Intelligent design final exam:
Why do we exist?
Because it is God's plan.
Correct.
Why is the sky blue?
Because it is God's plan.
Correct.
Why is the grass green?
Because it is God's plan.
Correct.
Why don't baby chimps dance to music whereas human babies do?
Because it is God's plan.
Correct.
Evolution doesn't attempt to. You would have to look at the "Primordial soup" theory and such. There's plenty of things we don't understand about the human brain, but we're lightyears ahead of what we knew 4000 years ago about it. ID doesn't even attempt to explain why any of that happens either.
If you find some ancient tool or machine and you attribute it's design to some intelligent being, is that somehow unscientific? Why can't that same principle be applied to biology?
I wonder if all those brainiacs in their ivory towers know about this non-dancing baby chimp discovery of darrin's? I'd say that little tidbit settles the matter once-and-for-all: evolution don't make no damn sense. If it did, I should be able to youtube some dancing baby chimps.
It's completely unscientific. You're offering an explanation that's not falsifiable. You would attribute it to, say, humans in certain time period. There might be no way to test right now (ie: carbon dating might not go far back enough), but you're offering something that eventually could be tested and ruled as true or false. When your argument is about a being which itself cannot be scientifically proven to even exist, you're jumping to a completely different realm that's entirely non-scientific.
We've found tools and artifacts (i.e.: Pyramids) that we thought were fairly advanced for when they were built. But the scientific theories surrounding them (and some historical evidence found have proven and dismissed some of them) are entirely falsifiable. They're not attributed to gods or higher beings. Merely to fairly intelligent mortals.
This is not really true. The only thing ID allows for that isn't testable is God and his ultimate plan. It doesn't say don't look into it, in fact many ID believers think that continuing to study science and revealing more of the "mysteries" of the universe will ultimately prove the existence of God.
Science is the medium through which God reveals himself, etc.
It's usually strict creationists/literalists that oppose and suppress science.
i thought the bible was where god revealed himself.
Then it's not scientific. Science, or should I say, the scientific method is entirely based on testable (falsifiable) theories.
BTW, there's a reason for that. Otherwise you would have a 'everything falls back here if we can't get it yet' wildcard. Science prefers to say they don't know yet, rather than attribute it to something that cannot ever be tested and proven/disproven.
Also, if you had a God whose presence could be proven or not, then you would have something Science as we know it could work with. Not what we have today by any meaningful definition of God.
Really there is scientific proof of evolution? I didn't know that.
It is absolutely a theory. There is no scientific proof that evolution ever happened. it is based on theory and faith. much like christianity. or just the idea of intelligent design.
man was created by faith....even before man was created.
It's a hypothesis to accepting both science and the Bible.
Sorry that you may be soulless.
You keep repeating this "everything we can't explain must be intelligent design" mantra.
It's actually because we know so much about the complexity of a single cell, for example, that suggests a design that's hard to believe occured by chance.
Science never attempts to discover "why" only "how".
You sound butthurt.
You seem to be misinformed/confused. There's Evolution the event, and Evolution the theory (two different things). Evolution the event has been scientifically proven to happen. You can go back to geological strata containing evolutionary sequence of fossils that scientifically proves Evolution the event happens.
Evolution the theory (as 101A pointed out, aka natural selection) tries to explain why and how Evolution the event happens. So far what it proposes has not been proven false. It also has not been proven entirely true (and I remark entirely, because some portions has been proven true, just not all of it).
It really has nothing to do with religion or some grand creator.
Not all believe that. Yes, before more were willing too accept modern science, and that is based of the genealogy following Adam. There are creationists today who realize there is more. That realize translations are incorrect also. Just to start with Adam, if we use the genealogy, Adam and Eve where created about 4,000 BC. However, this is when that story starts. Adam is a proper name in the story after the beginning, but during the story of creation, Adam was a different word that meant "mankind." The Bible gives us no indication how long the day (cycle) was during the creation, or how long mankind was on the earth before Adam was changed to a modern man.Creationism says God created the universe 6000 years ago, with man and all other life popping into existence then just as it is now.
They swallow that fairy tale but refuse to believe in life spontaneously evolved over Bs of years?
The word used for day means cycle. Not necessarily a solar day.
It's called faith.
So just call it a hypothesis.
Sorry you have no faith. Why should the atheist point of view prevail? Is there no room for diversity?
Because that's what it is. An half-assed explanation for the unexplainable.
Suggestions you can't test are meaningless from a scientific optic. They're not really worth seriously entertaining.
When you rule out the paranormal, as science does, they're the same question.
I think it's safe to say man evolved, until the missing link.
Who said evolution theory was necessarily atheist?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
