Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No your missing my point at least in part, Dawkins is saying intelligent design is a scientific hypothesis as long as that hypothesis does not include God.
You said it was a stupid hypothesis. So again you think that ID is a stupid hypothesis as long as it does not include God.
Quote:
Thus Dawkins is proposing a scientific hypothesis for intelligent design.
Do you even know where the quote comes from and what he was doing - he was answering a speculative question by a theist. He is simply saying that if design is to be granted then this is what he would envision. He is not proposing anything as fact nor does he necessarily believe it.
But such a hypothesis is more reasonable given that the intelligence that we are aware of is material in nature not some non-material abstract omni mind which there is no evidence for at all.
Last edited by 2K5Gx2km; 01-11-2020 at 10:07 AM..
01-11-2020, 09:55 AM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
lol cant deal with the quotes so immediately jump to a quote mine defense. Dawkins said what he said, deal with it
I did deal with it and you posted more quotes as if that was a response worthy of dialogue.
01-11-2020, 09:58 AM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
As a side note, Richard Dawkins says this about design
“It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved by probably some kind of Darwinian means to a very, very high level of technology— and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. … And I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.”
In effect Dawkins is saying it is possible that some intelligent being filled our planet with seeds of life, but of course that intelligent being simply could not be God.
See Post #971.
01-11-2020, 10:00 AM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
Thus instead of accepting design, because it would indicate a designer, Dawkins tries to explain away the design by saying only the appearance of design.
It goes like this you are walking in the woods and see a tree fort, do you say holy cow the trees evolved into a tree fort or do say some intelligent person built the tree fort.
No, Dawkins is not dismissing design by merely invoking appearances. What he is doing is showing that research has shown that no design is necessary and as such the hoopla by theists regarding design is mere appearances like so many other things in regard to human perceptions.
And tree forts are not biological reproducing and mutating organisms. Your analogy sucks!
Thus instead of accepting design, because it would indicate a designer, Dawkins tries to explain away the design by saying only the appearance of design.
Misrepresenting Dawkins, how ironic, cha, cha, cha. Dawkins does not accept design because of the evidence against design.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
It goes like this you are walking in the woods and see a tree fort, do you say holy cow the trees evolved into a tree fort or do say some intelligent person built the tree fort.
It goes like this. You look at a snowflake, and think did your god design that as well? Or maybe it was the snowflake Kobold? Or maybe it was natural forces. Just because tree forts are designed does not mean everything is designed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
if you think flew was senile when he said that you should read his book there is a/no (being crossed out) God
You mean the book that was probably ghost written for him?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
Funny how when flew was an atheist all atheist hailed him as a great man, but when he realized evolution could not answer the questions he turned to an intelligent designer all of a sudden he is a senile old man.
Funny how most atheists did not even know who Flew was until the religious desperate for an atheist hero resurrected him from his grave.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
Flew knew more about the issues at hand then you or I will likely ever know and he came to the conclusion after many years that the best answer to all the equations was an intelligent designer.
No your missing my point at least in part, Dawkins is saying intelligent design is a scientific hypothesis as long as that hypothesis does not include God.
Thus Dawkins is proposing a scientific hypothesis for intelligent design.
I love that. This from someone who complained i misrepresented him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
lol cant deal with the quotes so immediately jump to a quote mine defense. Dawkins said what he said, deal with it
How dishonest of you. Quotemining is a known fallacy which religious apologists never hesitate to use if they feel that the Bible (for instance) is being quoted out of context. You are just cheating if you insist that the objection is invalid and it must be taken as the exact words (as interpreted by you) look.
Even if Dawkins had meant what you you claimed, there is no dogmatic reason why his views are obligatory to other atheists, no more than I have to agree with those atheists who think we should change our name.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
My posts are centered on God and his creation, and this is the religious form so as Long as I bring God into the equation as the designer of all things my post are within the parameters of religion.
Well, I'm just warning, not telling you not to do it. I'm happy to debate evolution, but the Mods may not be. I'm also saying that having a wrangle on evolution won't do you any good, but I can't stop you trying.
o
Quote:
And you are totally wrong about what convinced flew to change his mind, maybe you should read his book to see what he said changed his mind.
Well I may be wrong. I'm going by what I heard him say at the time. But why don't you tell me what you think convinced him, since you appear to know what in his book?
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 01-11-2020 at 10:23 AM..
no he did not change his mind, he sees design but tries to explain it away.
No, Dawkins definitely argues why things appear to be designed. Cha, cha, cha.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
now if he did not see design why would he hypothesize our world being seed with life from an intelligence not of this world.
Because it is a plausible ID hypothesis that relies on natural forces.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
Obviously Dawkins like most atheists evolutionists trying to get around seeing design just try to explain it away instead of accepting what they observe time and time again.
Now you are misrepresenting every biologist (including Christians who accept evolution).
You said it was a stupid hypothesis. So again you think that ID is a stupid hypothesis as long as it does not include God.
Do you even know where the quote comes from and what he was doing - he was answering a speculative question by a theist. He is simply saying that if design is to be granted then this is what he would envision. He is not proposing anything as fact nor does he necessarily believe it.
But such a hypothesis is more reasonable given that the intelligence that we are aware of in material in nature not some non-material abstract omni mind which there is no evidence for at all.
it is a stupid hypothesis via the conclusion Dawkins came to. Atheist are always telling me that they do not know how life came about so how then can they conclude it did not come about via God. if they don't know they don't know. thus they simply cannot exclude God as the designer of all that is.
here is the question and Dawkins answer.
What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in Darwinian evolution?
Dawkins: Well it could come about in the following way. It could be that, eh, at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilization evolved by probably some kind of Darwinian means to a very, very, high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Ehm, now, that is a possibility and an intriguing possibility and I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the um detail, details, of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.
So here is a question for all atheist evolutionists
If you don’t know how life began, how can you possibly know it is not designed?
God's signature is seen throughout all of creation because He is the designer of all that is.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So again you think that ID is a stupid hypothesis as long as it does not include God. 
I love that. This from someone who complained i misrepresented him.