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?

[OnceConvinced]

LOL. You guys are so funny.
You like to dress up, and look pretty, for others to see, and give you praise.

You refuse to accept the answers, because they do not suit your beliefs. And I am the one who

Everything in nature has a purpose.
From the tiniest that scientists has yet to discover, to the largest that they will never discover (imo).
What scientists call junk DNA, is not junk. They don't understand it.
What scientists call black hokes, are not holes, or bad, or flawed, because they call it such. They don't understand it.
What scientists believe to be unnecessary are not unnecessary, because they say so.
Scientists are puny humans, in a vast universe, of which they know zilch, in comparison.
They don't understand it.


Conclusion

God created everything for a purpose.
Mere man does not understand everything .

Hence, my advice - Humble yourselves, therefore, under the mighty hand of God, so that he may exalt you in due time... - The apostle Peter (1 Peter 5:6)

You may go ahead with your illusion of glory.

Moderator Warning


You are expressing personal opinion and speaking as though it is fact. This is considered preaching and preaching is not acceptable on this site. All claims must be backed up by reason or evidence.

Also your first quote is nothing more than an ad-hominem attack against other members. It violates our rules of civility, rules which have been expressed to you numerous times.

Please adhere to our forum rules and expected standards of behaviour.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[man]

[Replying to post 66 by man]

If that were true, I don't think any of us would be on any computer communicating right now, because we would all be non-existent.

God is love, but he is also holy.
So at the time he is ready to harmonize everything, it is obvious he needs to remove anything that would prevent, or form a resistance to that harmony.

For example, people raise animals as pets, because they love them.
Everyone has different tastes, so some raise dogs, some lions, or tigers, some crocodiles, or alligators, some snakes...

But sometimes, some of those animal lovers feel forced to "put down", one of those animals.

You likely saw how hurt the zookeepers were, who felt they had to shoot and kill the gorilla, in order to save the boy that fell in the lair.

And people have had to chop a snake, and even kill crocodiles, in order to save a life.

These actions have bought relief not only to the saved ones and their relatives, but even the animal lovers, who even though saddened by the lost of the animal, are relieved that they saved a life.

In the same way, God has to remove resistant destructive individuals in order to save the lives of others. It's not something he enjoys.
According to the prophet Ezekiel,

...I do not take any pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign Lord Jehovah. So turn back and live.

Ezekiel 18:33

Do you think that there are stubborn people, who do not listen to reason, but who insist on doing what ever they want irregardless of any damaging consequences?

Yeah, you know what the people who have to put down animals don't do? Torture them forever.

[man]

[Replying to post 66 by man]

If that were true, I don't think any of us would be on any computer communicating right now, because we would all be non-existent.

God is love, but he is also holy.
So at the time he is ready to harmonize everything, it is obvious he needs to remove anything that would prevent, or form a resistance to that harmony.

For example, people raise animals as pets, because they love them.
Everyone has different tastes, so some raise dogs, some lions, or tigers, some crocodiles, or alligators, some snakes...

But sometimes, some of those animal lovers feel forced to "put down", one of those animals.

You likely saw how hurt the zookeepers were, who felt they had to shoot and kill the gorilla, in order to save the boy that fell in the lair.

And people have had to chop a snake, and even kill crocodiles, in order to save a life.

These actions have bought relief not only to the saved ones and their relatives, but even the animal lovers, who even though saddened by the lost of the animal, are relieved that they saved a life.

In the same way, God has to remove resistant destructive individuals in order to save the lives of others. It's not something he enjoys.
According to the prophet Ezekiel,

...I do not take any pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign Lord Jehovah. So turn back and live.

Ezekiel 18:33

Do you think that there are stubborn people, who do not listen to reason, but who insist on doing what ever they want irregardless of any damaging consequences?

I have a question, does Intelligent Design apply only to living things?

[RonE]

I would answer this question this way.

What is the explanation for life?
A. Evolution
B. Intelligent design

Or, it could be C. or D. don't limit yourself by throwing your favorite explanation in as the only alternative.

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.

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.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 72 by man]

According to the Bible, neither does God.
But since I am not allowed to use the Bible in this forum, if you have any further questions on God, and what he does, or does not do, or anything even close to that, you will have to make a thread in the Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma forum.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 73 by man]

Perhaps you can post this question in Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma.
I, and I am sure others, which means you will be sure to get more persons involved, will respond.

[theStudent]

I would answer this question this way.

What is the explanation for life?
A. Evolution
B. Intelligent design

Or, it could be C. or D. don't limit yourself by throwing your favorite explanation in as the only alternative.

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.

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.

See my last post.
I am not at liberty to discuss these questions here.

[Donray]

I would answer this question this way.

What is the explanation for life?
A. Evolution
B. Intelligent design

Or, it could be C. or D. don't limit yourself by throwing your favorite explanation in as the only alternative.

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.

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.

See my last post.
I am not at liberty to discuss these questions here.

you can answer the questions without using the bible. an ID person is not mentioned in the bible and you were discussing ID therefore you should be able to respond.

I guess you admitting defect since you cannot parrot what your religious leaders have told you to say.

[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.

Now, on with the points:

Are we making up definitions again? From dictionary.com:

Is that possible? How does one do that?

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.

Where did you get your definition from? I think maybe you are not talking about the scientific theory of evolution again.

A dictionary.
You are correct, but why do you add again.
Are you saying that I am never talking about the scientific theory of evolution?
I would disagree if you answer is yes, and challenge you to prove that claim.

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.

Nothing in it states that when something evolves it must become more advanced or mature or pass on to different stages. It sounds like you are talking about metamorphosis. I'll let you crack the dictionary open on that one to see if it lines up with what you mean.

So are you saying an infant does not become more advanced, or mature, or reach a different stage, in any way?
I absolutely disagree with that.

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.

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.

And I would never attempt to

crack the dictionary open

even if I knew how that's done - which I don't.

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.

You are mixing various meanings together into one word.

No I am not.

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.

I have not limited my knowledge and understanding, in one area, so I understand the broad use of this definition.
The definition I gave can fit the examples I used.
If you disagree say exactly what doesn't fit, and why.

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)

No wonder you are confused about the scientific theory of evolution which does not involve butterfly metamorphosis, human life cycle, education, or working out your abs.

You say I am confused.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
I don't recall saying that I was giving a definition of the scientific theory of evolution. Do you?

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.

So confusion it is.

I know exactly why you are confused.

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.

However, true science is just gathering knowledge.

I am glad at least, I am not the only one on these forums to use the expression, true science.
However, true science does not

just gathering knowledge.

True science also seeks to explain the workings of that knowledge.
Otherwise, how else can they progress?

Agreed, science is about explaining the world around us and gathering knowledge.

What we do with that knowledge is not necessarily science. If I drop a bowling ball on your foot after learning about gravity and mass does that mean I'm doing more science? One might argue I could be, but not necessarily. I would just be using knowledge, not trying to learn more.

Again, I am not limited in my knowledge and understanding, in a particular area, so I understand the broad use of the definition science.
What we do, can be science, which I believe you acknowledged by using the phrase "but not necessarily".
For example, if a chemist runs some sort of experiment, based on scientific knowledge he gathered, that is science.
If I, on the other hand, did anything - whether it be make a bomb, fire a weapon, I am using scientific knowledge, but I am certain no one will call it science - although if I were determined to get technical, I could argue that it is, because while I am making the bomb, I am learning. I may even discover something by accident even, and it can be considered experimenting, and observing.
So when I drop the bowling ball on your foot, I have experimented, and observed, and indeed learned how it makes your face distort.

Agreed.

You need to stop blaming the tool and start blaming the people using the tool if you don't like how the tool is used.

Good advice.
Something I have been doing, for how long now, but which certain people keep pretending they don't notice.
I hope you apply that advice, to yourself, and your associates, when it comes to the Bible, and those who use it.

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.

Science, all real science, is just collecting and analyzing data to increase our knowledge. Any of this knowledge can be useful to us in many ways that we may not even be able to dream up at the moment. For example, do you know what the first computers were used for? Look it up, it wasn't exchanging knowledge, designing cool stuff, or even debating ideas on the internet. Yet, now we use them for all kinds of beneficial uses.

That's for the education lesson, on science and computers.
I'll see if I can store that in my brain, and remind myself that I need to get educated - since I am way behind.

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.

Who knows what we will do. Maybe one day we will have to leave this rock we call home because of some natural disaster that makes this planet unlivable. I for one, would want some options available like how to get to another habitable planet or even terra forming one that is close. Choosing to focus all research on earth bound things alone is foolish in my opinion. Why limit our knowledge? Who are you to decide what knowledge we should learn?

They probably would have fixed the problem of destructive humans by then right?
Hubert H. humphrey

As we begin to comprehend that the earth itself is a kind of manned spaceship hurtling through the infinity of space"it will seem increasingly absurd that we have not better organized the life of the human family.

Scott Carpenter, Mecury 7 astronaut, speech at Millersville University, Pennslyvania. 15 October 1992

This planet is not terra firma. It is a delicate flower and it must be cared for. It's lonely. It's small. It's isolated, and there is no resupply. And we are mistreating it. Clearly, the highest loyalty we should have is not to our own country or our own religion or our hometown or even to ourselves. It should be to, number two, the family of man, and number one, the planet at large. This is our home, and this is all we've got.

Back at you - Who are you to decide what knowledge we should learn?

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.

That's a pretty bold statement to know the reason all astronomers are doing their research. I'm guessing you really have no clue what most of them are even researching.

You seem to have a problem with everything I say. Did I offend you in some way.
Where did I claim

to know the reason all astronomers are doing their research.

Or where did I claim to know what they are researching?
http://www.spacequotations.com/earth.html

No you have not offended me.

Regarding astronomy research, I inferred it from when you said:

In my opinion, beneficial science would be science that focuses on the problems at home - on earth.
Not the science that spends billions of dollars looking for E.T., and other universes.

Since astronomy is involved with research of other universes, I took that to mean you think this is not a worthy field. True, I made a leap here and apologize for the broad brush. However, do you think any astronomy is useful?

I stated a known fact, and the reaction I get is a hostile back lash of words?
Edgar Mitchell

Suddenly, from behind the rim of the Moon, in long, slow-motion moments of immense majesty, there emerges a sparkling blue and white jewel, a light, delicate sky-blue sphere laced with slowly swirling veils of white, rising gradually like a small pearl in a thick sea of black mystery. It takes more than a moment to fully realize this is Earth home.

Frank Borman

The view of the Earth from the Moon fascinated me " a small disk, 240,000 miles away. It was hard to think that that little thing held so many problems, so many frustrations. Raging nationalistic interests, famines, wars, pestilence don't show from that distance.

James B. Irwin

As we got further and further away, it [the Earth] diminished in size. Finally it shrank to the size of a marble, the most beautiful you can imagine. That beautiful, warm, living object looked so fragile, so delicate, that if you touched it with a finger it would crumble and fall apart. Seeing this has to change a man.

Roger B Chaffee

The world itself looks cleaner and so much more beautiful. Maybe we can make it that way"the way God intended it to be"by giving everybody that new perspective from out in space.

I wasn't taking issue with the earth being described as a 'jewel'. I was taking issue with your apparent disdain for some branches of science.

If you have problems, I honestly hope you get them dealt with. Because they seem serious.
Peace. Out.

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.

Peace to you as well.

[RonE]

[Replying to post 10 by theStudent]

Thank you for this information, theStudent. We are all aware of this info, but it is always amazing to hear it again.

We can all agree that we are very complex organisms.

Unfortunately, one cannot logically connect biological complexity to the concept of a deity.

This seems like a big fat god of the gaps argument to me.

The glaring problem is that you cannot show that your creator exists, you cannot demonstrate by what means your creator created, and this entire postulation cannot be demonstrated, verified, nor falsified by any means.

The elephant in this epistemological room is that there is NO evidence that any of any supposed designer(s) had a hand in creating anything. ANYTHING.

You can assert that Joe built my brain, but if you can't even show that Joe exists you've got a major problem.

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

Here is another simple demonstration of that.
If I saw a huge rock, or rocks carved out in a concave close to the sea.
I could easily conclude that over time, the salt water from the sea as it's waves bashed against the rocks, caused that effect. Same with nearby caves.
I can say this because I see it demonstrated.

You say you concluded that the sea had caused this. So you did not actually witness the sea gradually washing the rocks out, an action that could take 10s, 100s, or 1,000s of years. If you had measured and recorded the progress of the sea action over many years, taken soil samples and other manner of evidence you might be able to build your case that the sea had washed the rocks out. Just observing the actual event or observing later could give you the wrong conclusion, relying on a single observation you might have missed the earthquake 100 years before that was the actual cause of the collapse and the sea has just been washing away the surrounding dirt for 100 years.

Observation not supported by other evidence can be misleading. That's why science & TOE are so strong, they seek support by cross checking evidences. With the knowledge you claim from your studies this should be apparent to you.