You are perfectly welcome to believe what you will. That is naturally your perogative. Religion is based on faith, and faith is based on the belief in that which cannot be proven or quantified. This is all very fine and well for those who are inclined to buy into that sort of thing. You cannot apply that same system of beliefs to science, however. Science is the diametric opposite of faith. It is based purely upon that which can be proven and quantified.
Having said that, when you talk about God and religion you pretty much have carte blanche to say whatever you want about it, because you are not required to back anything up with proof as such concepts do not apply to faith. When you talk about science however, failure to back up your assertions with solid evidence is grounds for anyone to call BS – and they would be well within their rights to do so.
To assert that order implies intelligence, and not back it up with any scientific evidence, then, is grounds for calling BS. Order does not need intelligence to work. The laws of physics, thermodynamics, and a myriad other scientific laws governing the behaviour of our universe take care of that quite handily. These laws weren’t man-made, after all. Man merely devised ways to observe and notarize them. If you were to study physics or thermodynamics or any other scientific discipline, you too would find plenty of order existing within the apparent chaos – without any evidence of working intelligence whatsoever. Unless you believe the hand of God makes it so. Then I guess it’s all up in the air again.
What the hell does that even mean? I assume you’re referring to the absurd notion that a tornado could go through a pile of machine parts and out would come a jet, which is a completely false analogy for evolution?
Yeah, based on the word random I guess that’s exactly what you’re suggesting. You really don’t understand any theories, do you?
Get cracking, mister, and maybe when you get done ignorance will have been fought. Because right now I think the universe is laughing behind your back.
I get my knowledge from personal experience and observation. I do read books and learn from others, but if it contradicts my experience I don’t put much in it.
There are schools that let the students grade their own tests, because tests are not important, learning is. Home schooled children score higher on the national tests than public school children.
You see, I know you don’t realize it, but the knowledge taught in schools, is very narrow, barely enough to do some profession or other job. If you want to know anything about life you must study on your own. Read many books.
I don’t think it necessary to back up things that are self-evident like order is intelligence. How would you do anything without applying thought to it. Could you built a building with random materials, random tools, random workers, who worked randomly. I think not.
Whence comes the phrase “determined ignorance.” Accept as truth only that which has validity but does not contradict your personal beliefs. All else is false, and evidence to the contrary must be summarily discarded. I suppose, though, that this is as fitting evidence as any for the red tagline in the banner at the top of this page.
Stop insulting other people’s understanding of the theories. (Not that you have the ability to determine other people’s levels of understanding in the first place.)
What sensible people have been telling you (probably for years) is that evolution is only marginally more random than gravity. To present evolution as randomity requires COMPLETE misunderstanding of it. And presenting “randomity” as a false dillema with intelligent design is nothing but bad comedy.
That first sentence is where your argument loses its credibility for me. I see no evidence that order is intelligence. Let’s have a drink, shall we? A B-52, my favourite shooter.
Pour in the Kalhua. Good.
Now, over the back of a spoon held to the inside edge of the glass, slowly pour the Bailey’s Irish Cream.
Finally, also over the back of the spoon, slowly pour the Grand Mariner (or amaretto, if you swing that way)
There. A nicely layered B-52. Very orderly. Did I make them ordered like that? Well, technically, yes, I set the process in motion. I didn’t determine their densities though, nor how the different densities of each liquid reacted with one another. I just allowed the elementary laws of physics to do their thing as comes naturally. The reason that the liquids formed layers is physics – and thus nature – at work. There’s no intelligence involved. The liquids layered because they are of different densities. That’s just the way they’re made – like oil and water.
Now if y’all will excuse me, I have a shot to slam.
So what this comes down to then is that all scientific laws of the universe – every scientific principle thus far observed from the beginning of time itself, and all of those yet to be observed by scientists the world over, is basically the work of God, then?
You are trying to boil science down to religion by saying that science itself is God’s handiwork which, rather conveniently, would excuse you from having to back even your scientific claims up with anything, because in the end it’s all God anyway and thus exempt from scrutiny. Is there a logical fallacy that combines the strawman with appeal to religion?