Search results

Teleologist asked: TraderNik answered: Really? You have a method to distinguish things in nature that are designed from things in nature that are not designed? So how come when I previously asked you what you would count as evidence that something in nature was designed you were stumped?

Teleologist asked: TraderNik responded: How does one determine if something in nature is not designed?

James Bond 3rd wrote: If all you are saying is that we don't need to invoke a designer to explain "non-designed" phenomenon, I agree. But of course this begs the question: how does one determine something is not designed?

TraderNik wrote: What is dead here is your brain. No ID'er on this thread has changed their story three times. This is all a figment of your imagination because you insist (without proof) that there is only one ID'er on this thread who is posting under different aliases. The fact that one...

John Dough wrote: Right at the beginning of the opening post of this thread I quoted a pominent member of the ID community, William Dembski. Here is the quote: That a natural alien designer, physically seeded the Earth with life and thereby initiated evolution is clearly a possibility...

John Dough wrote: You're an idiot. If you are going to claim someone is posting under multiple screen names the burden of proof is on you. For all I know, you and 2cents and TraderNik are all the same person. Let's see you prove that's not the case.

John Dough: How you got any of that from what I posted is beyond me. John Dough: What experiments did I declare flawed by demanding the absolute exclusion of any possible contrary theory? John Dough: Well, there's no need to get into that so long as you insist that one can't...

John Dough wrote: That hypothesis fits within the ID paradigm and is being investigated by design theorists. John Dough wrote: Not necessarily. The trail could be pretty cold after several billion years. In any event, the inability to identify the designers doesn't thwart a design...

TraderNik wrote: Your mistaken notion that I am several other persons on this thread has led you to attribute statements to me that I never made. I never asked anyone to disprove ID and I never said the scientific method is brainwashing. You have now succeeded in confusing yourself to the...

TraderNik wrote: You are truly clueless about ID. When you ask for evidence of ID you are really asking for evidence of the supernatural. ID has nothing to do with the supernatural. And evidence isn't the same a proof. You are continuously confusing evidence with proof. TraderNik wrote...

TraderNik wrote: Never said it was. You said there was no evidence of ID. That is a stronger claim than merely saying you have not found any evidence of ID. And then you make the even stronger claim that there can be no evidence of ID. How could you possible know this? Are you omniscient...

Teleologist wrote: 2cents asked: How about the atheistic evolutionist Richard Dawkins? In his book The Blind Watchmaker he says “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”

TraderNik wrote: Liar! I've never asked anyone if they can disprove ID. On the other hand, you claim there is no evidence for ID even though you are clueless as to what evidence for ID would look like. What a doofus!

TraderNik wrote: You are a total moron. I never said YOU asked me to prove evolution impossible. It is typical of ID critics to demand that ID proponents prove evolution impossible. I have asked hundreds of ID critics what they would count as evidence for ID and most of them want an example...

TradeNik wrote: As usual you got it wrong. It's the ID critics that ask the ID'ers to prove evolution is impossible. The question ID'ers ask the ID critics is this: What would you count as evidence for ID? And this is in response to those who claim there is no evidence for ID. It...

TraderNik wrote: And I've asked repeatedly for evidence of the "no design" theory and the response has been silence. The reason we not making any progress here is because you ID critics want to subsume all the data concerning evolution as evidence for your "no design" theory and expect ID to...

TraderNik wrote: Absolutely false! ID is a research project that is investigating to determine if data from the biological world strengthens or weakens the ID inference and if it can be a reliable guide for generating hypotheses that help us better understand biotic reality.

Bitstream wrote: You are clueless about ID. Why don't you educate yourself about ID before you come on a forum and attempt to debunk it? I suggest you start with the thread "Intelligent design is not creationism".

Bitstream wrote: What is absurd is your double standard. You claim that ID is untestable and then refuse to provide a test for your "no design" theory.

Bitstream wrote: This cuts both ways. The ID critics believe that non-intelligent processes were behind all origin events. But how did they get to this belief? Did they develop some experiment to distinguish products of blind watchmaking from products of intelligent design? No. They have...