Search results

TraderNik: Yes, I would be eager to show open-minded inquirers how ID theorists process subtle clues and use them to make an intuitive, cumulative, circumstantial case for ID. But I'm not dealing with persons like this here on this forum am I? I'm dealing with persons that consider ID a bust...

As long as you ID critics keep repeating the same old arguments I'm going to respond with the same old arguments. Count on it.

ddunbar: Are you saying the only reason you think life looks designed is because the Bible tells you so? One doesn't need to be a theist or believe in an intelligent designer for things in nature to look designed to them. Richard Dawkins is an atheist, yet he says: ddunbar: You might need...

James bond 3rd: The article I posted was pointing out that doctors don’t study evolution. It didn't say anything about doctors not believing in evolution. Doctor don't need to study evolution in order to know which antibiotics are effective against certain bacteria.

‘Why would I want my doctor to have studied evolution?’ The folks at the Alliance for Science have sponsored an essay contest for high school students. They ask students to write an essay on ‘Why I would want my doctor to have studied evolution.’ Really, it’s a funny question...

I have never claimed that ID is a scientific theory. I compare it with origin of life research. Witness simply that there is no theory of abiogenesis. Instead, there are countless speculations with very little consensus (apart from the appeal to a reductionist approach employing only...

It's the accident / coincidence argument that is dead.

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz: 2 cents replied: Well, it looks that way to atheist Richard Dawkins: If you asked Dawkin's if his observation was based on empirical evidence what do you think he would say?

TraderNik: No, but you indicated you agree with it.

James bond: Are you really so stupid that you don't know the difference between inference and proof? If one could see the designer designing one would have proof of design. There would be no need to infer it.

TraderNik: Followed by this question: who designed the designer? That there is data from the natural world that warrants a design inference is indisputable. Even atheist Richard Dawkins recognizes this. He says: The ID critics here are advocates of the designer-centric approach. That...

TraderNik: No, it's my point that's been proven. I said that you ask for evidence of ID but you will only accept absolute proof of ID. You didn't deny it.

TraderNik: It's disingenuous to ask for evidence of ID when what you really require is seeing the designer in action. If we could see the designer in action we wouldn't need evidence of ID as we would have direct proof of ID. You are posing as an open-minded inquirer that's capable of...

TraderNik: That's not what I said. TraderNik: You are being disingenuous in asking for empirical data for ID because you think the "who designed the designer" question trumps any empirical data. Evidently you think philosophy trumps empiricism.

Been down this road before with ID critics. I give them data that causes me to suspect the cell originated via bioengineering, then they blow it off with a response like this: Quote from ddunbar: When the ID critic asks for evidence of design, what they really want is to see the designer...

TraderNik: What do you mean it sounds reasonable? You ID critics won't setttle for empirical data. You want to see the designer designing, right? Then you want to know who designed the designer.

ddunbar: When did you ask me if I was a theist? ddunbar: Back on page 373 I said to you: And if I was hiding the fact that I'm a theist to distance ID from theology then why did I tell you today that I'm a theist? And why have I never hid this fact on this forum? And I'm still at a...

ddunbar, do you only think life is designed because the Bible tells you so?

ddundar: I've never kept my theism a secret on this forum. Did you think I was an atheist IDer? And I've never denied that design implies a designer. This isn't your first visit here. We've debated before.

ddunbar: And if you think that ID theorists don't employ the scientific method then you are clueless about ID.