Search results

ddunbar, I was not trying to hold the argument on a point of over simplistic emphasis, I am more trying to fill out the meaning. Whether one is in circumstance which leaves them ignorant of politics or rejecting interest in them from active reasoning , one would still be in fact a-political...

Isn't it the case that as no one is a theist when they are born, in reality everyone is actually atheist up until they decide or are convinced by others not to be? Doesn’t atheism appear as the more natural occurring circumstance, whereas theism is intervention, altering what hitherto was...

It hasn't worked. It's a hypothetical example, so is the Toaster on Jupiter. They both refute or establish nothing . Useless I think the word is. You have done nothing to even mitigate ID's irreducible infinite regress problem. Saying you have when you haven't doesn't work. Humans are...

then it is nothing that isn't already being done a lot more reliably by science. Or alternatively, is ID some kind of art form?

...am I ? ID = Intelligent Designer(s) Something / someone intelligent -which created everything In other words God in ET's clothing. SETI = search for extra-terrestrial intelligence. No mention of (God) designers or creators.

let me guess.. would it would be the poop but in the shape of Mt Rushore?

sure you do... Well we taught you how to spell cite instead of "site", now let's do time. The big hand and the little one are both at 12 So then Einstein, if it was 12:00 at the beginning of time, what time was it before time began. You know, when there was no time?

that will be from your own perspective then

you're a poor loser jem... always have been

It seems to me your ID argument has lost its direction altogether. Now by what you say,it is relying upon searching for stuff in places where it could never be. Is that what ID comes down to? For that you suggest it should be scientifically pursued!!...and the toaster on jupiter? that too...

Faces that "look like" faces is not a very good description when using Mt Rushmore as a comparison, is it!? So the electric toaster on Jupiter. What reason would ID give to look for it... Oh and as you don't seem to first require any evidence of faces in rocks before you look for them, what...

Yes but it was the chisel marks that clinched it. The problem is Mt Rushmore is specific and known not to have formed naturally on Earth or Mars, for it then to do so on Mars means Santa's magical Elves must have carried another one there which they made at the North Pole. Surely everyone...

Did it form and develop its shape from countless generations, self replicating offspring over millions of years from basic simple single particles, the ones which were able to survive passing on small changes, becoming more and more complex evolving eventually to a rock face full of recognizable...

..no longer.

..more ZZzz fallacious ramblings. The day you can hold civil discourse with anyone will be the first Read a post properly for once, You don't need more causation when something is the cause itself. The drop of water is the cause for the pattern. All you want to do is shift cause back again...

Rubbish. Design is inferred by the existence of recognition all the time. You distinguish and infer design by knowledge and existence of shape and pattern . Intelligent design is not made existent through inference, it will require knowledge of an intelligent designer. The whole idea of...

When water, rocks, soil arrange into recognizable or repeating patterns , only by consequence of those elements themselves and surrounding conditions, they do not require intelligent design. That drop of water is not an intelligent designer -it is water reacting in repeatable recognizable...

Too funny. As if stones and soil "organize themselves." ....Yeah, water too. So funny hahahaha. Man too freaking hilarious It only takes a pond and a drop of water, But as if water could organize itself into this As if there could be design without that drop being an...

Gravity itself is a fact of life. Evolution itself is a fact of life. Your "Random ignorant chance theory of the origin of life from non design" is not a fact of life, it is gobbledygook No surpise in your continuous use of such confused incomprehensible pompous jargon, it's a fact of...

Perhaps you could explain more clearly why anyone would want to blindly accept Intelligent Design for any reason, but least of all to pretend in ... "The belief there is a god, .... and he is the reason for everything ..and just how adding more dogma like that would do anything...