Questioner Posted January 19, 2007 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 92 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/10/2006 Status: Offline Author Share Posted January 19, 2007 Some people revere science so much that they may as well bow down to it as it has become their god. The tragedy is that God is the God of science. It is his work that constitutes what science is, and all scientists spend their time doing is uncovering what God has done! Too bad they don't see it that way. Their worship stops at the feet of the created and fails to go beyond it. Such short-sightedness. I have no regard for that, but I do rejoice in my God everytime scientists discover more of His glory. Every single Christian scientist disagrees with you and would tell you that it's not your place to choose what science is or is not, what constitutes science and what doesn't. We already have a definition of science and if you want ID to fit that definition you have a lot of work to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Floatingaxe Posted January 19, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 62 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 9,613 Content Per Day: 1.45 Reputation: 656 Days Won: 9 Joined: 03/11/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 05/31/1952 Share Posted January 19, 2007 Some people revere science so much that they may as well bow down to it as it has become their god. The tragedy is that God is the God of science. It is his work that constitutes what science is, and all scientists spend their time doing is uncovering what God has done! Too bad they don't see it that way. Their worship stops at the feet of the created and fails to go beyond it. Such short-sightedness. I have no regard for that, but I do rejoice in my God everytime scientists discover more of His glory. Every single Christian scientist disagrees with you and would tell you that it's not your place to choose what science is or is not, what constitutes science and what doesn't. We already have a definition of science and if you want ID to fit that definition you have a lot of work to do. What's your next joke? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaturnV Posted January 19, 2007 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 156 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/18/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted January 19, 2007 Scientific theories are hypotheses from which can be deduced statements testable by observation; if the appropriate experimental observations falsify these statements, the hypothesis is refuted. If a hypothesis survives efforts to falsify it, it may be tentatively accepted. What predictions could be made from the ID hypothesis, and how could one test or falsify them? What findings would confirm said predictions and what would refute them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Floatingaxe Posted January 19, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 62 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 9,613 Content Per Day: 1.45 Reputation: 656 Days Won: 9 Joined: 03/11/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 05/31/1952 Share Posted January 19, 2007 Test God Almighty. See what He would do! How presumptuous! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaturnV Posted January 19, 2007 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 156 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/18/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted January 19, 2007 Test God Almighty. See what He would do! How presumptuous! I was asking a question on the scientific merits of Intelligent Design Theory, not the existence of God. If ID is as "scientific as Newton's laws," testable predictions should follow from it, just as they do from Newtonian physics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Floatingaxe Posted January 19, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 62 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 9,613 Content Per Day: 1.45 Reputation: 656 Days Won: 9 Joined: 03/11/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 05/31/1952 Share Posted January 19, 2007 Yes. Uh-huh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaturnV Posted January 19, 2007 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 156 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/18/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted January 19, 2007 Yes. Uh-huh. Was that an argument? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PBob Posted January 19, 2007 Group: Junior Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 30 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 109 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/30/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted January 19, 2007 No complaints here. That is probably why there is really no evidence for ID. Rather than support their own theory, or rather, hypothesis, IDers generally try to undermine evolution. If there is evidence for intelligent design I would like to see it. Sorry, I could not resist ... don't be offended. I am a scientist, PhD in Medical Biochemistry, (which does not qualify me for anything - I just may have a better understanding of how much we still don't know). Now my satirical point: Having lived for 65+ years on this planet I am inclined to believe with you that there is absolutely no evidence for "intelligence" - certainly not among the inhabitants. That said, put your index finger in the air and spin it around while saying "There is no intelligent design" all of this while you watch TV with your heart still breathing. Some big Bang huh? WOW...it's amazing how all this just happened all by itself. Nuf Sed Again - not meant to be nasty just to make us think.... What if the Bible is true? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Floatingaxe Posted January 19, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 62 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 9,613 Content Per Day: 1.45 Reputation: 656 Days Won: 9 Joined: 03/11/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 05/31/1952 Share Posted January 19, 2007 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaturnV Posted January 19, 2007 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 156 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/18/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted January 19, 2007 I was asking a question on the scientific merits of Intelligent Design Theory, not the existence of God. If ID is as "scientific as Newton's laws," testable predictions should follow from it, just as they do from Newtonian physics. The proof for ID (and of course my personal belief of special creation by God) is very simple. As i've said before, look at your computer monitor. How did your computer come to be? If I made the claim that your computer just popped into existence spontaneously, you'd call me a nut, because it is so obviously engineered and built by an intelligent human being. Your body is no different. I am well aware of your belief, Pailey's argument from Design, and the argument from incredulity. That is not what I asked for. I asked for criteria to test those assertions, and a testable, falsafiable prediction that could be drawn from Intelligent Design "Theory." If you can provide those, perhaps I would be willing to consider its scientific merit. It is being pushed as a scientific explanation after all, is it not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts