• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split Thread Atheism and lack of belief in the afterlife

Every single drop of rain that falls into the stream near the top of the mountain ends up at the bottom. I mean, what are the odds against that? It can't possibly be random chance. Therefore there must be some conscious, intelligent force which deliberately guides them there. Stands to reason.
 
Pixel42 said:
Natural selection, like gravity, is neither random nor intelligent.
Click to expand...
Natural selection may not be but the reproduction process is not so clear cut.

A key component of evolution is the idea of reproduction with some "random" mutations. Maybe it is all deterministic and every mutation was "pre-programmed" but nobody knows.
 
psionl0 said:
The problem with saying that "ID" is not falsifiable is that "not ID" is equally unfalsifiable.
Click to expand...


Your error is...
  1. you do not know what unfalsifiable means... look it up.
  2. you are trying to shift the burden of proof... a fallacious illogic.

If ID is unfalsifiable... "not ID" is not needed for anything since ID is claptrap.

Saying "God did it" is claptrap unfalsifiable fallaciousness... QED!!! No need to do anything about "Not God did it"

Get that???


psionl0 said:
It all happens via the actions of random forces
Click to expand...

Another error... I don't think you know the difference between forces and events.


psionl0 said:
However, the existence of random forces can't be tested.
Click to expand...


Another error... and again look up the difference between force and event.


psionl0 said:
...
A key component of evolution is the idea of reproduction with some "random" mutations. Maybe it is all deterministic and every mutation was "pre-programmed" but nobody knows.
Click to expand...


:dl:
 
Last edited:
GDon said:
ID seems to have fitted the definition of "scientific hypothesis". From here: https://www.britannica.com/science/scientific-hypothesis

scientific hypothesis, an idea that proposes a tentative explanation about a phenomenon or a narrow set of phenomena observed in the natural world. The two primary features of a scientific hypothesis are falsifiability and testability, which are reflected in an “If…then” statement summarizing the idea and in the ability to be supported or refuted through observation and experimentation.​

ID was a tentative explanation about a phenomenon (IC) that was refuted through observation.
Click to expand...
You seem to be fringe resetting. The evidence has been shown to You that ID was simply a change of word for creationism, it started as creationism i.e. Not science.
 
GDon said:
Observation: the flagellum could not have evolved naturally (IC)

Hypothesis: ID

Test: can the evolutionary path for the flagellum be shown? Yes

Conclusion: the hypothesis fails.



Do you agree that this is what happened? If so, then how can you say that the ID hypothesis is not falsifable?
Click to expand...
Or as in the case of ID, this is what happened

God created everything
Therefore evolution is untrue

But that isn't science was the criticism, so they used search and replace and produced this


Intelligent designer created everything
Therefore evolution is untrue

Renaming it did not make it scientific.
 
Darat said:
You seem to be fringe resetting. The evidence has been shown to You that ID was simply a change of word for creationism, it started as creationism i.e. Not science.
Click to expand...
If you can show me that, I'd be very interested to see it. But from what I understand, Creationists used ID as a Trojan Horse to try to get doubts around evolution into the school system. Yes, they reused Creationist texts by changing "creation" to "ID" to do this, but I haven't seen evidence that ID started as creationism. It doesn't gel with the work of Behe, who accepts an old earth, the work of evolutionists generally and common descent from a single organism. Those things are certainly not part of creationism. Not saying you're wrong, but the evidence you've presented doesn't show ID started as creationism.
 
Darat said:
Or as in the case of ID, this is what happened

God created everything
Therefore evolution is untrue
Click to expand...
C'mon, that's not what ID proponents claim. They may be lying, but their arguments are far different from that. Producing strawmen versions is meaningless when one can steelman their arguments and still show the IDists are wrong anyway.

Here is Behe's explanation of ID:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe

"… 'designer' is often seen as a not-too-subtle code word for God, both by those who like the implications and by those who don't. …Like it or not, a raft of important distinctions intervene between a conclusion of design and identification of a designer. …The designer need not necessarily even be a truly 'supernatural' being. …if one wishes to be academically rigorous, one can't leap directly from design to a transcendent God.
...
For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it. I greatly respect the work of my colleagues who study the development and behavior of organisms within an evolutionary framework, and I think that evolutionary biologists have contributed enormously to our understanding of the world.​

That's the reason why ID can be such a powerful weapon against Creationists. In order to use it, they have to give up belief in a young earth and have to accept that all species evolved from a common ancestor.
 
Last edited:
GDon said:
If you can show me that, I'd be very interested to see it. But from what I understand, Creationists used ID as a Trojan Horse to try to get doubts around evolution into the school system. Yes, they reused Creationist texts by changing "creation" to "ID" to do this, but I haven't seen evidence that ID started as creationism. It doesn't gel with the work of Behe, who accepts an old earth, the work of evolutionists generally and common descent from a single organism. Those things are certainly not part of creationism. Not saying you're wrong, but the evidence you've presented doesn't show ID started as creationism.
Click to expand...

You have been given various links several times, some posts even quoted segments that covered this - that you didn't follow them when they were first posted and then the second time does not make me consider that a third time will be the charm. The water is there, it is up to you whether you decide to drink or not.

ID was never science - it was always a replacement of the word "god" and to be precise a Christian version of "god" with the word "intelligent designer".

God become intelligent designer.
Creationism became intelligent design.

The map changed, the landscape didn't.
 
GDon said:
If you can show me that, I'd be very interested to see it.
Click to expand...


WOW... just bloody WOW... you have been shown that numerous times by numerous posters... yet you persist and insist on pretending that you have not been told this and cited it and given links to it over and over again.

Just bloody astounding!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom