Jump to: Board index
March 20th, 2012, 10:58 pm
March 22nd, 2012, 7:28 pm
March 23rd, 2012, 1:04 pm
Xris wrote:UniversalAlien wrote:Admittedly I have not read all 17 pages in this thread so I do not know all that has been posted so far but I still thought........
You have to define intelligent first.
April 8th, 2012, 7:22 pm
God does not play dice with the universe.
April 10th, 2012, 12:49 am
April 10th, 2012, 2:19 am
Xris wrote:Nature created us and that can not be disputed. It determined the outcome and we are the result. If you look at the process from a human perspective it appears to be predetermined by a set of laws and formula that could be repeated over and over again if similar circumstances should occur. The real question we must ask, is nature independent of real intention from an external force, separate from nature? If a formula exists does it require a sentient creature to invent that formula. Religion muddies the water it is driven by desire to find god not a desire for the truth.
April 11th, 2012, 2:09 am
Juice wrote:This thread is for those who wish to discuss and debate the science behind “Intelligent Design Theory” (ID). I would like to remind those, wishing to participate, that this is a science forum and although ID has been linked to religious creation allegories this thread is strictly for the discussion and debate of the science.
I would encourage those interested to ask questions, particularly since the science behind ID has taken a more modern approach with its concepts rooted in some intriguing science methodologies.
I would also encourage discussion and debate of the philosophies of science and how those philosophies could affect our reasoning behind ID, and of what may constitute constructive considerations to scientific reasoning especially in this modern political environment.
I am no expert! But, I am an expert in curiosity. I believe this exploration will reveal some exciting and surprising observations. Thank You for participating.
April 14th, 2012, 3:55 am
Juice wrote: This thread is for those who wish to discuss and debate the science behind “Intelligent Design Theory” (ID). I would like to remind those, wishing to participate, that this is a science forum and although ID has been linked to religious creation allegories this thread is strictly for the discussion and debate of the science.
April 14th, 2012, 3:24 pm
Fanman wrote:The reason I say that nature cannot produce life on other planets in our solar system; at least not life like us, is because there is no such life on those planets, nor are they suitable for life like us or other life on earth to begin there. Billions of years in the future if the right conditions for nature to thrive on those planets occurs then we may see life on them, or if the intelligent designer decides to create life on those planets. I re-iterate, It would seem that we are extremely lucky to have life on our planet, while all of the other planets in the solar system do not, why did our planet have those conditions, when all of the other planets surrounding us do not? Questions which can only be answered by saying "we were lucky."
April 17th, 2012, 10:54 pm
Jklint wrote:Jokers Wild! This is SO over the top that even Monty Python would find this inspirational. They were always their own best professors who never required footnotes or reasons for anything. The genius of comedy and farce was their only inspiration and fully at their service. Nice to know you're equally talented. You should send them the script. The less concerned with reality the better the performance will be. In short, I can do nothing less than salute your crystalline brilliance which remains unutterably devoid and unpolluted by any viral reality!! This must be perfection and proof that we are indeed in God's image. Of course that image may give another alien life form acid reflux but that's beside the point!
April 20th, 2012, 2:49 am
May 9th, 2012, 12:23 am
May 15th, 2012, 4:29 am
May 22nd, 2012, 7:36 pm
Schaps wrote:Ultimately, this discussion leads to the "first cause" argument -which is NOT resolve-able! My suggestion is that the individual simply goes with whatever precept seems more "comfortable" because - in the end, that is all that matters.
June 18th, 2012, 5:27 pm
Groktruth wrote:.....This I have studied, practiced, proven, tested. Applied to Intelligent Design, it is clearly true beyond reasonable doubt. Evolutionary idea of adaptation and modification by descent are also very probably true. Natural selection is possible, but unlikely in most situations. Artificial Selection by an Intelligent Designer is the mechanism most likely behind most biological diversity, as is clearly the case with dogs and cattle, corn, and crops. This is the report of any and all who bother to play by philosophical rules, especially the philosophy of science. Starting with the rule that most men are dishonest, so that most who call themselves scientists are liars, usually self-deceived. Check their knowledge and application of the rules.....