Search results

That's that then. The ID/creationists argument resting on nothing more than vague unfounded suspicions propped by deceit denial or lies, a hippy, and TrollZzz. Brilliant. I can understand why so many others lost interest in trying to discuss anything with such loons.

"hippy" bullshit.

I got your deceit, your denial, your lie. When push comes to shove, you adopt the same stance most creationists do . Just deny, deceive or lie your way through any of the stuff shown to you which you don't like the implications of.

....ugh, terrible, even by your standards. "physics tells us, time as we know it, began after the big bang." Physics tells no such thing. Why don't you try to educate yourself a little in what physics does say before making such pathetic remarks about what "physics tells us". Time AT the...

Yeah, funny story. It kind of reminds me of creationists trying to tell people that a. something (a Creator) was created by nothing,

"Parents or care providers who are uncomfortable about a child having an invisible friend should take comfort in knowing that research has consistently shown that kids know these "friends" are not real and that they will outgrow their need for such companionship with time. Adults can determine...

Denial, deceit, lie. ...So there is this woman at home holding a party on the sun deck of her pool. A couple dozen invited party guests stand in a group around her. The merrymaking has developed into the party thrower and one of her invites getting stark nakkid with the mutual intention of...

stuthere is no intelligent designer observed, found, present... To which I replied: TeleologistUhh yeah, we don't observe a designer designing, if we did, then ID would be a fact, and not an inference. You responded with this: stuUhh yeah, we do observe "designer designing". We see lots of...

I (more lately) and others showed you where Dembski and Behe incorporate theology into their bullshit, err "hypotheses" . So you ask me to show you where Dembski or Behe incorporate theology into their hypotheses. Your denial or your lie.

And for the last time, your denial, your deceit, then comes your lie.

Uhh yeah, we do observe "designer designing". We see lots of "designers designing". Perhaps if you were not so condescending on this point, you may give yourself chance to note what you call design, is observed being what you call designed, by what you don't call designers, all the time -...

Your point being what exactly? That he is talking of intelligent design?. Well ok, let's say he is. Well? So ok, let's say he is talking of an illusion of intelligent design. That would be because in science and biology you can observe, test and monitor that design for a purpose, is the...

You've done denial , now comes deceit next the lie.

Uh, where does the "designer" come from..

So? You don't need a separate agent to design what is observed in biology to form naturally into particular shapes. Shapes which you then call design. so you can try to attach an unnecessary designer to them. You mean real design as opposed to what!... natural design!? Real design is...

You have already been shown, over and over. Like I say Tele, there comes a point where your denial borders on deceit and then is no more than a lie. The credibility of your argument has been shot through as it is. Lying will only make it sound even worse.

Incorrect fallacy fallacy. (aka TrollZzz's fallacy)

Design is real. Design in nature, by nature, is real. In that regard 2+2=4. Mountains of overwhelming scientific knowledge and evidence explains and confirms that. No gap for a "designer" in there. Intelligent Design speculates Nature couldn't design unless there was a designer outside...

That is your own personal definition, not that of the official source for Intelligent Design/ creationism. Dembski and Behe way outrank you and they clearly show and confirm in their Discovery Institute "Wedge" document, Intelligent Design IS creationism.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum