- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Impressive support for Intelligent Design
Posted on 2/21/26 at 6:05 am to AlwysATgr
Posted on 2/21/26 at 6:05 am to AlwysATgr
quote:
That the theory of evolution wishes to play it safe and run from beginnings is not a strength. It ignores the implication that there might be Someone outside this observed order, that manipulates, perturbates, and yes, even deludes observers.
Edited as follows:
WAS: "evolution"
NOW: the theory of evolution
The educational system in the U.S. has failed a lot of you. Again you don’t understand what the theory of evolution says. Moreover, you don’t understand what a scientific theory is or what its function happens to be. Evolution is and always has been a scientific theory.
0
Posted on 2/21/26 at 7:31 am to Globetrotter747
For me, the massive fossil evidence can give each side ammo for their view.
'Wut 'massive' fossil evidence?'
For anyone who pays attention to such things, on the whole, there are a boatload of fossils out there. And the kicker is, they're not all jumbled randomly about, but can be found in pretty specific areas.
T. Rex - aforementioned, in the Western USA, Canada.
Archaeopteryx - So far, only in Germany have they been found.
Protoceratops - China and Mongolia.
That's not to mean they didn't have a larger range of territory in which they existed, but to date, certain species only have been preserved in one region of the planet.
'Wut 'massive' fossil evidence?'
For anyone who pays attention to such things, on the whole, there are a boatload of fossils out there. And the kicker is, they're not all jumbled randomly about, but can be found in pretty specific areas.
T. Rex - aforementioned, in the Western USA, Canada.
Archaeopteryx - So far, only in Germany have they been found.
Protoceratops - China and Mongolia.
That's not to mean they didn't have a larger range of territory in which they existed, but to date, certain species only have been preserved in one region of the planet.
Posted on 2/21/26 at 8:32 am to northshorebamaman
quote:And here is the problem. If God exists (I believe He does) and He has intervened in the natural world (I believe He has), then that is not something we can identify and comprehend scientifically. And yet it would still be true.
The question then becomes: does that claim generate testable predictions that differ from natural mechanisms? If not, it doesn’t function as an alternative explanation because it’s unfalsifiable.
Science is limited to the natural world, which is why those who make science their god typically reject claims of supernaturalism. They also typically only function within the philosophical framework of materialism and the epistemological framework of empiricism.
At the end of the day, they potentially reject the truth (and I believe they actually do) because of the type of evidence they accept in their worldview.
Posted on 2/21/26 at 8:36 am to FooManChoo
quote:
He has intervened in the natural world
Who created it if God merely intervened?
quote:
At the end of the day, they potentially reject the truth (and I believe they actually do) because of the type of evidence they accept in their worldview.
AKA: “My particular self-assured version of Calvinism is the only truth possible and the only view presented”
Posted on 2/21/26 at 9:04 am to Azkiger
quote:Its quite cool, actually. It is efficient.
And yet we breath and eat through the same tube, allowing thousands of children to choke every year.
Cool design!
The allowance for damage or destruction did not take away the greatness of the design. The epiglottis, for example, is a protective feature that blocks the airway when swallowing, preventing choking naturally, and it works extraordinarily well. We also have a cough reflex and vocal cords that fold when swallowing to help prevent choking.
There are a lot of great designs that have protective features built in that can still lead to destructive results due to outside factors. The lack of indestructibility is not a design flaw.
Posted on 2/21/26 at 9:12 am to Indefatigable
quote:God created it and intervened many times after its creation.
Who created it if God merely intervened?
I didn’t say He merely intervened in the natural world, as if He didn’t also create it. My point was that His intervention in creation is not something that is repeatable, testable, and falsifiable, so it is not “scientific”, and yet would still be true, nonetheless.
quote:I didn’t say that, but I will say that there are competing truth claims, and all claims cannot be true at the same time.
AKA: “My particular self-assured version of Calvinism is the only truth possible and the only view presented”
This post was edited on 2/21/26 at 9:14 am
Posted on 2/21/26 at 10:19 am to FooManChoo
quote:of course not, especially when all “truth” necessarily flows from a strict literal interpretation of Genesis, self-fulfilled by arbitrary “truths” that are in reality simply your beliefs.
all claims cannot be true at the same time.
Posted on 2/21/26 at 10:24 am to Bass Tiger
quote:
I'm not sure how reliable someone's critical thinking abilities are if they still believe complex life was birthed from a single cell organism in a primordial soup somewhere on earth 4 billion years ago.
The Dunning-Kruger is strong in this one.
Posted on 2/21/26 at 11:04 am to Neutral Underground
What does this have to do with anything. Basically the smartest people in the world for the last 100 years are almost exclusively atheistic.
But sure, boomers on TD are smarter.
But sure, boomers on TD are smarter.
Posted on 2/21/26 at 11:21 am to John somers
quote:
Every atheist ever?
Nope.
Virtually every atheist I've spoken to, as well as myself, are perfectly fine with saying "I don't have a strong belief on why there is something rather than nothing".
Honestly, even the phrasing is problematic.
There *is* nothing? That suggests that nothing "exists" which makes it something.
Can you even have nothing?
Is nothing even possible?
The only thing we've ever seen is something. Maybe nothing is impossible, or, is more unlikely than something and therefore would need an explanation rather than the existence of something.
Looking at our current understanding of the universe, the current concensus is that matter cannot be created or destroyed.
Many (most?) atheists are/would be perfectly fine with existence (something) being the default state, and actually flipping the demand for explanation to "norhing" rather than "something".
You've clearly not spoken to many atheists or just weren't listening/understanding.
The idea that they think literally every atheist believes there was nothing then a whole bunch of something is amazingly stupid.
Posted on 2/21/26 at 11:23 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
The singularity from what. Spontaneous creation from nothing?
The big bang starts with the singularity. Where the singularity came from would be a question for a different theory.
You don't know what your talking about.
Just take the L.
Posted on 2/21/26 at 11:31 am to FooManChoo
quote:
Its quite cool, actually. It is efficient.
The allowance for damage or destruction did not take away the greatness of the design. The epiglottis, for example, is a protective feature that blocks the airway when swallowing, preventing choking naturally, and it works extraordinarily well. We also have a cough reflex and vocal cords that fold when swallowing to help prevent choking.
There are a lot of great designs that have protective features built in that can still lead to destructive results due to outside factors. The lack of indestructibility is not a design flaw.
Yes evolution has come up with ways to try and cover this flaw, but none of this would be needed, and it would be impossible to choke on food, if we ate and breathed through different tubes.
Why is our current design better?
Also, I'm just picking low hanging fruit. Our bodies look very much like an animal that evolved to walk upright, not one that was *designed* to walk upright. Our backs/spines are a giant Achilles heel and any engineering student would get an F for the design.
Posted on 2/21/26 at 11:54 am to Indefatigable
quote:I’m glad you affirm the laws of identity and non-contradiction
of course not
quote:Not all truth, but all truth necessary for the faith and life of the Church, especially pertaining to salvation. And that is the whole of Scripture, not just Genesis.
especially when all “truth” necessarily flows from a strict literal interpretation of Genesis, self-fulfilled by arbitrary “truths” that are in reality simply your beliefs.
My beliefs are tied to objective realities, not merely wishful thinking. If I didn’t think they were true and real, I wouldn’t believe them.
Posted on 2/21/26 at 12:00 pm to LittleJerrySeinfield
Lol. No you unbelievable moron.
Posted on 2/21/26 at 12:06 pm to Azkiger
quote:You speak as if this unguided process has a will and acts with intent. It doesn’t.
Yes evolution has come up with ways to try and cover this flaw
quote:Technically, we do. The trachea and the esophagus are different tubes. One leads to the stomach and one to the lungs.
but none of this would be needed, and it would be impossible to choke on food, if we ate and breathed through different tubes.
I believe you mean, if the two tubes were not in such close proximity to each other. If so, it would add more complexity to the process, as the muscles that control swallowing and opening the airway are in close proximity and work together efficiently.
quote:I just stated why. Also, I’m glad you referred to it as a design. A design implies a personal designer with will.
Why is our current design better?
quote:Yeah, it’s an easy one to show why the current design is efficient. Thanks for that
Also, I'm just picking low hanging fruit.
quote:I absolutely disagree. The shape and function of our backs/spines allow us to walk upright with support, flexibility, and mobility on two legs. The disks absorb shock, the spine protects our spinal cord, and the vertebrae are larger where more support is needed.
Our bodies look very much like an animal that evolved to walk upright, not one that was *designed* to walk upright. Our backs/spines are a giant Achilles heel and any engineering student would get an F for the design.
While there are other ways our bodies could have been formed, there is nothing “wrong” with how we were made, and the body’s design appears to show signs of intent and care.
Posted on 2/21/26 at 12:22 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
I just stated why.
No, you stated safety measures that help mitigate the structure, not why our current structure is better than the structure I've proposed.
quote:
...and the body’s design appears to show signs of intent and care.
And yet the back/spine is, by far, the most common structure to get injured. It's almost as if we evolved from quadruped.
Oh, but I'm sure in the garden of Eden, prior to the fall, our backs were somehow different? This is just Satan's way of corrupting God's creation. I wonder how Adam and Even did look, though? How were their spines designed differently?
Posted on 2/21/26 at 1:12 pm to j1897
quote:You are assuredly wrong. However, in the instance of those who actually are atheist, theirs is merely a different faith choice, no more founded than those of theist faiths.
Basically the smartest people in the world for the last 100 years are almost exclusively atheistic.
Posted on 2/21/26 at 1:13 pm to NC_Tigah
Posted on 2/21/26 at 1:14 pm to j1897
quote:Sorry, you're 100% wrong ... obviously.
No.
Posted on 2/21/26 at 1:16 pm to NC_Tigah
You are 110% wrong.
See how easy and unproductive that is.
See how easy and unproductive that is.
Page 10 of 37
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News