What does Intelligent Design prove?

[man]

What does Intelligent Design prove?

I must have asked that question a thousand times in various forms and comment sections and not one single person has ever said, It proves there is a god.

Why is that?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to theStudent]

No.
The evidence has been demonstrated.
Just because someone shuts their eyes to evidence, does not nullify it.

Let's consider this statement for a moment. Christians claim that the "evidence" shows that the corpse of Jesus returned to life, and then subsequently flew off up into the clouds and disappeared.

Wikipedia
Death
Death is the termination of all biological functions that sustain an organism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death

Dead things do not think, feel, or move. Dead things cannot achieve sustained controlled flight. These are facts for which the evidence is clear, unmistakable and overwhelming.

The Gospels and Acts of the apostles indicate that the disciples of Jesus claimed to have seen Jesus resurrected from the dead. Acts of the Apostles indicates specifically that the disciples claimed that Jesus lifted bodily off of the ground and flew up into the sky and disappeared into the clouds. The evidence indicates that the disciples of Jesus claimed these things to be true. The evidence also overwhelmingly indicates that dead things are incapable of such actions, however. Therefore the evidence overwhelmingly indicates that the corpse of Jesus could not possibly have become resurrected from the dead and subsequently flown away. The evidence overwhelmingly indicates that, while claims that Jesus became resurrected from the dead and flew away were expressed by his disciples after his death, the evidence concerning the actual capabilities of dead bodies to become reanimated or to achieve and sustain controlled flight conclusively indicates that this claim is untrue. The evidence is that Jesus died, and that after his death his disciples spread the rumor that he had risen from the dead and then flew off up into the sky. When we examine the evidence openly, this is the reasonable conclusion that the evidence presents us with.

Declaring that God exists, can do anything, and that therefore God could choose to cause the corpse of Jesus to return to life and then fly away is not evidence! These are religious claims sustained by faith for which no actual evidence is provided. So don't go commingling the concept of "evidence" with personal faith as if they were unquestionaby the same thing. Because "evidence" (that which can physically be shown to be true), and "faith" (beliefs for which no physical evidence has been or can be presented) are actually polar opposite in nature. Steadfastly presenting your beliefs and your faith in your beliefs as if they are evidence does not serve to change that.

[Donray]

Dead things do not think, feel, or move. Dead things cannot achieve sustained controlled flight. These are facts for which the evidence is clear, unmistakable and overwhelming.

The first Zombie?

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 74 by RonE]

If this designer was all knowing/all seeing, etc. why do I have to wear glasses? Why do my knees hurt, why are my arches fallen. I think your designer should have been fired for the job he did on the human body.

I can understand how you are seeing things.
There are many people who say what they think.
But we must remember that sometimes our knowledge or lack of it, often contribute to our not understanding things as they really are.
There is a saying that they are more questions than answers, but that's not necessarily true imo. The answers may be there, but we may be looking in the wrong place, or we may be ignoring them.

A. makes more sense to me, and evolution isn't done with humans yet, we continue to evolve one little mutation, one little mistake in the DNA copying process at a time. Another million years from now maybe our eye sight will be perfect and our knees too. Left up to B. this is as good as it gets.

There is no harm in hoping. Although sometimes our hopes do lead to disappointment.
Where do you get the idea that mutations can ever lead to enhancing impairments?

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 79 by benchwarmer]

theStudent, first off, let me publicly apologize if I have come across as attacking you. I was trying to attack the ideas presented, but I will admit to getting a bit cranky trying to explain the same thing over and over with no apparent change in understanding. I will try to be even more civil. Feel free to report anything you feel is a personal attack to the moderation team. I'm not perfect and open to fair criticism.

Apology acknowledged.
However, it does not appear to me, that you were

trying to explain the same thing over and over with no apparent change in understanding.

You were attaching. Full stop.
You admitted it - don't try to excuse it.
That's something I try not to do, but like you said, we make mistakes, so I probably failed at it myself.

It seems, in my opinion, that you have been focusing on the theory of evolution in many of your posts. The post I was replying to seemed to be more explanation of what you feel evolution entails. I was trying (perhaps not so civilly or elegantly) to point out that you seem to be mixing up terms.

Based on previous discussions, it seems you do not grasp what the scientific theory of evolution entails. Yes, you've talked about it, but many of us have tried to show you what it covers and more importantly what it doesn't based on some of your points. For instance, it has nothing to do with how life first originated. Yes, this is a tired point, but you have yet to acknowledge it that I have seen. Feel free to correct me.

I know what you were doing, and I know why you keep failing.
Human beings are interesting creatures. Understanding them isn't easy.
But it is possible to understand them, but there is something blocking that.

Let me briefly explain.
I belong to an organized group of people from diverse backgrounds.
In a community like that, it is possible to have a lot of problems.
Yet we get along, even when disagreements arise. Why?
We have a principle - Always look for the good in others.

Just take the first part in bold, and apply it here.
If you keep your focus fixed on what you have a problem with, that's what you are going to see, you will see nothing else - not even what I am saying.

If you look back to Post 58, you should see it... I hope.

I never implied that. I was trying to show that the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the human life cycle. Surely you can see how you might be confusing us if you are using the word 'evolution' in different ways. This is a debate site and unclear definitions cause all sorts of strife and talking past each other.

Okay, I guess now it's my turn to apologize.
I was not being specific at that point, because I didn't see the need to be.
I think I assumed that the person questioning me should have known by now where I stood on the issue.
I hadn't taken into consideration that they might not have been following my thread.
Sorry about that.

Do you maintain that the scientific theory of evolution explains how infants mature? Or are you trying to use a different meaning of evolution? From my viewpoint, it seems you are trying to lump a lot of unrelated stuff into one word. I'm trying to pin down what you are talking about.

The definition was not biological evolution.

I'm sorry, maybe you are not familiar with this term. It simply means to look up a word in the dictionary. It comes from the old days when we actually had to pull the massive book down from the shelf and open it up by hand. i.e. physically open it up. I apologize if you think it meant something else.

I learned something new.

Yes you are. You mixed metamorphosis (larva to adult), human life cycle (infant to adult), education (lacking knowledge to brilliant), and working out (skinny to six pack) into one word.

So explain this to me.

I showed the proper definitions for what you gave already, but just to be crystal clear:

metamorphosis (larva to adult)
human life cycle (infant to adult)
education (lacking knowledge to brilliant)
working out (skinny to six pack)

You haven't showed me what doesn't fit, and why?

Well, if you were simply trying to give a broad definition of the word evolution rather than the scientific theory of evolution, I stand corrected. However, as shown above, there are better words to use in debate when discussing these ideas you have lumped under 'evolution'. You can't say you haven't been discussing a lot about the scientific theory of evolution. I'll grant you that I may have made a leap here and assumed you were on the same topic. If you are on a different topic, then I guess I fail to see the point of trying to define 'evolution' the way you are. What would you then use this word for? If you try and go back and plug it into our previous discussions it would fail since it is not the scientific theory of evolution. I also remind you that we are in the Science and Religion sub forum so most of use are zoning on on the juxtaposition of science and religion.

Thank you.
Sorry for the confusion caused.
But a little advice, next time you attempt to make a jump, wait a few minutes till the smoke clears. Hope I didn't confuse you.

Please feel free to elaborate. And yes, on reflection my remark seems snarky and probably uncalled for. I was trying to point out you seem confused about what evolution means. Apologies again.

Okay. I hope something above is useful.

If you are equating the Bible to a tool I agree that it can be used for good and bad. It's surely a confusing collection of documents that don't seem to reflect reality to many people. If only it was simple, consistent, and easily verifiable.

I believe anything in this life can be easy, if one plays by the rules required.
A gymnast, tightrope walker, etc., they all had to star at a point of discipline.
In my opinion, understanding the Bible is no different.
I don't think persons just got up one morning and learned to recite the Qur'an.

I was trying to point out that if you limit what science we should be doing (remember you gave the opinion about wasting money on certain science), we may be short changing ourselves since we don't know how any particular knowledge might be useful to us in the future.

I was just giving my opinion.
If you gave yours that would be okay.

Where did I say what the limits should be? My point was that there should be no limits after you commented that some research is a waste of money and seems to have no practical use.

It was uncalled for.

However, do you think any astronomy is useful?

Perhaps you could go to the site, and read the comments.
Where are the problems? And more importantly, why? Who can fix them?

I'm going to let that insult slide since my comments to you appear to have insulted you as well. Again, apologies if you were insulted. I did disagree with most of what you said and that definitely seems like a wall of discontent. I just wanted to address all the points.

It's an observations. Nothing more. Nothing less.

[Donray]

theStudent explain how the Neanderthals fits in your logic.

Please note when replying that most of us from European decent have a small percent of Neanderthal DNA.

[RonE]

[Replying to post 83 by theStudent]

[Replying to post 74 by RonE]

If this designer was all knowing/all seeing, etc. why do I have to wear glasses? Why do my knees hurt, why are my arches fallen. I think your designer should have been fired for the job he did on the human body.

I can understand how you are seeing things.
There are many people who say what they think.
But we must remember that sometimes our knowledge or lack of it, often contribute to our not understanding things as they really are.
There is a saying that they are more questions than answers, but that's not necessarily true imo. The answers may be there, but we may be looking in the wrong place, or we may be ignoring them.

Actually those were rhetorical questions. I know why my eye sight is not what is was. MRI & CAT scans have shown me why my knees hurt and my arches have fallen. The first & third being direct family traits from my parents. Science has those answers and many more that you decline to accept.

A. makes more sense to me, and evolution isn't done with humans yet, we continue to evolve one little mutation, one little mistake in the DNA copying process at a time. Another million years from now maybe our eye sight will be perfect and our knees too. Left up to B. this is as good as it gets.

There is no harm in hoping. Although sometimes our hopes do lead to disappointment.
Where do you get the idea that mutations can ever lead to enhancing impairments?

Where did you get the misinformation that all mutations are bad? Did that come from your in-depth studies of evolution? Or from a self-help book on debating evolution? You should keep studying. It does amuse me that so many of the of the little criticisms you point at others seem like they fit you quite perfectly, like:

But we must remember that sometimes our knowledge or lack of it, often contribute to our not understanding things as they really are.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 86 by RonE]

Where did you get the misinformation that all mutations are bad? Did that come from your in-depth studies of evolution? Or from a self-help book on debating evolution? You should keep studying. It does amuse me that so many of the of the little criticisms you point at others seem like they fit you quite perfectly, like:

Where did you get the idea that I said all were bad?
I just asked a question. Can you answer it... for once?

Or am I the one to do all the answering?

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 81 by Tired of the Nonsense]

Let's consider this statement for a moment. Christians claim that the "evidence" shows that the corpse of Jesus returned to life, and then subsequently flew off up into the clouds and disappeared.

I am a Christian, and I don't believe this.
There are persons who do, but no where in the scriptures, have I seen this.

To my knowledge, the scriptures teach that the dead are inactive, as evidence shows.

[RonE]

[Replying to post 87 by theStudent]

[Replying to post 86 by RonE]

Where did you get the misinformation that all mutations are bad? Did that come from your in-depth studies of evolution? Or from a self-help book on debating evolution? You should keep studying. It does amuse me that so many of the of the little criticisms you point at others seem like they fit you quite perfectly, like:

Where did you get the idea that I said all were bad?
I just asked a question. Can you answer it... for once?

Or am I the one to do all the answering?

Your post #83 included the following:

Where do you get the idea that mutations can ever lead to enhancing impairments?

Your post was phrased in the negative that "mutations can ever lead to enhancing impairments". That negative aspect makes 'ever' become 'never'. It is logical of me to assume you think all mutations are bad.

So, are there good mutations? See that's what makes evolution work.

[man]

I just asked a question. Can you answer it... for once?