Feed on Posts or Comments 19 September 2014

Christianity &Islam &Judaism Thomas on 17 Jan 2012 12:22 am

The humor of the “Intelligent Design” argument

This article was mentioned in the comments and deserves to be read by both theists and atheists alike:

Intelligent Design Made Mankind?

It is a humorous look at the “Intelligent Design” argument and demonstrates how very silly the argument is.

70 Responses to “The humor of the “Intelligent Design” argument”

  1. on 18 Jan 2012 at 3:19 pm 1.Anonymous said …

    There are people who still take ID seriously? When even the HuffPo thinks you’re full of it, it’s time to give up.

    http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2011/11/twenty_years_after_darwin_on_t.php

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-wallace/intelligent-design-is-dea_b_1175049.html

  2. on 18 Jan 2012 at 5:23 pm 2.Lou (DFW) said …

    1.Anonymous said …

    “There are people who still take ID seriously?”

    If they take god seriously…

  3. on 18 Jan 2012 at 5:48 pm 3.A said …

    Yes, the huffington puffington post is a bastion of knowledge. The universe intelligently designed is not even debatable. I know science is not comfortable bringing up cause. Spacemen and spacemen seed are more the item of the day. However design and intelligence fit common sense as hand in glove.

  4. on 18 Jan 2012 at 6:01 pm 4.Lou (DFW) said …

    3.A said …

    “Yes, the huffington puffington post is a bastion of knowledge.”

    Compared to the bible, ANY publication is a “bastion of knowledge.” But the is:

    Paul Wallace is a science & religion teacher and writer. He is currently teaching physics at Agnes Scott College in Decatur, Ga (“Where Berkeley meets Mayberry”). His interests are science and religion; physics and astronomy and their histories; and the Christian apophatic tradition. He holds a PhD in experimental nuclear physics from Duke University. For 10 years he was a professor of physics and astronomy at Berry College in Rome, Ga. In 2011 he received an MDiv with a concentration in historical theology from Emory University’s Candler School of Theology. He has been a researcher at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, a faculty member for the Emory-Tibet Science Initiative, a CDC lab technician, a stay-at-home dad, and a hospital chaplain. One of his favorite things is teaching science & religion classes at his church. Paul lives in Atlanta with his wife and three children.

    “The universe intelligently designed is not even debatable.”

    That’s correct, it’s not. No scientists debate with creationists about it anymore than they debate astrologers about astronomy.

    “I know science is not comfortable bringing up cause.”

    You know no such thing because it isn’t true.

    “Spacemen and spacemen seed are more the item of the day. However design and intelligence fit common sense as hand in glove.”

    When all else fails, lie – a common theist tactic.

  5. on 18 Jan 2012 at 6:04 pm 5.Lou (DFW) said …

    4.Lou (DFW) said …

    CORRECTION: But the author is:

  6. on 18 Jan 2012 at 6:28 pm 6.Lou (DFW) said …

    4.Lou (DFW) said …

    “No scientists debate with creationists about it anymore than they debate astrologers about astronomy.”

    astrology, not astronomy – sorry, not multitasking well today.

  7. on 18 Jan 2012 at 10:31 pm 7.Anonymous said …

    Everyone who believes in intelligent design deserves ridicule and laughter. The ignorance of ID knows no bounds.

  8. on 19 Jan 2012 at 4:16 am 8.Anonymous said …

    A, aka Q, aka Horatiio… until you can provide an answer for who designed your designer, your words ranks equal to the kind of nonsense the bronze-age goat herders who worshiped the storm god Yahweh would have come up with.

    So, go on, explain to us how this amazing designer came to be. The fact that you’ll do anything but answer that question lies at the root of the post at #7.

    Otherwise we’ll just carry on laughing at you for your breathtaking stupidity and ignorance.

    So, yes, Intelligent Design? LOL!

  9. on 19 Jan 2012 at 4:17 am 9.Debunking NeoDarwinism said …

    If you wanted to produce carbon and oxygen in roughly equal quantities by stellar nucleosynthesis, these are the two levels you would have to fix, and your fixing would have to be just about where these levels are actually found to be… A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.

    To press the matter further, if there were a basic principle of matter which somehow drove organic systems toward life, its existence should easily be demonstrable in the laboratory. One could, for instance, take a swimming bath to represent the primordial soup. Fill it with any chemicals of a non- biological nature you please. Pump any gases over it, or through it, you please, and shine any kind of radiation on it that takes your fancy. Let the experiment proceed for a year and see how many of those 2,000 enzymes have appeared in the bath. I will give the answer, and so save the time and trouble and expense of actually doing the experiment. You would find nothing at all, except possibly for a tarry sludge composed of amino acids and other simple organic chemicals. How can I be so confident of this statement? Well, if it were otherwise, the experiment would long since have been done and would be well known and famous throughout the world. The cost of it would be trivial compared to the cost of landing a man on the Moon… In short there is not a shred of objective evidence to support the hypothesis that life began in an organic soup here on Earth.

    The Intelligent Universe

  10. on 19 Jan 2012 at 5:19 am 10.Anonymous said …

    In answer to the cut and paste strawman nonsense above. Honestly, no-one of any consequence cares what you backward people think about this any more. The train has long left the station. You are only arguing with yourself at this point.

    This blog is about people’s delusions with imaginary gods. If you have some proof that these gods exist, then post it. If you don’t then go away.

  11. on 19 Jan 2012 at 12:11 pm 11.Asher said …

    Debunking,

    Your point is noted and realized by most individuals. It is easy for some to bury their head in the sand and pretend the issue does not exist.

    Numerous scientist have acknowledged this point and remain baffled but push on with the claim it must of happened, right? and it most of happened without God, right? After all, there could not really be a God. They don’t see Him. The again, when did anyone see the first protein, DNA or cell? But yet they believe.

    In the end, it is about choice. Where are you willing to put your faith? A self-creating protein/DNA/cell surrounded by impossible circumstances or a divine intelligent creator?

  12. on 19 Jan 2012 at 1:03 pm 12.Anonymous said …

    The Accidental Universe, page 118

  13. on 19 Jan 2012 at 2:36 pm 13.Lou (DFW) said …

    11.Asher said …

    “In the end, it is about choice. Where are you willing to put your faith? A self-creating protein/DNA/cell surrounded by impossible circumstances or a divine intelligent creator?”

    In other words, don’t try to learn about how nature works. Instead, live in the world of ancient goat-herders where the the earth is the center of a universe of crystal spheres created by an imaginary god.

  14. on 19 Jan 2012 at 2:42 pm 14.Lou (DFW) said …

    9.Debunking NeoDarwinism said …

    “In short there is not a shred of objective evidence to support the hypothesis that life began in an organic soup here on Earth.”

    In short, this is a lie. But what there is absolutely no evidence for is an imaginary god.

    This so-called “debunking” is nothing but another diversion to avoid the fact there is no evidence for god. Arguments against big-bang, abiogenesis, and evolution have absolutely nothing, nada, zip, zero to do with god and religion.

    Now, present your evidence for your imaginary god, not your ignorance.

  15. on 19 Jan 2012 at 9:04 pm 15.Debunking NeoDarwinism said …

    Actually my quote if by Sir Fredrick Hoyle from The Intelligent Universe as I posted.

    I could reason with Lou who claims Hoyle is wrong or I could listen to the facts of the highly respected astronomer and mathematician. I’ll go with the later.

    Ashar you are correct when you stated it comes down to choice. Origins was not witnessed therefore the trail is cold and we must make conclusions based on a huge number of assumptions.

    Since I see nothing about proteins/DNA and cells that point to any possibility they can create themselves from scratch in such a hostile atmosphere, I go with an intelligent creator who could pull it off. The belief in a God goes way back throughout the entire world through all ancient cultures. Such a widespread belief points to a kernel of truth in the assumption.

  16. on 19 Jan 2012 at 9:33 pm 16.DPK said …

    Forgive me for paraphrasing, but let’s give your position some real perspective:

    “Since I see nothing about the heavens that points to any possibility that the earth is a flat plain around which all the stars revolve. The belief in a heliocentric flat earth goes way back throughout the entire world through all ancient cultures. Such a widespread belief points to a kernel of truth in the assumption.”

    As has been pointed out here many times before, if you want to call the natural law that governs the behavior and properties of matter and energy “god”.. have at it. There is no denying they are real. Now, please explain how you make the jump from that conclusion, to the biblical or Koranic god who interacts with the physical world, “loves” you, answers your prayers, judges you for “sins” demands a human sacrifice as atonement for sins, and will reward you with an eternity of bliss if you worship and obey him, but will punish you with an eternity of hellfire, pain and torment for the crime of not believing in him. Yes, explain that please…. but let me grab a cup of coffee first.

  17. on 19 Jan 2012 at 9:34 pm 17.DPK said …

    sorry… 16 should read:
    ““Since I see nothing about the heavens that points to any possibility OTHER THAN that the earth is a flat plain…”

  18. on 19 Jan 2012 at 10:01 pm 18.Lou (DFW) said …

    15.Debunking NeoDarwinism said …

    “I could reason with Lou who claims Hoyle is wrong or I could listen to the facts of the highly respected astronomer and mathematician. I’ll go with the later.”

    HOYLE?! As opposed to all the other astronomers and mathematicians who teach otherwise? Funny how you choose the one who possibly supports your particular belief, but you ignore that vast majority who don’t.

    “The belief in a God goes way back throughout the entire world through all ancient cultures.”

    But only your god is the real deal, right?

    “Such a widespread belief points to a kernel of truth in the assumption.”

    Absolute, total b.s. Belief isn’t evidence. But is part of your circular logic.

  19. on 19 Jan 2012 at 10:06 pm 19.Lou (DFW) said …

    15.Debunking NeoDarwinism said …

    “Actually my quote if by Sir Fredrick Hoyle from The Intelligent Universe as I posted.

    I could reason with Lou who claims Hoyle is wrong or I could listen to the facts of the highly respected astronomer and mathematician. I’ll go with the later.”

    Actually, it’s not a matter of going with me, but the scientific community.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle#Other_controversies

    “Hoyle frequently aroused controversy on a wide range of subjects.[18] For science topics, Hoyle strongly held many claims and positions that ran distinctly against the opinions and evidence supported by virtually all the rest of the scientific community.”

    “Other than his great works on nucleosynthesis and popularization, Hoyle’s career is largely dominated by his many controversies and disproven fringe claims.”

    Forget about Hoyle. Your reliance upon his ideas only further demonstrates the futility of your position.

  20. on 20 Jan 2012 at 12:22 am 20.Anonymous said …

    So, lots of rhetoric from people wanting to argue about anything other than proof of the existence of their god.

    These arguments are pointless as none of them give us the answer of gods exist. Don’t you theists see that the default answer is “we don’t know” and it’s not “god did it”?

    So, prey tell, how do these arguments prove the existence of your god and how do they disprove the existence of the other gods people worship?

  21. on 20 Jan 2012 at 2:05 am 21.Asher said …

    Debunk

    When we realize origins is about choices and faith in those choices and not science, we find that the historical sciences are nothing more than scientism. I would need some proof that scientism can create information, design and life. I have seen zero evidence for such a scenario. God becomes the best logical scenario.

    If science can ever prove me wrong, I will change my position. But lets face it. We can’t even give an account of George Washington’s childhood much less one of origins.

  22. on 20 Jan 2012 at 2:35 am 22.DPK said …

    So, origins does it for Asher, not a holy book, talking snake, resurrection from the dead, virgin birth, flying winged horses to heaven, magic golden plates, burning bushes, parting seas, mana from heaven, loves and fishes…. origins.

    Like the ancient how can’t understand how a volcano erupts.. “god did it” seems to you to be the only possible solution.
    Ok.
    But when origins IS finally explained… you’re done, huh?
    Ok…. but answer this…. if “god” can be your only explanation… WHICH god? WHY don’t you believe in THIS story:
    http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/creation.html
    or THIS story:
    http://www.cresourcei.org/enumaelish.html
    or even THIS one:
    http://www.dreamscape.com/morgana/oberon.htm#HUNGARIAN
    They all make as much sense and offer as much evidence as your story. I assume though, that you reject THOSE stories out of hand, no?
    WHY???

  23. on 20 Jan 2012 at 2:37 am 23.DPK said …

    So, origins does it for Asher, not a holy book, talking snake, resurrection from the dead, virgin birth, flying winged horses to heaven, magic golden plates, burning bushes, parting seas, mana from heaven, loves and fishes…. origins.
    Like the ancient how can’t understand how a volcano erupts.. “god did it” seems to you to be the only possible solution.
    Ok.
    But when origins IS finally explained… you’re done, huh?
    Ok…. but answer this…. if “god” can be your only explanation… WHICH god? WHY don’t you believe in THIS story:
    http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/creation.html
    or THIS story:
    http://www.cresourcei.org/enumaelish.html
    or even THIS one:
    http://www.dreamscape.com/morgana/oberon.htm#HUNGARIAN
    They all make as much sense and offer as much evidence as your story. I assume though, that you reject THOSE stories out of hand, no?
    WHY???

  24. on 20 Jan 2012 at 2:40 am 24.Lou (DFW) said …

    21.Asher said …

    “When we realize origins is about choices and faith in those choices and not science, we find that the historical sciences are nothing more than scientism.”

    You are greatly confused. It’s no such thing. You are rationalizing your inability to accept a truth that conflicts with your faith in an imaginary god.

    “I would need some proof that scientism can create information, design and life.”

    Non sequitur…

    “I have seen zero evidence for such a scenario. God becomes the best logical scenario.”

    A belief in god has nothing to do with logic. Such a belief exists only as faith. You incorrectly assert that there is “zero evidence for such a scenario.” But then you turn around and accept god without any evidence.

    “If science can ever prove me wrong, I will change my position.”

    Who proved it wrong for you that Zeus doesn’t exist?

    “But lets face it.”

    Yes, let’s do – there’s no evidence for god.

    “We can’t even give an account of George Washington’s childhood much less one of origins.”

    Therefore, god is real?

  25. on 20 Jan 2012 at 2:42 am 25.Lou (DFW) said …

    22.Lou (DFW) said …

    “Who proved it wrong for you that Zeus doesn’t exist?”

    I accidentally cut the follow text:

    Nobody proved that Zeus doesn’t exist. You don’t believe in Zeus because there’s no evidence for Zeus, just as there’s no evidence for your imaginary god.

  26. on 20 Jan 2012 at 3:22 am 26.Anonymous said …

    Asher – “God becomes the best logical scenario.”

    Um, no, and certainly not logically.

    Before you can ascribe an action to “god”, first you must prove that “god” exists. Why won’t you do that?

    I’ve never personally been given a convincing argument for why less socks come out of the laundry then went it. The most obvious answer is that someone is playing a trick on me, therefore Loki exists. The explanations from Genesisism fail to address these point.

    Asher, you’d agree with me, right? Also, for bonus points, you can’t prove to me that Loki didn’t do it, therefore Loki exists and your god doesn’t.

    Prove me wrong.

  27. on 20 Jan 2012 at 6:49 am 27.Severin said …

    11 Asher
    “The again, when did anyone see the first protein, DNA or cell? But yet they believe.“

    I saw A protein and I saw A cell. I know some chemisry and physics, and I know that aminoacids are easiyly made from inorganic compoundas, and that proteins are composed from aminoacids. I know that a range of aminocids were made in many experiments with „primordial soup“ in a week or so, and I also know that nature had billions of years to do more.
    Knowing also some math, I know that everything that is possible to occur, will eventually occur. So, nothing misterious in a cell, after billions of years of spontanious „experimenting“!

    So, when I see a cell, I do not think creator, I think aminoacids, proteins and chemistry, which are under my nose.

    Now your turn:
    Who/what brought your creator to existance?
    If he/she/it needed no creator, why anything else needs one?

    Without some answers to those questions you are very unconvincing.

    Yes, I could also say: when did anyone see a god? And yet they believe!

  28. on 20 Jan 2012 at 12:58 pm 28.Anonymous said …

    Severin, it’s all about double standards.

    They need to find a way to discredit other people’s arguments. It doesn’t matter that they either don’t understand the argument or that the argument in question isn’t relevant to the question of the existence of gods, as long as they are arguing that someone else is wrong it stops them considering if they are right.

    The double standard comes into play when they blithely announce “therefore god” with absolutely no backing just a desire for their answer to be right.

    So, believers, stop arguing about “origins” and science. If “origins” are relevant to your proof of god, then you need to prove in the affirmative that your god did it, not argue that science (as you misunderstand it) can’t explain it.

    Where’s your proof that shows that your god exists and the other gods do not?

  29. on 20 Jan 2012 at 2:13 pm 29.Asher said …

    “They need to find a way to discredit other people’s arguments. It doesn’t matter that they either don’t understand the argument”

    Mr Pot, I would like you to meet Mr Kettle.

    Gentlemen, you have gotten heated over nothing. I never claimed any particular God or particular scenario. What I do know is that the origin of amino acids/proteins/DNA and cells could not have happened without intelligence and that an intelligent Creator is behind it. Feel free to disprove this point. Information and design point to a creator.

    Now, since you cannot debate this point, you have a need to go into specific Gods. I never did or will because I don’t know.

  30. on 20 Jan 2012 at 2:19 pm 30.Asher said …

    “know that a range of aminocids were made in many experiments with „primordial soup“ in a week or so”

    Do you? Are you referring to the Miller Urey experiment? Wrong amino acids for life, had to be removed from the primordial conditions to survive. It failed. No to mention intelligent men set up all the conditions conducive to form the amino acid.

    http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/tis2/index.php/component/content/article/51.html

    “Knowing also some math, I know that everything that is possible to occur, will eventually occur.”

    Really? You mean like God? Maybe all the stories in the Bible? Those things Severin?

  31. on 20 Jan 2012 at 2:36 pm 31.Lou (DFW) said …

    29.Asher said …

    “What I do know is that the origin of amino acids/proteins/DNA and cells could not have happened without intelligence and that an intelligent Creator is behind it.”

    All you molecular biologists immediately stop what you’re doing and listen to Asher. He KNOWS that an intelligent designer is behind “the origin of amino acids/proteins/DNA and cells.”

    “Feel free to disprove this point. Information and design point to a creator.”

    You simply don’t get it, do you? You are still making a claim that god exists. It’s up to you to prove your claim. Not only that, but you are also claiming “design.” What “design?” I see no “design” or “designer” that points to a creator. All the evidence I see leads to the conclusion that there isn’t any design or designer.

  32. on 20 Jan 2012 at 2:38 pm 32.Lou (DFW) said …

    30.Asher said …

    “Are you referring to the Miller Urey experiment? Wrong amino acids for life, had to be removed from the primordial conditions to survive. It failed. No to mention intelligent men set up all the conditions conducive to form the amino acid.”

    Even if this is true, it’s 100% irrelevant to the existence of god.

    Now, where is your evidence for god?

  33. on 20 Jan 2012 at 3:16 pm 33.Debunking NeoDarwinism said …

    Sevein claims everything that can happen will happen. Does this mean I will have lunch in the Tatooine galaxy eventually?

    If what Sevein state is true, then he too must believe God created the universe.

    For Lou, if you cannot see design in a cell or DNA you can only be held up as ignorant. Those who don’t understand DNA would, of course, not see the complex design that man still does not totally grasp.

  34. on 20 Jan 2012 at 3:41 pm 34.Lou (DFW) said …

    33.Debunking NeoDarwinism said …

    “Sevein claims everything that can happen will happen.”

    No, he wrote “I know that everything that is possible to occur, will eventually occur.”

    “Does this mean I will have lunch in the Tatooine galaxy eventually?”

    Not unless it’s “possible to occur.”

    “For Lou, if you cannot see design in a cell or DNA you can only be held up as ignorant.”

    DNA evolved, it wasn’t designed.

    When viruses mutate (evolve) to become immune to vaccines and our own immune system, is some designer behind that to? God tinkers with viruses right before our very eyes? If all life on earth is the result of “design,” is the “designer” flawed because almost all the designs went extinct (failed)?

    Life isn’t evidence of a designer, it’s evidence of evolution – a process that we know occurs.

    ID is a concept for desperate people who cling to ancient beliefs, myths, and superstitions. They are the flat-earthers, the geocentrics of the modern world, hopelessly stuck in the past.

    And you hold me up as ignorant.

  35. on 20 Jan 2012 at 3:51 pm 35.DPK said …

    33.Debunking NeoDarwinism said …

    “Sevein claims everything that can happen will happen. Does this mean I will have lunch in the Tatooine galaxy eventually?”

    Ahh.. now I see the problem with you guys… you failed in the “read and comprehend” class, huh?

    What Severin SAID was “I know that everything that is POSSIBLE to occur, will eventually occur. Magical gods do not fit into the category of “possible”. You will not have lunch in the Tatooine galaxy because you will not live long enough to get there. But, if time and the universe are infinite (who knows… but IF) then yes, in infinite time, everything that CAN happen will happen… in fact, it already has… infinite times. Infinite is a very big number.. haha.

    Now, what evidence do you have, other than the fact that you can’t comprehend anything other than what you want to believe, that any of the claims you make about any god you care to postulate actually exists??? Anything other than “Well, I can’t think of a better answer?”

    Archer said, “Now, since you cannot debate this point, you have a need to go into specific Gods. I never did or will because I don’t know.”

    Let me turn your own position on you and demonstrate your fatal flaw:
    “What I do know is that something as powerful and complex as a god that created the entire universe could not have happened without another intelligence and that an intelligent Creator is behind it, and that creator needed an even greater creator, and so did that one, and that one, and that one… Feel free to disprove this point. Information and design point to a creator.
    Do they? Always?

  36. on 20 Jan 2012 at 5:05 pm 36.Lou (DFW) said …

    33.Debunking NeoDarwinism said …

    “For Lou, if you cannot see design in a cell or DNA you can only be held up as ignorant. Those who don’t understand DNA would, of course, not see the complex design that man still does not totally grasp.”

    Oh yes, it’s a wonderful design – one that’s predicated on the designs devouring and consuming all the others.

    Crocodile swallows Indonesian girl:

    http://tinyurl.com/8axcdsd

  37. on 20 Jan 2012 at 7:41 pm 37.A said …

    “DNA evolved, it wasn’t designed.”

    From what?

  38. on 20 Jan 2012 at 7:46 pm 38.A said …

    “Life isn’t evidence of a designer, it’s evidence of evolution – a process that we know occurs.”

    Prove it. From the primordial soup to man. Show the steps.

  39. on 20 Jan 2012 at 9:08 pm 39.Anonymous said …

    Lou doesn’t need to show any steps, he’s asking you to provide your proof for the existence of a god.

    The ONLY reason you are asking him to do so, is so you can cling to your goat_herder superstitions under the guise of “then god must have done it”

    Let’s prove that right now.

    Assume Lou can’t answer your question to your satisfaction. And, of course, he won’t be able to. This is a game of moving goal posts and gaps in which to insert your primitive superstitions.

    Now what? So he can’t answer your question. Now it’s you’re turn. Prove that god did it. Don’t just say, it’s the only answer. Prove it. Don’t forget, you must first start out defining the powers of this god and showing how he did what you claim he did. You also need to answer the point raised by dpk. How was this god created? And if it’s infinite, explain why that can’t apply to the universe.

    In fairness to Lou, please do so with as much detail and precision that you are aging from him. You don’t want to be accused of having double standard do you?

  40. on 20 Jan 2012 at 9:54 pm 40.Anonymous said …

    By the way, theists and believers. You do know that disbelief in gods says nothing at all about how the universe came to be, other than the answer isn’t a god did it, don’t you?

    You lot keep coming up with these tired out and irrelevant arguments. Rejecting your claim that gods exist, largely because no one has ever proven one exists, doesn’t change the fact that your burden of proof for the existence of gods hasn’t been met.

    Claiming that you as lay, non PhD cosmologists and biologists don’t understand a particular scientific concept, therefore the unproven 2000 year old nomad’s myth is a better fit is intellectual dishonesty at it’s finest. Is that how you run your life? Do you claim because you don’t understand the law that some other rules apply? Of course not. Then

    This is a defining point in religion, especially Christianity. You’ll argue until the cows come home how you, personally, don’t understand something as if reality somehow gives a shit about your personal preferences, then you run for the hills when someone asks you to give a little bit more than “well, I see d esign” – a lack of education and experience can lead to to that answer, I. hope

  41. on 20 Jan 2012 at 10:17 pm 41.Anonymous said …

    Premature submission, technology fail. Ignore the last “I hope”, that was part of a paragraph that never made it to the party.

  42. on 20 Jan 2012 at 11:24 pm 42.Asher said …

    I have provided evidence for God and Debunk agrees. It has not been challenged with any real argument.

    But now, A asks some great questions and legitimately as opposed to what Anonymous argues. Lou made these claims unprompted. Therefore they are fair game. Now..

    Lou makes a claim but he can’t support the claim? Isn’t that what he claims theist do. His claims are:

    “DNA evolved, it wasn’t designed.”

    “Life isn’t evidence of a designer, it’s evidence of evolution – a process that we know occurs.”

    If he believes these claims but can’t provide evidence, he is a hypocrite. It will be interesting.

  43. on 20 Jan 2012 at 11:38 pm 43.Anonymous said …

    “I have provided evidence for God and Debunk agrees. It has not been challenged with any real argument.”

    Please point us at this evidence, you sound like Horatiio at this point. You keep asking people to repeat themselves, why are you simply claiming “I did” without reference?

    So, Debunk agrees with you, why should I or anyone else care? Are you renowned experts in these fields? Please explain.

    Is that your standard of evidence? Ignore all the people who have actually spent their lifetimes researching in a field and look for someone as equally poorly educated in the sciences as you are, and use that as your standard?

    That would be a good way to stay ignorant. That would be a good way to spread a religion.

    But, do point us at this evidence.

  44. on 21 Jan 2012 at 12:14 am 44.Debunking NeoDarwinism said …

    Ashar quote:

    “If he believes these claims but can’t provide evidence, he is a hypocrite. It will be interesting.”

    My suspicion is he will not respond but still claim no evidence for God has been offered.

    There MO has become simple to follow.

    They don’t actually refute that evidence for a God exist. They in fact concede this as a possibility indirectly by falling back on arguing against particular Gods. To me they are more akin to deist or theist. It is difficult to defend hardcore atheism with all the scientific evidence pointing to implausible complexity and design.

    But lets see what Lou comes up with.

  45. on 21 Jan 2012 at 6:42 am 45.Anonymous said …

    It’s always the same with you, Horatiio isn’t it?

    Make claims that you’ve provided evidence of your imaginary god when you haven’t. Saying it looks designed isn’t evidence, it’s ignorance.

    Next, simply lie about what people have said so that you can argue against the strawman.

    Ignore questions and points put to you, especially when they point out the stupidity and irrelevance of your hobby horse “origins” fixation.

    Invent imaginary friends to support your desperate need to believe that the imaginary god of our preliterate societies actually exists and cares about you.

  46. on 21 Jan 2012 at 7:27 am 46.MrQ said …

    A #38

    Prove it. From the primordial soup to man. Show the steps.

    Ok. Can I wade into this?

    A/Asher/DND, when in the history of the planet Earth do you suggest that humans came to exist? 6000 years ago? 1 million years ago? Did humans exist during the time of the “soup”, some billions of years ago? Let the discussion begin.

  47. on 21 Jan 2012 at 10:50 am 47.Lou (DFW) said …

    42.Asher said …

    “I have provided evidence for God and Debunk agrees. It has not been challenged with any real argument.”

    This a complete and absolute lie. You are intellectually, if not completely, dishonest.

    “But now, A asks some great questions and legitimately as opposed to what Anonymous argues. Lou made these claims unprompted. Therefore they are fair game. Now..”

    I made no such claim. These are the “claims” of science. Do you want me to prove that sun is the center of the solar system, too? Along with ID, do you want to argue with me that astrology isn’t real? It’s the same thing. Do you accept astrology? If not, then please “prove” that it doesn’t work.

    “Lou makes a claim but he can’t support the claim? Isn’t that what he claims theist do.”

    I made no such “claim.” But, for the sake of ending this 100% irrelevant argument, I will concede that I personally have no proof or evidence of Big-Bang, ambiogenesis, or evolution. Now, can you please concentrate on providing evidence of your imaginary god rather than on tangents that you use to divert attention from the fact that there is no such evidence?

    “If he believes these claims but can’t provide evidence, he is a hypocrite. It will be interesting.”

    Let’s assume I am. So what? Is that your excuse for not providing evidence of your imaginary god?! REALLY?! That’s it?! Wow, your excuse is as weak as your actual argument!

  48. on 21 Jan 2012 at 10:59 am 48.Lou (DFW) said …

    “38.A said …

    “Prove it. From the primordial soup to man. Show the steps.”

    The “steps” are HOW evolution occurs, not that it does.

    Do you “believe” in gravity? If yes, then “prove” that gravity works. That is, explain to us HOW gravity works. Unless you can, according to your convoluted logic, it doesn’t work. Please hurry, because we don’t want to find ourselves floating off into space.

    Evolution and gravity are visible in all aspects of nature, but god isn’t. You only use god as an explanation of WHY they exist. But unlike evolution and gravity, you can NEVER show that god actually exists. Why not? Because of one simple fact – god does not exist. It’s that simple.

  49. on 21 Jan 2012 at 11:06 am 49.Lou (DFW) said …

    44.Debunking NeoDarwinism said …

    “There MO has become simple to follow.

    They don’t actually refute that evidence for a God exist.”

    Except, for example, when science 100% refutes theists claims of ID.

    There is only one thing we ask for – your evidence for your imaginary god. You haven’t provided any. You present the bible and phony science (ID). There’s as much evidence for astrology than there is for god and ID.

    We don’t counter with Big-bang, ambiogenesis, or evolution. THEISTS introduce those subjects to the discussion in order to divert attention from the fact that they have no evidence for their imaginary god.

  50. on 21 Jan 2012 at 11:32 am 50.Lou (DFW) said …

    45.Anonymous said …

    “Invent imaginary friends to support your desperate need to believe that the imaginary god of our preliterate societies actually exists and cares about you.”

    Yes, theists believe in God because of emotional reasons, atheists “believe” in evolution because of actual evidence and scientific theory. But, even the Pope accepts evolution as fact.

    Actually, people don’t “believe” in evolution anymore than they “believe” in heliocentricity. Those aren’t a matter of belief. They are matters of fact.

  51. on 21 Jan 2012 at 1:12 pm 51.Anonymous said …

    It’s a typical ploy to use equivocation over the words “faith” and “belief” in order to try to put their evidence-free claims on an equal footing with reality.

    As Lou points out, the theory of gravity applies whether you “believe” or understand it or not. On the other hand, even if you believe in it, prayer never works. Ever.

    Likewise, the theists try to convince themselves that people have “faith” in science – which works 100% of the time – as opposed to their use of the word “faith” which is belief despite facts and evidence to the contrary.

    It’s a disingenuous argument and it deliberately muddies the water.

    So, theists, let’s again assume that none of the stuff about “origins” from science is true. Let’s work from that premise. Now, show us your proof for the existence of your god.

  52. on 21 Jan 2012 at 2:24 pm 52.Debunking NeoDarwinism said …

    “I personally have no proof or evidence of Big-Bang, ambiogenesis, or evolution.”

    Then what you need to do is stop believing in these imaginary friends. You have become no more than a lacky believing whatever is feed you. Remember, you are a person who only believes in what can be proven.

    God (pick one you like) is much more obvious because science has show great complexity with the systems in nature. Your imaginary friend, abiogenesis did not create DNA. Intelligence produces intelligence. Much more evidence than you have for your imaginary friends.

    Let your healing begin Lou.

  53. on 21 Jan 2012 at 6:02 pm 53.Lou (DFW) said …

    “52.Debunking NeoDarwinism said …

    “Then what you need to do is stop believing in these imaginary friends.”

    OK, for the sake of this discussion, I will. Now please present your evidence for god, because what I “believe” about science is just another one of your tangents to avoid the fact that you have no evidence for your imaginary god.

    “You have become no more than a lacky believing whatever is feed you.”

    No, I haven’t, because it’s not a matter of “whatever is feed” to me – that is what religion does. It presents a belief system based upon something for which there is no evidence. Science is not religion.

    “Remember, you are a person who only believes in what can be proven.”

    First of all, you have not established what I believe or disbelieve, nor whether or not it based upon “what can be proven.”

    Secondly, the purpose of this blog is to explore God and religion in our world today. It is not for the discussion about what I may or may not believe about science.

    Lastly, please present your evidence for god or admit there is no such evidence and no such god. IT’S THAT SIMPLE. THAT’S ALL YOU MUST DO. If you can’t then simply ADMIT THAT GOD IS IMAGINARY.

  54. on 21 Jan 2012 at 8:24 pm 54.BB said …

    “It would be perfectly consistent with all we know to say that there was a Being who was responsible for all the laws of physics’

    Stephen Hawking

  55. on 21 Jan 2012 at 9:27 pm 55.Lou (DFW) said …

    “Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist.”

    “It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going.”

    Stephen Hawking

  56. on 22 Jan 2012 at 1:08 am 56.Anonymous said …

    I had a conversation yesterday with a group of professional astronomers. You know, the kind of people who spend their lives trying to understand how the universe works, how stars and planets form and so on.

    The question of how it all came to be came up. There was a common thread in everyone’s comment.

    With regard to the fact that there still are people in America that cling to the possibility that the universe was “designed” or created “for us” there were two words that kept coming up. The first was arrogance the second was ignorance.

    But then, Debunking Atheism knows better because we all know that uneducated, mostly illiterate, bronze-age, goat herders knew all there was to know about the universe, right? Too bad the goat-herders couldn’t even get the relationship between the earth and sun right, let alone it (not) being the only star.

    But yes, the less you understand about how things work, the more likely you are to think it was all done by a magic man in the sky. Too bad that kind of thinking belongs closer to the stone-age then it does to today.

  57. on 22 Jan 2012 at 2:09 am 57.A said …

    “But yes, the less you understand about how things work, the more likely you are to think it was all done by a magic man in the sky.”

    OK, what is you now know that eliminates a designer and/or creator?

    Impossible to get an answer from any of you.

  58. on 22 Jan 2012 at 2:45 am 58.MrQ said …

    A states:

    Impossible to get an answer from any of you.

    So if “A” would direct their attention to my post #46….Let’s start a discussion.
    A, please answer the simple questions.
    As a bonus, I am sure that we are both able to agree that our planet Earth is billions of years old, correct?

  59. on 22 Jan 2012 at 2:25 pm 59.Lou (DFW) said …

    57.A said …

    “OK, what is you now know that eliminates a designer and/or creator?

    Impossible to get an answer from any of you.”

    Damn, some you people simply never will get it. You’re dense a bucket of rocks.

    The point isn’t that anything “eliminates a designer and/or creator?” The point is that there’s no evidence for one.

    This has been answered over and over and over. But you NEVER provide evidence for your imaginary god.

  60. on 23 Jan 2012 at 12:01 am 60.Anonymous said …

    “intelligence produces intelligence” – then what created the intelligence that shaped the universe?

  61. on 26 Jan 2012 at 2:43 am 61.Anonymous said …

    And, as usual, once the Christian’s argument is shown to be nothing more than nonsense and special pleading, they run away.

  62. on 14 Mar 2012 at 1:04 pm 62.Matthew Chance said …

    I could only bare to skim this after seeing how, ironically enough, close minded some people are in here. There are some legitimate points being made for intelligent design, and the rebuttal following them simply calls it nonsense and demands to be shown proof. (When is there ever proof?) These are not true or false questions, they are more like essay questions, or choose-the-best-answer at best.

    It seems that a rational blog would recognize the need for considerate communication that aims to reveal Truth and not just be a gauntlet for the opposing points of view. Unless this blog was never intended to rationalize, but instead to ration a lie.

  63. on 14 Mar 2012 at 2:48 pm 63.ReligionIsStupid said …

    Translation. This blog upsets Matthew’s feelings. He doesn’t have any actual, you know, proof, so he’s going to hide behind his mother’s skirt, call people names, and come out when the coast is clear.

    Don’t worry, flower. Soon the resident troll will be along and you can pat each other on the back and talk about “truth”, and all without any need to reference anything other than your happy delusion.

  64. on 14 Mar 2012 at 11:15 pm 64.Matthew Chance said …

    Kind of arrogant to think you can translate my intended meaning, but whatever u gotta do to justify your ignorance.

  65. on 14 Mar 2012 at 11:22 pm 65.Matthew Chance said …

    Proove to me that there is no God and I will renounce my faith.

    You have nothing but rationalizations based on theories to back yourself up. I have a relationship with the Gos of the universe who guides my every step undeniably. Sorry, but I’m not convinced. All you do is repeat the same childish arguments. Atleast I’ve got some integrity in my post.

    Oh and this didn’t upset my feelings, it just made me feel sorry for the people on here who don’t know that God loves them and has a plan for them.

  66. on 14 Mar 2012 at 11:37 pm 66.DPK said …

    “…made me feel sorry for the people on here who don’t know that God loves them and has a plan for them.”

    Like these folks Matthew? Is this god’s plan for them?
    http://louxfamilyblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Starving-Child-5.jpg

  67. on 15 Mar 2012 at 12:31 am 67.ReligionIsStupid said …

    Kind of arrogant to think you can translate my intended meaning, but whatever u gotta do to justify your ignorance.

    But not arrogant of you to make statements on the intended purpose of this blog or that you have a relationship and a special understanding of the intentions of your god?

    OK, then, please describe this so-called “relationship” with the gos (sic) of the universe?

    How does your gos speak to you? Does he leave you voicemail, text you, email you, do you hear voices in your head? Don’t waffle here. Show how you KNOW it’s this gos, and not satan or a delusion.

    How does your gos guide you? Speak to you, leave you post-it notes? GPS, iPhone app?

    What is your gos’ favorite food? His favorite color? You said relationship, right? That’s a two-way street…unless, of course, you’re just saying you have a “relationship” because it sounds better and more adult than a delusion.

    Back it up Matthew. All you’ve done so far is whine. Produce something substantial will you.

  68. on 01 May 2012 at 5:51 pm 68.John said …

    Thank goodness you big brained atheists are their to bring reason in the world… Darwinism has never been revised to meet the evidence… I hope you can detect the sarcasm….

    The real humor is you honestly don’t see the faith your worldview takes… good stuff…

  69. on 01 May 2012 at 6:19 pm 69.Truth said …

    Translation.

    This blog upsets Religion is Stupid’s feelings. He doesn’t have any actual, you know, proof, so he’s going to hide behind his mother’s skirt, call people names, and come out when the coast is clear.

  70. on 01 May 2012 at 7:43 pm 70.Lou(DFW) said …

    68.John said …

    “Thank goodness you big brained atheists are their [sic] to bring reason in the world… Darwinism has never been revised to meet the evidence… I hope you can detect the sarcasm….”

    Sarcasm, doesn’t come across very well in blog comments, especially by you.

    “The real humor is you honestly don’t see the faith your worldview takes… good stuff…”

    Here we go again with you, John. Are you drinking when you post replies to seven week old comments, especially when your reply is composed of lies?

    That’s the “real humor.”

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply