Intelligent Design in Biology

Originally posted by RJHinds
It must be because God made laws that allow the different patterns in snowflakes and the different patterns for fingerprints, etc. HalleluYah !!!

but why must it be that God made laws that allow the different patterns in snowflakes and the different patterns for fingerprints, etc ?

Besides, that would do nothing to counter-argue against my argument that something merely being complex doesn't necessarily indicate intelligence with intent made that complexity.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Remember, Anthony Flew was the top Atheist for 50 years

I love this. AF was not just an atheist, but the TOP atheist for 50 years!

We've lost our king and must surrender. 😞

Where can I find the rankings? I want to know my leadership. Don't say it's Richard Dawkins or I'll scream.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Remember, Anthony Flew was the top Atheist for 50 years and he changed his mind because the new evidence supports the existence of and intelligent, creative being. The position of evolutionists is not supported by mathematics or logic in any way I can see. But the creation and design of life by an intellgent being became the only logical conclusion left fo ...[text shortened]... now we must let the creation tree grow and produce its fruit. HalleluYah !!! Praise the LOrd!.

describe this alleged new evidence and how it makes the evolution tree fall.

Originally posted by humy

His arrogance is stating evolution is fact and there is no God.

how is stating evolution is fact and stating there is no God be “arrogance”?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/arrogant
“...
1. Having or displaying a sense of overbearing self-worth or self-importance.
2. Marked by or arising from a feeling or assumption of one's superior ...[text shortened]... scientific fact as fact including evolution and you obviously don't know much about science.

ar·ro·gant

adjective
1.
making claims or pretensions to superior importance or rights; overbearingly assuming; insolently proud: an arrogant public official.

2.
characterized by or proceeding from arrogance: arrogant claims.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/arrogant

I was thinking more like the above definitons. That is, his arrogant claims that evolution is fact and God does not exist when he is only assuming that to be true. And it is done by both of you with the attitude that your understanding must be right because your opinion is more logical and scientifically correct than anyone that disagrees with you. So they must be wrong no matter who they are.

I never said I was not arrogant. I am arrogant for God and His Christ. HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! 😏

Originally posted by SwissGambit
I love this. AF was not just an atheist, but the TOP atheist for 50 years!

We've lost our king and must surrender. 😞

Where can I find the rankings? I want to know my leadership. Don't say it's Richard Dawkins or I'll scream.

I don't blame you about Richard Dawkins because he is becoming an embarrassment for Atheists and evolutionists. But he is the best the British have to offer. Sam Harris is the top American Atheist right now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris_(author)

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
describe this alleged new evidence and how it makes the evolution tree fall.

It would take many words to describe the evidence and I don't think I could do anywhere near as good as these 3 videos:

The language of Proteins
YouTube&feature=relmfu

The language of Life Demonstrated
YouTube&feature=relmfu

Intelligence recognized by information in DNA
YouTube&feature=relmfu

If you are unable to watch them then the following may help you understand:

http://www.arn.org/idfaq/How%20does%20intelligent%20design%20apply%20to%20biology.htm

http://www.phschool.com/science/biology_place/biocoach/translation/gencode.html

Good Luck!

Originally posted by humy

Intent on a snow flake? You know there wasn't any because?

Occam's razor. No excuse for stupid superstition.

If water froze
differently like at the bottom of a pond or river instead of the top there would
be no life within ponds or rivers! You assume a great deal WITHOUT cause! ( spelling corrected and my emphasis )

...[text shortened]... all those complex patterns of turbulence within it and its workings requires a “SKILL”?

Occam's raxor doesn't get you out of the questions, nor does it rule out God.
Kelly

Originally posted by RJHinds
ar·ro·gant

adjective
1.
making claims or pretensions to superior importance or rights; overbearingly assuming; insolently proud: an arrogant public official.

2.
characterized by or proceeding from arrogance: arrogant claims.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/arrogant

I was thinking more like the above definitons. That is, his arroga ...[text shortened]... I was not arrogant. I am arrogant for God and His Christ. HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! 😏

ar·ro·gant

adjective
1.
making claims or pretensions to superior importance or rights; overbearingly assuming; insolently proud: an arrogant public official.

2.
characterized by or proceeding from arrogance: arrogant claims.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/arrogant

firstly, as indicated above, this definition is for the adjective form of the word and not the noun form of the word and you CLEARLY used the noun form of the word:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/arrogance
“...ar·ro·gance
   [ar-uh-guhns] Show IPA
noun
offensive display of superiority or self-importance; overbearing pride. ...”

remember that your original quote was:

His arrogance is stating evolution is fact and there is no God.

which is clearly using arrogance in the noun form which implies nothing about his claims.

Secondly, that definition for the adjective form of the word doesn't help you anyway! Is claims have already been proven by science -evolution is proven and at least your type of God has been disproved. So how does this help you? He is not “assuming” much if what he is “assuming” is proven scientific fact.
And what about the “...superior importance or rights” and the “...insolently proud...” part of the definition?
HOW is he being “proud” just because he “assumes” ( if that is the right word ) that proven fact is fact?
You are talking total crap as usual.

And it is done by both of you with the attitude that your understanding must be right because your opinion is more logical and scientifically correct than anyone that disagrees with you.

strawman; if most scientists that have done actual research on something disagree with something I said about it then I do not assume “ must be right because your opinion is more logical and scientifically correct than anyone that disagrees with you” but rather consider that I could be wrong.
You are just being dishonest here.
Of course, if a moron like you disagrees with me with something when I understand more than that moron about that something then I am logically justified into assuming my opinion is more likely to be correct. What authority do you have in science that I don't? You have clearly repeatedly demonstrated horrendous ignorance of science.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Occam's raxor doesn't get you out of the questions, nor does it rule out God.
Kelly

Occam's razor doesn't get you out of the questions, ( spelling corrected )

actually Occam's razor is NOT to “get you out of the questions” but to answer them:

Is there a supernatural teacup orbiting Mars? -is the assumptions made here necessary to explain what is observable? Answer, no. So, using Occam's razor, assume there is no supernatural teacup orbiting Mars.

Is there a supernatural god? -is the assumptions made here necessary to explain what is observable? Answer, no. So, using Occam's razor, assume there is no supernatural god.

you original question was:

Intent on a snow flake? You know there wasn't any because?

and I said “Occam's razor. No excuse for stupid superstition. “ because:

Is there intent on a snowflake? -is the assumptions made here necessary to explain what is observable? Answer, no. So, using Occam's razor, assume there is no intent on a snowflake.

How is this me getting “out of the questions” as you claim? I have ANSWERED the question using Occam's razor so this is clearly NOT me getting “out of the questions” as you claim here.

nor does it rule out God.

nor is it supposed to. Occam's razor is probabilistic.
It also doesn't rule out that there is a supernatural teacup orbiting Mars but it tells us that this is very unlikely and in the same way it tells us that it is very unlikely that there is a god.

Originally posted by humy

Occam's razor doesn't get you out of the questions, ( spelling corrected )

actually Occam's razor is NOT to “get you out of the questions” but to answer them:

Is there a supernatural teacup orbiting Mars? -is the assumptions made here necessary to explain what is observable? Answer, no. So, using Occam's razor, assume there is no superna nlikely and in the same way it tells us that it is very unlikely that there is a god.

Slight misprint here: should replace the three cases of “...-is the assumptions ...” with “...-are the assumptions ... ”. Strange how I didn't notice this earlier.

Originally posted by humy

ar·ro·gant

adjective
1.
making claims or pretensions to superior importance or rights; overbearingly assuming; insolently proud: an arrogant public official.

2.
characterized by or proceeding from arrogance: arrogant claims.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/arrogant

firstly, as indicated above, this definition is for ...[text shortened]... cience that I don't? You have clearly repeatedly demonstrated horrendous ignorance of science.

misprint: "...Is claims have already been proven by science..." should have been "...his claims have already been proven by science...".

Originally posted by humy
misprint: "...Is claims have already been proven by science..." should have been "...his claims have already been proven by science...".

Actually, he displays DELIBERATE ignorance of science not horrendous. There is a distinct difference.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Actually, he displays DELIBERATE ignorance of science not horrendous. There is a distinct difference.

Yes, I think you might be right. By the way, I think you meant to respond to my post I made before that one but responded to the wrong one here by mistake.

Originally posted by humy

ar·ro·gant

adjective
1.
making claims or pretensions to superior importance or rights; overbearingly assuming; insolently proud: an arrogant public official.

2.
characterized by or proceeding from arrogance: arrogant claims.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/arrogant

firstly, as indicated above, this definition is for ...[text shortened]... cience that I don't? You have clearly repeatedly demonstrated horrendous ignorance of science.

Arrogance is demonstrated by making arrogant claims, like when I say, "Christ loves me." Is this an offensive display of superiority or self-importance and overbearing pride? My favorite thing to do -- talk crap. I have demonstrated my superior knowledge of God's word. How do you like that crap?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Arrogance is demonstrated by making arrogant claims, like when I say, "Christ loves me." Is this an offensive display of superiority or self-importance and overbearing pride? My favorite thing to do -- talk crap. I have demonstrated my superior knowledge of God's word. How do you like that crap?

Arrogance is demonstrated by making arrogant claims,

how is saying there is no god or that life evolved an “arrogant” claim as opposed to just being a claim?
-answer, it doesn't.
To be an “arrogant” claim, the claim must imply superiority or pride. HOW does saying life evolved or there is no god imply superiority or pride? Why don't you ever explain this to us? -don't want to admit that you are just continually lying?

My favorite thing to do -- talk crap.

at last, a small bit of honesty among the lies. Pity you keep talking crap.