Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / NewStats: 3,201,920 members, 7,980,279 topics. Date: Sunday, 20 October 2024 at 10:38 AM |
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / Intelligent Designer Refuted (2729 Views)
Jehovah's Witnesses Refuted / When A Bright Intelligent Child Becomes A Struggling Adult / 7 Facts About The Seventh Day, That Can Not Be Refuted (2) (3) (4)
Re: Intelligent Designer Refuted by hakeem4(m): 6:45am On Jun 16, 2019 |
kkins25:why? Without any reason you give an exception for the intelligent designer. It’s not fair! 1 Like 1 Share |
Re: Intelligent Designer Refuted by EmperorHarry: 7:21am On Jun 16, 2019 |
hakeem4:Natural selection explaining how complex organisms evolved to be doesn't necessarily make it a valid evidence to refute ID.If I asked you as an atheists how the universe and life came to be,would you just humbly say you don't know yet or would you sight the big bang and evolution as an valid explanation in a bid to disapprove of an ID? Let's not drag this any further. I've made my point which is to clarify that evolution just like gravity,matter,light and not as if it's an occurrence created to refute ID..Maybe it's just me misinterpreting things and if that's the case I apologise. hakeem4: |
Re: Intelligent Designer Refuted by Nobody: 6:01pm On Jun 27, 2019 |
Billy please educate me on what you meant by "a deep mind database for probabilistic possibilities of choices for freewill". Billy0naire: |
Re: Intelligent Designer Refuted by Nobody: 6:29pm On Jun 27, 2019 |
Billy are you trying to say 'the real you/me' goes on ad infitum? Billy0naire: |
Re: Intelligent Designer Refuted by kkins25(m): 11:48am On Jul 12, 2019 |
Billy0naire:very interested in @bolded. What makes you think @bolded? |
Re: Intelligent Designer Refuted by LordReed(m): 12:26pm On Jul 12, 2019 |
EmperorHarry: You are correct evolution and big bang cosmology were not proposed as counters to ID nor are they really evidence against ID (though anybody proposing evolution as an ID mechanism must concede that the designer isn't really intelligent). 1 Like 1 Share |
Re: Intelligent Designer Refuted by EmperorHarry: 12:39pm On Jul 12, 2019 |
LordReed:Thank you..Please let Hakeem4 be drilled by this truth so he doesn't arm himself with inappropriate weapons when fighting(Refuting and disproving) against ID. (though anybody proposing evolution as an ID mechanism must concede that the designer isn't really intelligent.)The intelligence often associated with a higher being is exaggerated.A careful examination of the ills found within the world around us is a tip that the world isn't perfectly made.The universe is flawed but that doesn't mean a designer isn't intelligent. |
Re: Intelligent Designer Refuted by LordReed(m): 2:57pm On Jul 12, 2019 |
EmperorHarry: I agree its intelligence must be very much exaggerated. Almost like if it is just another human being... |
Re: Intelligent Designer Refuted by hakeem4(m): 7:21pm On Jul 12, 2019 |
EmperorHarry:well ID is not a serious position to hold cause there’s no evidence to back the premise. Well natural selection explains how we have complex life so I do not see the need for any ID except you talk about the origin of life and we have a hypothesis called abiogenesis |
Re: Intelligent Designer Refuted by EmperorHarry: 9:45pm On Jul 12, 2019 |
hakeem4:Very true,but what if evidence sits right in front of you? ID without religion holds pretty much no water.Religion has privileged ID with a place in human history without much scrutiny.So it's pretty much just an assumption when separated from religious influence.It is most fascinating independent of religion.Interpretation of an ID becomes subjectively limitless. Well natural selection explains how we have complex life so I do not see the need for any ID except you talk about the origin of life and we have a hypothesis called abiogenesisNatural selection isn't foolproof Hakeem. It's like an assumed master keys in the hands of science but somehow there are doors that the keys doesn't fit.There are doors with watchmen that collect and fling the keys into depths of the unknown.I trust science tho,to pick the locks and wrestle with strongmen so as to gain entry into closed doors but until then Hakeem,keep an open mind lest what lies behind those doors be the same knowledge you seem so apprehensive towards.Abiogenesis is more flawed than ID.If you can entertain the idea of Abiogenesis,why can't you do same for ID? |
Re: Intelligent Designer Refuted by hakeem4(m): 10:36pm On Jul 12, 2019 |
EmperorHarry:. well i have not seen any evidence for the intelligent designer. i would like if you could give me some. well if natural selection was flawed like you claim, it would not have passed any peer review and many scientist would not acknowledge it. Even if NS was flawed it wont still make creationism right. now Abiogenesis is a hypothesis that tells us how life started ( it could be wrong though) but its plausible. The miller urey's experiment shows that abiogenesis is actually plausible. And since god did it is more of a religious claim than a hypothesis. |
Re: Intelligent Designer Refuted by EmperorHarry: 7:05am On Jul 13, 2019 |
hakeem4:Sadly I can't provide you solid objective evidence.Your view of the world has being clouded by natural selection,so it's futile to provide evidences that are aren't overwhelmingly obvious. well if natural selection was flawed like you claim, it would not have passed any peer review and many scientist would not acknowledge it.Evolution was first proposed by Lamarck without natural selection as a fundamental mechanism. Flawed theories were the result in the end until Darwin revised evolution using natural selection.It sounds more plausible but relies on way too many assumptions when adapted to illustrate evolution from simple to complex organisms.The finger of natural selection is very plausible when comparing living things within similar categories which is what it thrives tbh.It still doesn't explain consciousness in humans tho among other important questions. So the fact is science accepts evolution through natural selection because of the short chain similarities within a family in the taxonomic ranking.It's with this supposed evidence they use as a basis for extrapolation.This doesn't mean they can't just be chasing winds. Even if NS was flawed it wont still make creationism rightHere's why I pleaded with you to be open minded.You still sulk in your bias towards ID.It's all good tho. now Abiogenesis is a hypothesis that tells us how life started ( it could be wrong though) but its plausible. The miller urey's experiment shows that abiogenesis is actually plausible.Abiogenesis depends on evolution which is still under construction.Natural and artificial influence aren't the same thing.Artificial influence on natural phenomena is susceptible to fine tuning. And since god did it is more of a religious claim than a hypothesis.Hakeem did you know ID was invented before religion? The ID hypothesis preceded religion and is the basis of religion.Religion merely ensured it's dominance and sustenance over time just as science similarly does with evolution.ID was proposed during the infancy of human intelligence and I'm still at a loss as to why we came up with such a delusion perhaps we were spoon fed and nurtured into this knowledge? I don't really feel we didn't merely comprehend natural phenomena as an excuse for a theory as elaborate as an ID. |
Re: Intelligent Designer Refuted by LordReed(m): 9:21am On Jul 13, 2019 |
EmperorHarry: What type of evidence do you then have? It sounds more plausible but relies on way too many assumptions when adapted to illustrate evolution from simple to complex organisms. What are these assumptions?
Scientific theories are not end all, be all statements. If evolution doesn't explain the dawn of mind there will be other theories that do.
No it doesn't. |
Re: Intelligent Designer Refuted by EmperorHarry: 11:36am On Jul 13, 2019 |
LordReed:None that you aren't already aware of. What are these assumptions?The numerous hand drawn illustrations depicting evolutionary processes without actual evident fossils to back it up is one of the glaring assumptions made by science. Scientific theories are not end all, be all statements. If evolution doesn't explain the dawn of mind there will be other theories that do.An artificial intelligence perhaps?(Lol) No it doesn't.Lol..We both know it does.Abiogenesis seeks to corroborate evolution.What is the need of the origin of life without life itself? What's the need of an author without his/her literary work? |
Re: Intelligent Designer Refuted by LordReed(m): 12:13pm On Jul 13, 2019 |
EmperorHarry: Which is none, copy that.
Show me an example of this hand drawn illustration depicting evolutionary processes.
Amazing non-answer.
It does not. Abiogenesis is but one possibility for how life arose and is separate from evolution and only appears to be tied to evolution because you refuse to expand the limits of your knowledge. |
Re: Intelligent Designer Refuted by hakeem4(m): 3:52pm On Jul 13, 2019 |
EmperorHarry:my view on the world is based on OBJECTIVE FACTS if you give me evidence for your ID and it goes with many experiment, and it is also peer reviewed then i would acknowledge. But if you want to use Logic or common sense to support your premise then i am sorry i would not even take a look at it. there are some hypothesis working on how consciousness evolved. okay this is a religious section so i am not going to flood it with much scientific terms. All higher organisms (Homo sapiens, chimps, bonobos, etc) are all conscious animals. so this appeared to be directly proportional to the complexity of the animals brain. how does the start of something depend on the end |
Re: Intelligent Designer Refuted by LordReed(m): 4:48pm On Jul 13, 2019 |
hakeem4: Expect one twisted logic of an explanation. |
Re: Intelligent Designer Refuted by EmperorHarry: 8:06pm On Jul 13, 2019 |
LordReed:Not quite. Show me an example of this hand drawn illustration depicting evolutionary processes.It's attached to this reply even tho I don't think I should be providing such illustrations as they are a fundamental part of evolution theory. Amazing non-answer.Lol..It wasn't an answer but a sly suggestion with underlying sarcasm. It does not. Abiogenesis is but one possibility for how life arose and is separate from evolution and only appears to be tied to evolution because you refuse to expand the limits of your knowledge.I humbly disagree with your opinion of me as one that refuses to expand the limits of his knowledge.Abiogenesis is dependent on evolution as it is preceded by evolution itself.You can only convince me that it isn't if your provide proof that it was first hypothesize before evolution.When critics began questioning the origin of the first cellular organisms,Abiogenesis is invented.Scientists didn't first invent Abiogenesis then evolution.It's the other way round. When I say Abiogenesis is dependent on evolution,I mean it only holds any credibility because of evolution. Evolution is the foundation on which such hypotheses thrive as regards to a natural explanation for everything.You and I don't really have much to disagree about cos you don't open threads that clearly state "ID refuted". 1 Like 1 Share
|
Re: Intelligent Designer Refuted by EmperorHarry: 8:20pm On Jul 13, 2019 |
hakeem4:Like I said earlier,I have no proposed evidences you haven't known already and probably dismissed.I can only assure you that when I'm convinced by a discovery I find important,I'll let you know. there are some hypothesis working on how consciousness evolved. okay this is a religious section so i am not going to flood it with much scientific terms.All higher organisms (Homo sapiens, chimps, bonobos, etc) are all conscious animals. so this appeared to be directly proportional to the complexity of the animals brain.Human and animal and animal consciousness are on different levels,you know that right? how does the start of something depend on the endWhen the ending is the only available and observable material. |
Re: Intelligent Designer Refuted by LordReed(m): 10:14pm On Jul 13, 2019 |
EmperorHarry: Then provide it, it's that simple.
Each of those animals has their fossils on record so I am not understanding what your objection is. Did you think they were fantasty?
Never called it an answer.
It's like saying the foundations of a house depend on the walls for support because the walls lead down into the ground. It's a silly notion and one you shouldn't be holding. Abiogenesis precedes evolution by centuries and is not the only hypothesis put forward on the origin of life, don't keep holding ideas that have no basis in reality. |
Re: Intelligent Designer Refuted by hakeem4(m): 6:37am On Jul 15, 2019 |
EmperorHarry:You could even win a Nobel laureate if you find one evidence to disprove natural selection. So if god was wrong about where humans came from, then he’s definitely wrong about where we’d end up after death. Meaning god is not omniscient or intelligent. Then why call him god or the intelligent designer? 1 Like 1 Share |
Re: Intelligent Designer Refuted by EmperorHarry: 5:02pm On Jul 15, 2019 |
LordReed:Not quite simple.It's still proving a rather herculean task to convince certain people that evolution is a natural phenomenon in spite of the "evidence" Each of those animals has their fossils on record so I am not understanding what your objection is. Did you think they were fantasty?Not all those animals have fossils on record just like other illustrations of it's kind with the same aim. Never called it an answer.Lol.Okay It's like saying the foundations of a house depend on the walls for support because the walls lead down into the ground. It's a silly notion and one you shouldn't be holding. Abiogenesis precedes evolution by centuries and is not the only hypothesis put forward on the origin of life, don't keep holding ideas that have no basis in reality.Abiogenesis associated with strictly modern scientific influence doesn't precede evolution I'm afraid.If you can provide scientifically experimented abiogenetic tests that were carried out before Darwinian theory.Mind you,evolution theory was first postulated by Lamarck so these proofs have to predate this to avoid any evolutionary influence.Spontaneous generation isn't relevant. The context in which I'm interpreting abiogenesis "Abiogenesis, the idea that life arose from nonlife more than 3.5 billion years ago on Earth. Abiogenesis proposes that the first life-forms generated were very simple and through a gradual process became increasingly complex." |
Re: Intelligent Designer Refuted by LordReed(m): 5:19pm On Jul 15, 2019 |
EmperorHarry: I am not asking you to convince me, I am asking for evidence, that is simple.
Which ones don't have fossils?
Early greek philosophers laid the philosophical foundations of the distinction between bio and abiogenesis, when they debated organic and non-organic explanations for natural phenomena. Historical Development of the Distinction between Bio- and Abiogenesis. Robert B. Sheldon So we are talking about a hypothesis that was made in antiquity during the time of Aristotle while you are mentioning a theory that was first proposed less than 400 years ago. |
Re: Intelligent Designer Refuted by EmperorHarry: 5:22pm On Jul 15, 2019 |
hakeem4:Lol..Would it be the case if I found evidence to prove ID? So if god was wrong about where humans came from, then he’s definitely wrong about where we’d end up after death.God hasn't made a case for itself just yet.Human influences or interpretations of God and "God said" is pretty much human logic impersonating ID. Meaning god is not omniscient or intelligent. Then why call him god or the intelligent designer?If a product of human intelligence could complain,let's say a car or a generator,it would make the same case we make now against our intelligence.Perhaps it exaggerated our intelligence or neglected the possibility that we're confined to make the best out of the materials available to us? Would the ills that befall these machines discredit the intelligence of it's inventor? Perhaps it's the fault of the invention in search of an objective model of perfection,created illusions to fit it's subjective model of it's inventor? Who's fault is it now? |
Re: Intelligent Designer Refuted by EmperorHarry: 5:30pm On Jul 15, 2019 |
LordReed:Well I'm also saying that even if I did provide the evidence,it is certainly not enough to convince you if what I interpret as evidence is not the same with your interpretation. Which ones don't have fossils?I don't think I have to mention the ones that don't have fossils.The internet should do the trick. Early greek philosophers laid the philosophical foundations of the distinction between bio and abiogenesis, when they debated organic and non-organic explanations for natural phenomena.As I said the Spontaneous generation hypothesis is irrelevant.Abiogenesis is different from Spontaneous generation as regards to mechanisms but similar in the aim which is providing explanation for the origin of life through non-organic elements.Abiogenesis was coined in modern times when it was first proposed in 1924 or there about. |
Re: Intelligent Designer Refuted by LordReed(m): 5:42pm On Jul 15, 2019 |
EmperorHarry: How do you know what I interpret as evidence? Anyway this is getting tedious, I am not begging you, provide or don't.
I have checked and didn't see the one that doesn't. Why is it this way with you? Are you being forced? If you don't want an honest discussion just say so.
LMFAO! Car is not a vehicle because car came after vehicle. LoL! Even when the scholarly work you requested confirms that the hypothesis has its roots in Greek philosophers you are going to deny it over semantics? Wow. BTW you can show me which of Lamarck's work was called Theory of Evolution. I think this is a sign, the discussion has reached its end point. |
Re: Intelligent Designer Refuted by budaatum: 9:02pm On Jul 15, 2019 |
hakeem4:God never told you where humans came from! All you have is what some wrote in a book and claimed came from God, and if those promoting evolution could fool you with God done it they would too except we do not see as dimly as we saw when Scripture was a science textbook and people were much more gullible than we were then because we have evolved. |
Re: Intelligent Designer Refuted by hakeem4(m): 10:29pm On Jul 15, 2019 |
Then if we humans can understand the intelligent designers design. Then he’s not as intelligent has you claimed. EmperorHarry: |
Re: Intelligent Designer Refuted by kkins25(m): 12:28am On Jul 16, 2019 |
budaatum:now you sound like me 1 Like 1 Share |
Re: Intelligent Designer Refuted by budaatum: 1:26am On Jul 16, 2019 |
kkins25:I'm sure I sound like buda. You sure you read me enough? I wonder if you see religion and not the human being behind the religion. Lets try it. If I were to say Jesus is Lord, don't you automatically start seeing some grass eating, as Niflheim calls 'em, flat baby earth individual? It's a kind of blindness, the not looking at all sort which is endemic amongst humans. We look but we see not. I got to admit though that I'm seen. I'm in your face so I'm seen. I'll tell you who I see when I look at you with my eyes that see. I see Kkins25 who made me fork out $50 for posting porn on a site I'm respected on! Not a lot of people dip their fingers in my money like you do. You owe me dude! You fuqing owe me! Now tell. Who does buda sound like |
Re: Intelligent Designer Refuted by budaatum: 1:31am On Jul 16, 2019 |
hakeem4:Why? Are you assuming you can't learn everything about the intelligent designer? You know that'll mean you're kind of not intelligent, right? Or that the intelligent designer didn't put the artificial intelligence model in you! I don't agree you can't understand. You just being lazy! |
Re: Intelligent Designer Refuted by budaatum: 3:10am On Jul 16, 2019 |
EmperorHarry:Did you miss how tough johnydon22 was on op? Your evidence can only not be enough to convince because it isn't evidence or because the person you present it to refuses to look at it or see it, in which case we'd just say they are blind. Interpreted evidence on the other hand is of a different order, and more especially if its in the form of words which are subject to interpretation. I'll give an example. I'm going to write a few words in my next sentence. I'm going to hide them just to make it harder for you. With them I intend to state how I feel about you. I have to forewarn you that its not pretty and if I were in front of you you might not like it a tiny bit. In fact that feeling rages in me at this very moment and I wish I'd change my mind. You ready? Don't blush on me now! I love you. There, interpret that! |
Which One Of The Prophets In History Did Not Submit To God, Hence Not A Muslim? / Do You Believe In Generational Curse / Kaduna People, How True Is This?
Viewing this topic: 1 guest(s)
(Go Up)
Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 119 |