Search results

ddunbar: Are you saying that the only reason you think life is designed is because the Bible tells you so?

ddunbar: I answered the question two weeks ago. Sorry you missed it. At that time I explained why I thought the question was irrelevant and that's been my position since then. I will continue to not answer questions about what I believe. They are irrelevant whether you think they are or not...

ddunbar: The non-teleological perspective: Conclusion: Nothing is intelligently designed. Test: Can't find anything that is intelligently designed therefore, nothing is intelligently designed. Falsification: The one thing we thought was intelligently designed turned out to not be...

ddunbar: No, you're laughable. You can't even keep track of what is said here. You accuse me of hiding my theism which is false and now you claim I never said I believe something is designed. Well, I've said over and over again that I think certain things in nature look designed...

ddunbar: Go back to page 358. There I said:

ddunbar: I like how you made a false distinction between ID and evolution. ID is just a different perspective on how evolution occurs. I agree with the rest of what you said. A teleological perspective is certainly capable of producing conclusions that are testable, verifiable, falsifiable...

ddunbar: So, if you were a scientist would you use your insight that life on earth was designed as a guide for scientific research? Or would you rely on the blind watchmaker perspective to guide you?

ddunbar: Where did I sound bite Behe?

ddunbar: But if we have a frame of reference we don't need to establish for certain that there is in fact a designer in order to tentatively conclude something is designed, right?

ddunbar: I'm not the one that made the comparison. Scientists did. They see molecular machines as literal machines. And as far as I know a molecular machine is not alive.

ddunbar: We know for a fact that machines are designed. " With parts that resemble pistons and a drive shaft, the enzyme F1-ATPase looks suspiciously like a tiny engine. Indeed, a new study demonstrates that's exactly what it is." Science News vol 151, p173 "the flagellum...

ddunbar: I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here. Do things in nature really look designed to you or do you just have faith that such things are designed because the Bible tells you so?

ddunbar: No, you come on now. It wasn't the lack of evidence for ET's that was the determining factor here. If something as detailed as Mount Rushmore was discovered on Mars only an idiot would think it wasn't designed. No need to know who designed it.

ddunbar: Okay, you find an object on Mars. You tentatively determine that it is designed. You have no idea who the designer is. Now what?

ddunbar: Nonsense. It is easy to ascertain the definition of intelligent design. I just gave it to you. You don't like it so you make up your own definition. What a joke. ddunbar: Dembski has never denied his theism. ddunbar: I can't believe you are this dense. It is...

ddunbar: I think the design inference stands on its own. Before we go looking for designers we have to determine (at least tentatively) that something is designed. If scientists found what looked to be an artifact on Mars they would infer it was designed. They wouldn't defer their design...

ddunbar: But none of the above applies to ID. ID is not about God or the Bible. The problem here is that you refuse to accept the definition of ID as IDers define it. Once more, here it is: That's what ID is to an ID'er. But for some reason you won't accept the definition of ID that...

Stu: More nonsense. That I think life at it's core looks like the product of advanced bioengineering has nothing to do with religion. In fact, it was empirical data published by an agnostic biochemist that first led me to this conclusion. As for what is taught in school you never seem to...

ddunbar: Intelligent design and the blind watchmaker hypothesis are "methodologically equivalent"- that is, both prove equally scientific or equally unscientific provided the same criteria are used to adjudicate their scientific status and provided metaphysically neutral criteria are...

ddunbar: Is this just another way of saying ID was started by persons that weren't atheists?