The K M Links Game - November 2024 Week...
Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Intelligent Design?
20 Answers
Avatar Image
Theland
Intelligent Design?
Richard Dawkins has no idea where the universe came from but dismisses I.D.
Can't give you a link but YouTube has this from Prof Stephen C Meyer.
"Amazing seminar on Intelligent Design by Stephen Meyer."
Don't say you got bored, it's better than anything on horizon and similar science programmes on TV, Discovery etc.
17:56 Sat 19th Sep 2015Subscribe Report
Theland
Intelligent Design?
Richard Dawkins has no idea where the universe came from but dismisses I.D.
Can't give you a link but YouTube has this from Prof Stephen C Meyer.
"Amazing seminar on Intelligent Design by Stephen Meyer."
Don't say you got bored, it's better than anything on horizon and similar science programmes on TV, Discovery etc.
17:56 Sat 19th Sep 2015Subscribe Report
Answers
1 to 20 of 20
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Theland. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
Theists have no idea where their god came from but insist that the most complex thing in their Universe was there from the start.
They talk about "watches needing watchmakers" meaning that something complex must have been designed by something even more complex, but have no proposition to explain the original complexity required by their hypothesis.
Intelligent Design is inane.
They talk about "watches needing watchmakers" meaning that something complex must have been designed by something even more complex, but have no proposition to explain the original complexity required by their hypothesis.
Intelligent Design is inane.
The first cause of life (I assume you mean life rather than the universe) is simple. Given time the elements combine into that which reproduces itself (but is still not yet live) and with each reproduction granges gradually (evolves) and grows ever more complex until that which is defined as life emerges.
We already know that the universe is awash with the building blocks, and is a vast place, so somewhere (probably many somewheres) life was bound to emerge as soon as it was theoretically possible.
What is more important is that no one has tackled the issue of the first cause of some speculated intelligent designer.
If Mr. Meyer makes any good points feel free to state them for discussion.
We already know that the universe is awash with the building blocks, and is a vast place, so somewhere (probably many somewheres) life was bound to emerge as soon as it was theoretically possible.
What is more important is that no one has tackled the issue of the first cause of some speculated intelligent designer.
If Mr. Meyer makes any good points feel free to state them for discussion.
//Well none of you addresses the First Cause.
Was there one?//
Good question. Why didn't you just say so in the First Place?
The sad truth is that most likely know one no's . . . and perhaps no one ever will. The very fact that the question can even be asked implies the billions of years of evolution required for the development of a being with the capacity to so much as formulate such a question. But if you insist on an answer anyway...
Why does anything exist at all? Evidently, nothing is . . . impossible. How can there possibly be nothing so long as something, anything at all, exists? Even a beginning. Well that's certainly something . . . isn't it though?
Why is there this need to create stories whenever a legitimate answer is not immediately forthcoming, or worse still, for believing someone else's story when the god they invoke provides no better answer to the question at hand?
You seek answers. All well and good. This is AnswerBank after all, is it not? But then, answers, such as they are, are only as good as your understanding. And you shouldn't have to purchase (or provide) a 'bill of goods' in the bargain. Don't let them blow the lights out and kill the last remaining spark with their, "Well there you go lad, God did it then, didn't He?"
Was there one?//
Good question. Why didn't you just say so in the First Place?
The sad truth is that most likely know one no's . . . and perhaps no one ever will. The very fact that the question can even be asked implies the billions of years of evolution required for the development of a being with the capacity to so much as formulate such a question. But if you insist on an answer anyway...
Why does anything exist at all? Evidently, nothing is . . . impossible. How can there possibly be nothing so long as something, anything at all, exists? Even a beginning. Well that's certainly something . . . isn't it though?
Why is there this need to create stories whenever a legitimate answer is not immediately forthcoming, or worse still, for believing someone else's story when the god they invoke provides no better answer to the question at hand?
You seek answers. All well and good. This is AnswerBank after all, is it not? But then, answers, such as they are, are only as good as your understanding. And you shouldn't have to purchase (or provide) a 'bill of goods' in the bargain. Don't let them blow the lights out and kill the last remaining spark with their, "Well there you go lad, God did it then, didn't He?"
/Nobody has even looked at Stephen C Meyers lecture./
Really you surprise me, not even the advocates of intelligent design?
S.C. Meyers is trying to prove a concept and is selective in evidence selection. He is in fact an incompoetent scientist and doesn't seem to understand what science is...a common enough phenomenom amongst believers unsurpisingly.
Really you surprise me, not even the advocates of intelligent design?
S.C. Meyers is trying to prove a concept and is selective in evidence selection. He is in fact an incompoetent scientist and doesn't seem to understand what science is...a common enough phenomenom amongst believers unsurpisingly.
One way to watch this is to not watch the first 1.05.52, and summarise that bit as telling us that the replication of life is about the replication of genetic information.
He then from 1.05.53 tells us that information technology as we know it today, such as computer programs, are created by humans working at companies like Microsoft, then makes allusions of the processes of life as being very similar to a computer.
He then tells us that because computers were designed by intelligence, that life must have been designed by intelligence.
Basically he gets life and computers mixed up a bit.
He then from 1.05.53 tells us that information technology as we know it today, such as computer programs, are created by humans working at companies like Microsoft, then makes allusions of the processes of life as being very similar to a computer.
He then tells us that because computers were designed by intelligence, that life must have been designed by intelligence.
Basically he gets life and computers mixed up a bit.
If your beliefs about where life came from is based on 'simple faith' then there is no argument against that. But by citing that video, talking about 'intelligence', 'evidence' and admitting your confusion about it all it looked like originally you wanted to bring more than just 'faith' to the table here.
If it's just about informing people about people's faith about how life was created then I personally would have been much more engaged in a video of a nice children's choir singing "All Things Bright and Beautiful", the same simple message but very nicely delivered and more engaging and less confusing than whatever that other thing was!
If it's just about informing people about people's faith about how life was created then I personally would have been much more engaged in a video of a nice children's choir singing "All Things Bright and Beautiful", the same simple message but very nicely delivered and more engaging and less confusing than whatever that other thing was!
@Theland,
//Well he is a cell biologist and obviously pretty clever to a layman like me. //
If you don't understand the evidence well enough to argue the ins and outs of it *in detail* and in your own words then just don't bother to even cite it. You do yourself no favours: in essence, you are making a central claim of "I believe God created the universe and designed all the lifeforms to fill it" then say "here is my supporting evidence; I don't understand half of what he says but he's awfully clever, so you need to be even cleverer to stand a chance of knocking down my opening statement".
I must reiterate, that's in essence what your OP is doing, not literally what you said.
You omitted to ask "may I borrow the 90 minutes of your remaining lifespan to watch this before you attempt to counter my statement?"
The purpose of giving the general gist of a video of that length is that you spare people like me, who first encountered the debate around ID in the 1990s the time that would be wasted in ploughing through the same, tired, old ideas again.
You don't need to explain ID. Just reference it; it is on the internet, neophytes can glean all they need to know from there.
//Yes mine is a simple faith.
I am a simple man. //
Yes, well you are quite welcome to believe your simple faith and be a simple man. But why insist that other people adopt the same beliefs and be as simple as you?
Do you realise that you are, in a subtle way, imposing your will on other people? What about their rights to live as *they* please?
(I am expanding to broader, probably off-topic areas like why do certain churches insist on meddling with the working of the state or the entire nation?)
//Well he is a cell biologist and obviously pretty clever to a layman like me. //
If you don't understand the evidence well enough to argue the ins and outs of it *in detail* and in your own words then just don't bother to even cite it. You do yourself no favours: in essence, you are making a central claim of "I believe God created the universe and designed all the lifeforms to fill it" then say "here is my supporting evidence; I don't understand half of what he says but he's awfully clever, so you need to be even cleverer to stand a chance of knocking down my opening statement".
I must reiterate, that's in essence what your OP is doing, not literally what you said.
You omitted to ask "may I borrow the 90 minutes of your remaining lifespan to watch this before you attempt to counter my statement?"
The purpose of giving the general gist of a video of that length is that you spare people like me, who first encountered the debate around ID in the 1990s the time that would be wasted in ploughing through the same, tired, old ideas again.
You don't need to explain ID. Just reference it; it is on the internet, neophytes can glean all they need to know from there.
//Yes mine is a simple faith.
I am a simple man. //
Yes, well you are quite welcome to believe your simple faith and be a simple man. But why insist that other people adopt the same beliefs and be as simple as you?
Do you realise that you are, in a subtle way, imposing your will on other people? What about their rights to live as *they* please?
(I am expanding to broader, probably off-topic areas like why do certain churches insist on meddling with the working of the state or the entire nation?)
@Theland
Actually, a better approach might have been to say "hey, folks, I've just watched this video, about intelligent design but I didn't understand the part about ______; can someone explain it to me?"
I mean, who knows, it might go over everyone else's head too. At least, that way, you wouldn't be alone in your plight.
Actually, a better approach might have been to say "hey, folks, I've just watched this video, about intelligent design but I didn't understand the part about ______; can someone explain it to me?"
I mean, who knows, it might go over everyone else's head too. At least, that way, you wouldn't be alone in your plight.
1 to 20 of 20
Latest Posts
Starmer's Approval Rating Plummets,
News3 mins ago
ChatterBank6 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles11 mins ago
ChatterBank15 mins ago
