Intelligent Design is not creationism

Creationists might have done that, why don't you ask them?

I am not a creationist...



Quote from kjkent1:

Let's say that I agree with you that ID is not Creationism, substantially for the reasons that you state in this thread.

However, I submit that Creationists have hijacked the idea of ID in order to advance what is essentially a religious view that humans are the product of a divine creator who intends a special place for human-kind in the universe.

Most of the major figures in ID (Dembski, Behe, et. al.) are admitted Christians who have publicly admitted the above-described goal as part of their personal agenda. As does the Discovery Institute, which is funded by a fundamentalist christian.

Assuming that you agree with the above (and, of course, you may not), then I still submit that in order for you to make ID into a scientific subject, you must conduct verifiable experiments to show that what appears to be random mutation is in fact something else.

Do you have any verifiable experiments to offer?

If so, please describe cite the experiments, summarize and refer me to the published results.
More...
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Creationists might have done that, why don't you ask them?

I am not a creationist...
More...

You may not be a creationist, but you apparently "are" Teleologist. LOL.

You should be more careful while switching aliases between responses.

Anyway, as you and Teleologist are apparently one in the same, I'm no longer interested in discussing this issue with either of you.
 
I don't switch aliases, yet another unfounded accusation from you...

That's what folks do when they are losing argument, they make unfounded ad hominem accusations...

Quote from kjkent1:

You may not be a creationist, but you apparently "are" Teleologist. LOL.

You should be more careful while switching aliases between responses.

Anyway, as you and Teleologist are apparently one in the same, I'm no longer interested in discussing this issue with either of you.
More...
 
I don't switch aliases, yet another unfounded accusation from you...

That's what folks do when they are losing arguments, they make unfounded ad hominem accusations...

Then you are observed, in a display of finality, walking out of the room in a huff, so darn ladylike...

LOL!


Quote from kjkent1:

You may not be a creationist, but you apparently "are" Teleologist. LOL.

You should be more careful while switching aliases between responses.

Anyway, as you and Teleologist are apparently one in the same, I'm no longer interested in discussing this issue with either of you.
More...
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

I don't switch aliases, yet another unfounded accusation from you...

That's what folks do when they are losing arguments, they make unfounded ad hominem accusations...

Then you are observed, in a display of finality, walking out of the room in a huff, so darn ladylike...

LOL!
More...

If you don't switch aliases, then why did you respond to my post to Teleologist?
 
Quote from Teleologist:

Yes, but your knowledge and experience with forum posts fails to explain the origin of the author of the post. Therefore, by your reasoning you must conclude that the author of the post is supernatural in order to avoid the infinite regress problem.
More...

Actually my knowlege and experience with forum posts explains the origin of your posts quite handily. It was written by a human, who is a member of a species that evolved from a single-celled common ancestor that arose through abiogenesis. My argument does not suffer the infinte regress problem, at all.

At this point, I have answered all your contentions. You simply refuse to acknowledge that. Its really hard to win arguments when your opponents are allowed to appeal to completely faulty logic.
 
your 'opponents' will not see things that way... faith is sthg that gives them 'courage' in the face of uncertainty mostly, gives them 'answers', albeit simplistic ones... its not sthg they are willing to question / probe too much, nor to allow to be questioned / probed too much... if u get too close to s.o.'s particular 'anchors', then all you get is a fear-driven response, rationality not a priority at all here, cause the subject's topmost priority is to protect the anchors...

thankfully not 2 theists seem to have the exact same set of anchors...

now to be fair, faith is not solely a religious-based phenomenon...not that you were saying that at all.... just to appease the resident shamans...
 
Is there some law about not responding to your posts?

Too funny...

Try PM's if you want private conversations...

Quote from kjkent1:

If you don't switch aliases, then why did you respond to my post to Teleologist?
More...
 
Quote from Teleologist:

Why should I watch a video that for all I know has nothing to do with the subject of this thread? Can you present one argument that Miller makes that convinces you that ID is creationism? If so, present it here. If I find it valid I will watch the video.
More...
Miller addresses that very topic about 50 minutes into his lecture and it lasted for about 10 minutes. You can fast-forward to that point if you really give a shit. If you are too lazy to listen to it, then I am certainly not stupid enough to type it out for you.
 
You argument does suffer from the following opinion thrown out like it was some fact of existence...

"It was written by a human, who is a member of a species that evolved from a single-celled common ancestor that arose through abiogenesis."

Quote from drtomaso:

Actually my knowlege and experience with forum posts explains the origin of your posts quite handily. It was written by a human, who is a member of a species that evolved from a single-celled common ancestor that arose through abiogenesis. My argument does not suffer the infinte regress problem, at all.

At this point, I have answered all your contentions. You simply refuse to acknowledge that. Its really hard to win arguments when your opponents are allowed to appeal to completely faulty logic.
More...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top