666...the Devils Moving Average

"1) It is a good design. "

Empty assertion. Explain why.
I explained why it is not.


"Here you are again not seeing things as they are but as you are. Since you totally reject the creator and His word that tells why He created things in the way He did you are creating a straw man to attack. We are rejecting your limited and prejudiced reality."

1) Fallacy: Poisoning the well.
2) Identify the strawman.


"There are many genetic defects in all creatures"

You admit there are defects. Defects are a sign of supreme intelligence?

" 2. Man should be able to understand the above but maybe you can't through prejudice and yes there is a greater purpose easilily identified in the flaws."

1) Fallacy: Posioning the well.
2) Empty assertion. Prove there is a greator purpose.


"3. No mistake, only on your part to demand to see things as you "

Empty assertion.
Prove that defective animals were designed by an intelligent creator.


peace

axeman
 
Really?

I agree with #3, the supernatural. :) Since i've never
come across anything supernatural, and have never
seen anything proven to be super natural.

But 1 & 2? Based on what?

Have you provided a single shred of evidence for ID?
Has anyone?

ID is science fiction as far as I can tell.
Show us the beef.


peace

axeman


Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

****************************************
It strikes me as odd that this is even debated.
Scientists can produce lots of data, lab experiments, etc.
What can the ID guys produce? Just words and attacks.
******************************************
Wrong. ID guys can produce a model that works imo better than materialism for the the following three major phenomenon:

1. Origin of the Universe
2. Origin of Life
3. Supernatural
More...
 
****************************************
Isn't funny how the ID guys spend most of their time attacking
science instead of supporting their position??
******************************************

Completely wrong. I have spent the majority of my time showing
many genius-level scientists that disagree with your position. I
rarely attack science. My position on the Origin of Life scholarship
reflects the current research. You say I am attacking
science because I am attacking your views which date back to
the 1960's and 1970's when science still was in love with the
DNA/RNA models.
 
The real question is... which model has more supporting evidence?

ID has none.

Materialism has a serious track record, and at least has some
evidence for how life may have started on earth.



peace

axeman


Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

Remember, we are talking about models. Does our model satisfy the extraordinary events that we see on planet earth. Imo materialism fails and ID has a reasonable explanation.
More...
 
Once again your assuming you know what my position is.
You obviously don't.

Once again... you attack scientific theory, and try to use the
excuse that other scientists are attacking the theory, but
then why are you posting what they are supposedly saying??


MY CHALLENGE TO YOU IS THIS:

WHEN are you going to stop spending 100% of your time
trying to prove that scientists don't know exactly how life
started on earth, when that is already a known FACT,
and START proving that god exists, or that ID has some
serious evidence backing it?

Im totally confused about what your trying to do here.


You have completely FAILED to support ID.
You have done nothing but argue against scientific theory.
Theory is NOT fact, so it seems you are just reiterating
the obvious, over and over and over. I don't get it.


WHAT is your goal here???



peace

axeman



Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

****************************************
Isn't funny how the ID guys spend most of their time attacking
science instead of supporting their position??
******************************************

Completely wrong. I have spent the majority of my time showing
many genius-level scientists that disagree with your position. I
rarely attack science. My position on the Origin of Life scholarship
reflects the current research. You say I am attacking
science because I am attacking your views which date back to
the 1960's and 1970's when science still was in love with the
DNA/RNA models.
More...
 
Axe,

You have repeatedly asked us not to discuss evolution as it leads nowhere. Now you are suddenly bringing up threads about evolution.

May I suggest that this could be a subconscious smoke screen against the fact that the Deist has as good a model as you and I would even argue better?
 
Oh *IM* bringing up evolution, when every other post
is an attack on evolution? Give me a break.

Smoke screen??? What am I smoke screening???

Deist have a good model??? Are you kidding me?

How can you call something a good model that contains
a supernatural and UNPROVEN entity in it????

The model has an EXTRAORDINARY claim with ZERO
evidence in it.

The model is no different than a fairy tale.


Your really going off the deep end here SB.

Either PROVE god exists, and then you can accept
these as "good" models, or reject them as models
which contain HUGELY UNSUPPORTED ASSUMPTIONS of
gods existence.


Now it seems that you are dodging.

Are you going to accept my challenge and actually start
supporting ID, or Deism, or whatever else you wish NOT
to discuss ;-)


I'm perfectly happy to drop evolution, and biogenesis, and all
this stuff. But it seems that the only smoke screen blower
is YOU, in an attempt to AVOID talking about ID.


So are you EVER gonna provide proof or serious evidence
for ID, god, deism, or whatever??

Or will you just continue arguing that science doesn't know
exactly how life started, which is obvious???


peace

axeman



Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

Axe,

You have repeatedly asked us not to discuss evolution as it leads nowhere. Now you are suddenly bringing up threads about evolution.

May I suggest that this could be a subconscious smoke screen against the fact that the Deist has as good a model as you and I would even argue better?
More...
 
******************************************
Attacking science IN NO WAY constitutes evidence for the
ID hypothesis. So what IS the evidence for ID?
******************************************
I say "ditto". Attacking religion and the supernatural in no way
constitutes evidence for the materialism hypothesis. So what
is the evidence for materialism in the three areas I have outlined:

1. The supernatural
2. The origin of the universe
3. The origin of life
 
Quote from axeman:

Oh *IM* bringing up evolution, when every other post
is an attack on evolution? Give me a break.

Smoke screen??? What am I smoke screening???

Deist have a good model??? Are you kidding me?

How can you call something a good model that contains
a supernatural and UNPROVEN entity in it????
More...
I ask you the same question: where is your evidence for materialism in the origin of life and the origin of the universe?

You have none!

It's time to admit your model is no better than that of the Deist.
 
Let's go back to the sharpshooter example. You are like a person that goes in front of a firing squad with a 1000 sharpshooters. The guns fire and fire and fire and you are left standing w/o one bullet wound.

Your response is: "Boy, those guys must be lousy shots."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top