Intelligent Design is not creationism

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

When the newscaster says "Scientists think..." it is written and said as if it were some fact of science because some scientists think something, when clearly their opinions do not necessarily constitute fact.
More...
whats why they say: "scientists think...", otherwise they would refer to whatever it is you are referring to, as a fact...

you're seriously confuzzzed boy...
The majority of scientists are quite different from the general populatoin in their belief systems:

http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/Jesus/Intelligence & religion.htm

So they are different than the "rest of us."

They have an agenda...and it is not about real and pure objectivity when it comes to the origin of man...
More...
makes total sense... the more you actually understand / know, the less you're gonna be inclined to 'believe' in whatever sort of comforting all-answering fairy tales...
 
Darwin's observations are one thing, his conclusive theories are quite another...

Darwin never observed a single theory, those theories were a product of his mind, not natural happenings...

I am not taking issue with observances, but rather the speculative theories that are imagined from the combination of factual observances and the imaginative mind of human beings...

_____________________

Lookie who is employing the ad hominem, just can't control yourself, can you?

LOL

"Its obvious why this is such a hot topic for Z, because trolls have never been observed to evolve, at all."

Quote from acronym:

Evidently, you most certainly haven't, or you would never have made this ridiculous claim.
Zzzzzzz
(yes, there is a huge difference between evolution and Darwinism...evolution is an observed biological process...Darwinism is an imagination of the mind of man)
zzzzz

Darwin was the first person to record actual observation, as it applies to modern naturalism, in the context of ANY truly observant study of nature.
Its obvious why this is such a hot topic for Z, because trolls have never been observed to evolve, at all.
More...
 
Thanks for confirming that just because scientist think or believe something to be true, doesn't make it true or factual, just like a theory that man's origin is a product of ignorant random genetic mutations is a mythical fantasy of human mind, not a fact in evidence...

Isn't it odd that he so called defenders of "science" are the one employing illogically ad hominem attacks in this discussion?




Quote from 2cents:

whats why they say: "scientists think...", otherwise they would refer to whatever it is you are referring to, as a fact...

you're seriously confuzzzed boy...
makes total sense... the more you actually understand / know, the less you're gonna be inclined to 'believe' in whatever sort of comforting all-answering fairy tales... [/B]
More...
 
Lol, IM resorting to ad-hominem?
Told you, Z is powerless in the face of superior quips.

BTW, you clearly haven read ALL of darwins work, he provided no "conclusive" anything, he said so himself.
He provided a theorum, a not particularly dogmatic theorum, and the origin of species was a work encouraged by others-from all accounts, he would not have written it of his own accord.






Troll.:) "A pox in charge of the henhouse......"
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Concepts come from human mind... Doh!

In addition, those who assert concepts, as Darwinists do, have the burden of proof on them... Doh!

So, you prove random...

Oh, and ignorance of pattern is not proof...

Rule out the possibility both factually and logically of designed "non random" patterns that gives rise to change in biological organisms...

Hell, show some mathematical formula that proves what is observed is necessary random...

If you want to revise the theory and say factually "Heck, we don't really know why these things happen, or if there is a pattern, we just can't see one" that would at least be more honest.
More...
you don't understand "random"... here's a good read http://necsi.org/publications/dcs/Bar-YamChap6.pdf
go straight to 6.4.7

and if you want to continue to make a fool of yourself, be my guest and do provide proof to back up your earlier statement that "randomness is not a fact of biological life"
 
You envision yourself as a source of superior "quips."

Please show me where quips are found in text on how to make logical arguments?

LOL...

While you play your game of "my quip is better than your quip" I would prefer to stay on point and be logical...

No, I have not read all of Darwin. It is not necessary.

When I speak of Darwinism, it is a bit like speaking of Christianity.

Darwin is not hear to speak for himself or defend himself, nor is Jesus Christ.

What we see in the name of Christianity, most often has very little to do with Christ and his message.

Same with Darwin, who was a scientist of the old school, not of the new school who preach dogma with a fully closed mind.

I don't blame Darwin for the ignorance and hubris of his followers, no more than I would blame Christ for the failings of his followers....


Quote from acronym:

Lol, IM resorting to ad-hominem?
Told you, Z is powerless in the face of superior quips.

BTW, you clearly haven read ALL of darwins work, he provided no "conclusive" anything, he said so himself.
He provided a theorum, a not particularly dogmatic theorum, and the origin of species was a work encouraged by others-from all accounts, he would not have written it of his own accord.






Troll.:) "A pox in charge of the henhouse......"
More...
 
Oh I understand random quite well, thanks anyway.

Randomness is not a fact of biological life. Randomness is a concept of human mind projected onto the natural world...

Quote from 2cents:

you don't understand "random"... here's a good read http://necsi.org/publications/dcs/Bar-YamChap6.pdf
go straight to 6.4.7

and if you want to continue to make a fool of yourself, be my guest and do provide proof to back up your earlier statement that "randomness is not a fact of biological life"
More...
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Darwin's observations are one thing, his conclusive theories are quite another...

Darwin never observed a single theory, those theories were a product of his mind, not natural happenings...

I am not taking issue with observances, but rather the speculative theories that are imagined from the combination of factual observances and the imaginative mind of human beings...
More...
and u clearly don't even understand what a scientific theory is :p :p :p

no wonder u believe ID is a theory :p :p :p

what sort of 'school' did u go to boy? did u stay there long? tell us abt yr observances please, Darwin didn't have any fyi :p :p :p
 
zzzzzzzzNo, I have not read all of Darwin. It is not necessary.zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Bingo.
You are such a rotten troll, it is remarkable.
I dont understand why you do it.

Ive been here a while, and you havent evolved at all-not gotten better, not improved, not anything at all, your just trollworthiness 101.

Heck,you dont even attempt levity, and im concerned for your wellbeing.

Sort of.
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Thanks for confirming that just because scientist think or believe something to be true, doesn't make it true or factual, just like a theory that man's origin is a product of ignorant random genetic mutations is a mythical fantasy of human mind, not a fact in evidence...

Isn't it odd that he so called defenders of "science" are the one employing illogically ad hominem attacks in this discussion?
More...
well, so far in my book, a fact is a fact, a thought a thought, a belief a belief etc etc... and evolution is a proper scientific theory, while ID isn't... sorry if thats too ad hominem for u pal... i'm no defender of faith for the sake of faith as u've probably gathered...

plse do stay at the bottom of the knowledge pyramid... s.o.'s gotta pay for my lifestyle after all...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top