Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    13 Jul '13 02:25
    Richard Dawkins admits to Intelligent Design

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoncJBrrdQ8

    The Instructor
  2. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    13 Jul '13 02:47
    Stephen Meyer, Signature in the Cell: What is intelligent design?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ng1EsEWVHjc

    Debunking Objections to Intelligent Design Science

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82efoUO85bE&list=PLYCq_ld3_7M5pwzmqGU2wBmj9fEx6Yxtt

    The Instructor
  3. 13 Jul '13 02:54 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Richard Dawkins admits to Intelligent Design

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoncJBrrdQ8

    The Instructor
    No Dawkins did not admit to intelligent design. He said it could be possible. Indeed, many agnostics such as myself, admit there might be some prime mover. That prime mover, if it exists, is subject ot all the laws of nature it put in place. Laws that explain evolution. it is not an omnicient, omnipotent being with an ego that needs recognition from humans. It does not care a twit about you or anyone else.
  4. Standard member lemon lime
    blah blah blah
    13 Jul '13 03:23 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by Phranny
    No Dawkins did not admit to intelligent design. He said it could be possible. Indeed, many agnostics such as myself, admit there might be some prime mover. That prime mover, if it exists, is subject ot all the laws of nature it put in place. Laws that explain evolution. it is not an omnicient, omnipotent being with an ego that needs recognition from humans. It does not care a twit about you or anyone else.
    Are you saying you believe there could be an intelligent prime mover who created everything, but doesn't care a whit about anything in the creation this prime mover was repsonsible for creating? If so, then why would any prime mover care a whit about creating it in the first place?


    Edit: Never mind, I just now realised that was not what you were saying. But if this prime mover is intelligent, then why would he make himself subject to the laws he made, and why wouldn't he care a twit about his own creation?

    By the way, when I say he i'm not suggesting the prime mover is male. It's just more economical to simply say he than it is to always say the prime mover. And if the prime mover is intelligent, then it doesn't make sense to refer to him as it. Any conscious intelligent entity deserves better than to be referred to as an it.

    2nd Edit: "No Dawkins did not admit to intelligent design. He said it could be possible."
    Does this mean Dawkins admits to the possibility of intelligent design, but not to the possibility of an intelligent designer? I'm not well versed in the nuances of pantheism.
  5. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    13 Jul '13 04:00
    Intelligent Design Science: What is information?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-lsJMbd1M4

    The Instructor
  6. Standard member lemon lime
    blah blah blah
    13 Jul '13 04:05
    Originally posted by Phranny
    No Dawkins did not admit to intelligent design. He said it could be possible. Indeed, many agnostics such as myself, admit there might be some prime mover. That prime mover, if it exists, is subject ot all the laws of nature it put in place. Laws that explain evolution. it is not an omnicient, omnipotent being with an ego that needs recognition from humans. It does not care a twit about you or anyone else.
    I suspect admitting a prime mover is not really an admission of anything. Intelligent design implies an intelligent designer, but this prime mover of yours doesn't appear to have any intelligence. Your prime mover appears to be simply an admission of a first cause.
  7. 13 Jul '13 07:14
    Originally posted by lemon lime
    Does this mean Dawkins admits to the possibility of intelligent design, but not to the possibility of an intelligent designer?
    I am sure Dawkins would, as I would, admit to the possibility of both. What neither of us currently admit to, is good evidence for either (or other considerations that may lead us to belief in their existence). We also claim that the God as described in the Bible could not possibly exist as described.
  8. 13 Jul '13 07:20
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Richard Dawkins admits to Intelligent Design
    If you really want to know Dawkins views, try watching this:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21NoQuKTB8Q

    Hes having a discussion with a professor and they both basically agree that large parts of the Bible are not historical.
  9. 13 Jul '13 09:09
    Richard Dawkins reads hate mail (profanity warning, although not from him).

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZuowNcuGsc
  10. 13 Jul '13 10:23 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Richard Dawkins admits to Intelligent Design

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoncJBrrdQ8

    The Instructor
    Wait a second, Richard Dawkins says I've watched alien vs predator

    I'm sorry to say that intelligent design always strikes me as bad science - Amphibians and Molluscs have quite malleable DNA but that's as intelligent as dna manipulation gets I think, until we start - The only example I can think of is Humans selectively breeding plants / farm animals
  11. 13 Jul '13 18:15
    Originally posted by e4chris
    Wait a second, Richard Dawkins says I've watched alien vs predator

    I'm sorry to say that intelligent design always strikes me as bad science - Amphibians and Molluscs have quite malleable DNA but that's as intelligent as dna manipulation gets I think, until we start - The only example I can think of is Humans selectively breeding plants / farm animals
    I think that any science that can't be tested and reproduced is bad science. People need to understand what Science can say and what Science can't say. When they try to use science incorrectly to try to convince themselves and others that what they want to believe is correct, it is bad science.
  12. Standard member lemon lime
    blah blah blah
    14 Jul '13 05:14
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Richard Dawkins admits to Intelligent Design

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoncJBrrdQ8

    The Instructor
    I doubt it. I think Dawkins is just trying to be clever, like pantheists who talk about a prime mover when all they are really talking about is a first cause. The term Prime Mover is suggestive of an intelligence, but nothing they say about it suggests anything of the kind. I don't know why they don't just acknowledge their idea as first cause and simply leave it at that.

    They could just as easily call themselves First Cause-ists, it would mean the same thing.
  13. 14 Jul '13 08:13
    Originally posted by lemon lime
    I don't know why they don't just acknowledge their idea as first cause and simply leave it at that.
    Because anyone talking about a prime mover is trying to prove the existence of God.
  14. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    14 Jul '13 10:31
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Because anyone talking about a prime mover is trying to prove the existence of God.
    They can't allow anybody to do that.

    The Instructor
  15. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    14 Jul '13 14:39
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    They can't allow anybody to do that.

    The Instructor
    Hey, you are so all fired sure of your god, find the archaeological evidence for the bible stories outside of the bible. For instance, Paul didn't know much about JC, the exodus didn't happen like it says in the bible and most of the other tales in the bible are all way exaggerated. Especially the stupid flood tale. Oh, Jonah got swallowed by a whale? REALLY?