Defending the Wedge Strategy
- Thread starter Teleologist
- Start date
People with reasonably healthy self images have no problem admitting error or changing their opinion based on the existence of new information.
I've changed my mind. I'm currently of the opinion that Teleolgist, jem, Z, Jampiler, and very probably a few others in this and other similar thread(s), are all the same person, or the same group of persons, all engaged in supporting their positions in this forum, with shared aliases.
You are certainly free to prove otherwise.
In that case I am on topic.
"100% evidence that the theory of ignorant chance is itself without evidential support," you said,...
so then... an Intelligent Designer could not come about by any 'theory of ignorant chance' - the Intelligent Designer had to have been designed.
My question to you is not what is the "creator" of ID but what ID designed the Intelligent Designer.
Perhaps you just can't grasp the actual question so you made a different one up to answer?
The road to ultimate truth is infinitely long. Along the road, however, each milepost is scientifically measurable.
So if the ID is designed by a different designer than the ID responsible for life in the universe, so what? Would that in any way make life here less designed?
LOL!
How does that change the issue of ID vs. non ID? Plan vs. chance, ignorance vs. intelligence, etc.
Your question is not relevant to the topic actually, as the question is not how ID came to be, but is life as we live it the product of ID or non ID.
Try again stu...
The elephant in the room is ID or non ID...
Not Santeeee Claus, not Gilbert, not anything but chance or design...
Since it appears though countless threads in the comments offered by the atheists that it is unimportant to understand why there is non ID, or where it came from, or if it is real...it is sufficient to justify life from that assumption...why is it suddenly important to understand where ID came from?
More distraction away from the primary issues stu, try again...
LOL!
How does that change the issue of ID vs. non ID? Plan vs. chance, ignorance vs. intelligence, etc.
Your question is not relevant to the topic actually, as the question is not how ID came to be, but is life as we live it the product of ID or non ID.
Try again stu...
The elephant in the room is ID or non ID...
Not Santeeee Claus, not Gilbert, not anything but chance or design...
Since it appears though countless threads in the comments offered by the atheists that it is unimportant to understand why there is non ID, or where it came from, or if it is real...it is sufficient to justify life from that assumption...why is it suddenly important to understand where ID came from?
More distraction away from the primary issues stu, try again...
100% ad hominem. It is irrelevant if the screen names are produced by one identity or many, the arguments are where you are having problems.
Run away for whatever justification you can come up with, but the response you are providing is illogical and fallacious...
Run away for whatever justification you can come up with, but the response you are providing is illogical and fallacious...
Liberal use of the word "because" in your posts, will gain you credibility.
By never supplying any supporting evidence for your statements, you appear to your opponents as intentionally ignorant.
Obviously, if you're using multiple identities, your supporters are reasonably certain to bolster your position.
If they do not, then I suggest you have a different sort of problem which may require psychiatric intervention.
John Dough wrote:
Fine, you can believe anything you want but you are mucking up the thread when you respond to a post and refer to the poster by a different name than the one on the post. In addition to referring to me as Z are you going to sometimes call me Jem or Jampiler?
For all I know, John Dough, Stu, TraderNik, and 2cents may be the same person but when I respond to one of their posts I use the screen name on their post in order to avoid confusion. How would you like it if when I respond to your posts I call you Stu or 2cents?
Why not just respond to the content of the posts and not worry if someone is using an alias?
Fine, you can believe anything you want but you are mucking up the thread when you respond to a post and refer to the poster by a different name than the one on the post. In addition to referring to me as Z are you going to sometimes call me Jem or Jampiler?
For all I know, John Dough, Stu, TraderNik, and 2cents may be the same person but when I respond to one of their posts I use the screen name on their post in order to avoid confusion. How would you like it if when I respond to your posts I call you Stu or 2cents?
Why not just respond to the content of the posts and not worry if someone is using an alias?
The evidence of design is obvious, I am surprised people don't see it...
I am not surprised though that the ad hominem attacks continue...
I am not surprised though that the ad hominem attacks continue...
I suggest reading the following book (The Language of God) to those that actually are seeking the truth. That said, I don't take the book as pure truth as it leaves the reader with many questions. It's just one more step on the road to enlightenment.
What the Critics Say
"Collins' credibility as a scientist and his sincerity as a believer make for an engaging combination, especially for those who, like him, resist being forced to choose between science and God." (Publishers Weekly)
Publisher's Summary
Dr. Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project, is one of the world's leading scientists, yet he is also a man of unshakable faith in God and scripture. Dr. Collins has resolved the dilemma that haunts everyone who believes in God and respects science. Faith in God and faith in science can be harmonious, not separately but together, combined into one worldview. For Collins, science does not conflict with the Bible, science enhances it.
The Language of God makes the case for God and for science. Dr. Collins considers and dismisses several positions along the spectrum from atheism to young-earth creationism, including agnosticism and Intelligent Design. Instead, he proposes a new synthesis, a new way to think about an active, caring God who created humankind through evolutionary processes.
He explains his own journey from atheism to faith, and then takes listeners on a stunning tour of modern science to show that physics, chemistry, and biology can all fit together with belief in God and the Bible. The Language of God is essential for anyone who wonders about the deepest questions of all: Why are we here? How did we get here? And what does life mean?
What the Critics Say
"Collins' credibility as a scientist and his sincerity as a believer make for an engaging combination, especially for those who, like him, resist being forced to choose between science and God." (Publishers Weekly)
Publisher's Summary
Dr. Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project, is one of the world's leading scientists, yet he is also a man of unshakable faith in God and scripture. Dr. Collins has resolved the dilemma that haunts everyone who believes in God and respects science. Faith in God and faith in science can be harmonious, not separately but together, combined into one worldview. For Collins, science does not conflict with the Bible, science enhances it.
The Language of God makes the case for God and for science. Dr. Collins considers and dismisses several positions along the spectrum from atheism to young-earth creationism, including agnosticism and Intelligent Design. Instead, he proposes a new synthesis, a new way to think about an active, caring God who created humankind through evolutionary processes.
He explains his own journey from atheism to faith, and then takes listeners on a stunning tour of modern science to show that physics, chemistry, and biology can all fit together with belief in God and the Bible. The Language of God is essential for anyone who wonders about the deepest questions of all: Why are we here? How did we get here? And what does life mean?