Skip to content

ScienceInTheBible.Net - From Cal

Political Discussion
479 16 10.9k
  • Why would a science show talk about an "intelligent designer"?

  • Lol now I am angry and just a fall gamer, lol. You realize that was a trailer right?

    Neil DeGraaae Tyson is great

    What scientific merit is there to intelligent design?

  • Why would a science show talk about an "intelligent designer"?

    @logicisforsquares said:

    Why would a science show talk about an "intelligent designer"?

    why not? Stephen Hawking even attempts to from his book "Theory of Everything"

    @mld-woody said:

    Lol now I am angry and just a fall gamer, lol. You realize that was a trailer right?

    Neil DeGraaae Tyson is great

    What scientific merit is there to intelligent design?

    I would just let that statement rest on its own merit and marvel at its total ignorance.....

  • Tell me then. I am interested in hearing the best scientific case for god making everything in 6 days. What peer reviewed articles are there of this that provide irrefutable evidence for intelligent design. What scientific case can be made that outweighs evolution?

  • Arrogant too.....

    I am completely ok with leaving that one alone.....you scientist priests proudly claim as fairy stories

    while expecting the world to believe in your evolution faith that is as empty as the unobserved "billions of years ago" assumptions....

    I would point out to you to look at the "observable " proof of things like say, air or water.... or the ever expanding growth of the universe...

    you tell me then, from where did they come - how did it start?

    humility is a good thing too sometimes - but lost on you

  • LOL Diehard

  • Arguments from ignorance

    Eugenie Scott, along with Glenn Branch and other critics, has argued that many points raised by intelligent design proponents are arguments from ignorance. In the argument from ignorance, a lack of evidence for one view is erroneously argued to constitute proof of the correctness of another view. Scott and Branch say that intelligent design is an argument from ignorance because it relies on a lack of knowledge for its conclusion: lacking a natural explanation for certain specific aspects of evolution, we assume intelligent cause. They contend most scientists would reply that the unexplained is not unexplainable, and that "we don't know yet" is a more appropriate response than invoking a cause outside science. Particularly, Michael Behe's demands for ever more detailed explanations of the historical evolution of molecular systems seem to assume a false dichotomy, where either evolution or design is the proper explanation, and any perceived failure of evolution becomes a victory for design. Scott and Branch also contend that the supposedly novel contributions proposed by intelligent design proponents have not served as the basis for any productive scientific research.[126]

    In his conclusion to the Kitzmiller trial, Judge Jones wrote that "ID is at bottom premised upon a false dichotomy, namely, that to the extent evolutionary theory is discredited, ID is confirmed." This same argument had been put forward to support creation science at the McLean v. Arkansas trial which found it was "contrived dualism", the false premise of a "two-model approach". Behe's argument of irreducible complexity puts forward negative arguments against evolution but does not make any positive scientific case for intelligent design. It fails to allow for scientific explanations continuing to be found, as has been the case with several examples previously put forward as supposed cases of irreducible complexity.[127]

  • Crap. I have the munchies and some chores...but I lol'd, and now I have to watch that

    woody video again later. LOL !

    Diehard nailed it !

  • We have left over evidence for evolution. We watch it happen in real time in bacteria and viruses. We can see it over generations in some animals.

    You are really going to equate faith in a man in the sky making everything in a week to "faith" in the scientific and peer reviewed evidence and experiments over decades that have lead us to the scientific theory of evolution? That is mind-boggling.

  • Really, someone, anyone, state the best scientific evidence that is available for the Christian idea of the origin story.

    Or, for the more religion removed intelligent design case. Which is still basically a god leaving his/her/its imprint on the living world in some way.

    What proof or evidence is there for either of those two things?

    Sit there and post videos, call me stupid, do whatever idiotic shit you like. But if you cant even sit here and defend your own beliefs then maybe you should take some time and reflect on them yourself...

  • Really, someone, anyone, state the best scientific evidence that is available for the Christian idea of the origin story.

    Or, for the more religion removed intelligent design case. Which is still basically a god leaving his/her/its imprint on the living world in some way.

    What proof or evidence is there for either of those two things?

    Sit there and post videos, call me stupid, do whatever idiotic shit you like. But if you cant even sit here and defend your own beliefs then maybe you should take some time and reflect on them yourself...

    @mld-woody said:

    Really, someone, anyone, state the best scientific evidence that is available for the Christian idea of the origin story.

    Or, for the more religion removed intelligent design case. Which is still basically a god leaving his/her/its imprint on the living world in some way.

    What proof or evidence is there for either of those two things?

    Sit there and post videos, call me stupid, do whatever idiotic shit you like. But if you cant even sit here and defend your own beliefs then maybe you should take some time and reflect on them yourself...

    I am going to start a belief that the tooth fairy was behind the Big Bang. I mean, there are questions about evolution so that absolutely means that the tooth fairy started it all.

  • @mld-woody said:

    Really, someone, anyone, state the best scientific evidence that is available for the Christian idea of the origin story.

    Or, for the more religion removed intelligent design case. Which is still basically a god leaving his/her/its imprint on the living world in some way.

    What proof or evidence is there for either of those two things?

    Sit there and post videos, call me stupid, do whatever idiotic shit you like. But if you cant even sit here and defend your own beliefs then maybe you should take some time and reflect on them yourself...

    I am going to start a belief that the tooth fairy was behind the Big Bang. I mean, there are questions about evolution so that absolutely means that the tooth fairy started it all.

    @logicisforsquares said:

    I am going to start a belief that the tooth fairy was behind the Big Bang. I mean, there are questions about evolution so that absolutely means that the tooth fairy started it all.

    How old is your book with the tooth fairy origin story though? That is the difference between a religion and a cult

  • Give it a few years. and I think I will be rolling in that naive Retard money.

  • like I said, arrogant.....

    and ad hominems aside, I answered honestly dude....

  • I answered honestly as well.

    I am just waiting for whatever evidence you can come up with.

    I just want to people actually try to support their beliefs.

  • What is wrong with someone believing in the tooth fairy being behind the Big Bang? I hope Fox News writes about how Toothfairians are being persecuted.

  • Quote -

    I answered honestly as well.

    I am just waiting for whatever evidence you can come up with.

    spoken like the two liner sychophant you are lol 😛

  • Alright FairHooker, I am done. Believe whatever you want. Free country.

    But don't drag down scientific theories to the level of creationism. Don't equate it to nothing better than faith. Especially when you can't even present anything to support your beliefs other than faith.

  • Every time I've ever exploded 1 big thing, the result perfect spheres - each sphere unique in it's composition and make-up, sharing nothing in common with each other, other than their proximity.

    Also, after the explosion, total amnesia as to what caused the explosion, and no evidence of what the spheres composed prior to the explosion.

    a7b108e8dca865d2972094197beaa7fedadf0c15