. In the us that is.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You asked why I believe one did and the other did not, I told you the truth.
Yes, I believe the universe did have a beginning, and I've given non
scriptural reasons for that. I've also given reasons I believe it is designed
and also gave no scriptural reasons for that as well.

You asked why I felt one was created the other not, my answer was very
cle ...[text shortened]... h the arguments
being presented to you instead of those you want to make up and fight
against.

i can only assume we have our wires crossed here. help me unravel them.


to your mind what is the number one piece of evidence, that to you proves the universe had a beginning?

Originally posted by JS357
Not in science class. Perhaps in some sort of civics class covering the first amendment. In the us that is.

In science classes evolution is taught as a viable alternative to creationism. Should creationism be taught with the same veracity as a viable alternative to evolution?

Originally posted by josephw
In science classes evolution is taught as a viable alternative to creationism. Should creationism be taught with the same veracity as a viable alternative to evolution?

Well that depends ... if you want to retard the scientific curiosity of the next generation then go right ahead, teach them all about talking snakes, magic trees of knowledge, and how the first human male was made out of (twinkle) dust, and the first female a rib.

Otherwise no.

Originally posted by Agerg
Well that depends ... if you want to retard the scientific curiosity of the next generation then go ahead, teach them about talking snakes and magic.

Otherwise no.

To bad then that evolution is taugh. Biggest hoax of all time. Renders the adherent spiritually dead to the truth of God.

Originally posted by josephw
To bad then that evolution is taugh. Biggest hoax of all time. Renders the adherent spiritually dead to the truth of God.

Yeah ... snakes used to have vocal chords, and legs! These folks agree too ...

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/talkingsnake.html

Originally posted by Agerg
Yeah ... snakes used to have vocal chords, and legs! These folks agree too ...

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/talkingsnake.html

C'mon Agerg, you're not that dumb are you? Why don't we try to assume of each other at least the minimum amount of necessary intelligence to have a decent discussion?

We could sit here all day long finding any number of people all around the world that believe all manner of bs.

Doesn't prove evolution is real, nor does it prove there is no God.

Originally posted by josephw
In science classes evolution is taught as a viable alternative to creationism. Should creationism be taught with the same veracity as a viable alternative to evolution?

No. At most the controversy should be taught in a civics class section on the first amenvdment. Incidentally we should look at how evolution is taught - as a theory pr a fact.

Originally posted by josephw
C'mon Agerg, you're not that dumb are you? Why don't we try to assume of each other at least the minimum amount of necessary intelligence to have a decent discussion?

We could sit here all day long finding any number of people all around the world that believe all manner of bs.

Doesn't prove evolution is real, nor does it prove there is no God.

Well if you want to talk about giving creationism as equal a footing in the science classroom as evolution then you really should be committed to the talking snake theory. Daft it all sounds when you think about it for a moment, this is still the crap you want teachers to carry on peddling to youngsters.

As for not proving evolution is real; if we haven't already proved that so far then by the same token we haven't proved that gravity is real either.

And as for proving there isn't a god,Reveal Hidden Content I agree - though some notions of a god (like yours) are associated to talking snakes and magic apple trees etc... this does not prove there does not exist some sensible notion of a god, that exists in reality.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
i can only assume we have our wires crossed here. help me unravel them.


to your mind what is the number one piece of evidence, that to you proves the universe had a beginning?

The fact that it would all be dust and tiny parts due to winding down over
endless time.