Intelligent Design is not creationism
- Thread starter Teleologist
- Start date
It's easy for me to judge someone who says that kids on a pediatric cancer ward did something to put themselves there, as Z has said in this thread.
This is perhaps the worst thing that Z has ever come up with, except for the time he said that it should be suggested that a fellow member's young children might be attacked and raped.
ZZZzzzzzzz claims to be a man of God...
"You are now writing as if the Landscape theory is a proven theory. If it were then I agree no design inference. "
What!?
Is that the point where you actually recognize there to be no God? Are you really saying you would accept ID/Creationism and "God the Creator" was no such thing?? Doesn't that mean along with your religion it all goes down the pan with one flush of the Landscape chain???
What a totally crap argument indeed it is you do make both for ID / creationism and your religion. Obviously the ID creationism idea IS crap, but somehow you seem to be able to add an extra element of crapness other arguments can't manage. A bit of poking with a stick from any angle and it all falls over. Of course it does. Makebelieve presented in the guise of truth does do that.
"But you are ignore the other side of the coin, --- what if there is only one universe (no landscape)."
Then the genius Susskind would be WRONG .
"Susskind tells us then science would be hard pressed to explain the fine tunings of the universe"
But now the genius Susskind would have been proven WRONG. But you are now content to rest your "beliefs" merely upon his opinion rather than his exceptional abilities to scientifically resolve, which in this scenario, he would have been WRONG..
According to your contorted form of logic, he may be RIGHT scientifically (by the sound of it you are bankng on him not being correct) so that if he is WRONG in his genius scientifically, he is RIGHT only in opinion. At the same time conveniently ignoring of course any other eminent scientists, who scientifically do not agree with his opinion.
Did you at any time even bother to work that out, or did you not notice how really pathetic your argument truly is. Or is it more likely the hell-firewall thinking procedure religion taught you is blanking out any ability to consider, your defense of ID and your religion is, as always, just plain pitiful.
Crap, crap, flush, crapness, make believe, pathetic, pitiful....
How very scientific...par for the stu...
How very scientific...par for the stu...
Assert.... have assertions dismantled... respond with ad hominem.
Par for the Troll.
You flip-flopped on your statements regarding the origin of life on earth in the past ('magistrates were materialized out of pure potentiality').
Isn't it time to flip-flop on your statement that children on a pediatric cancer ward are there because of some 'mistake' they made?
you do not really think that STU took those arguments seriously.
emply a litlle logic.
could I believe there is a God and at the same time believe the universe might look random to science. Yes.
could Susskind or anyone else be wrong about multiple universes and still correct about the anthropic priciple giving the appearance of design. Yes could be.
so none of Stu's arguments really meant anything. He was just looking to get a rise out of someone.
emply a litlle logic.
could I believe there is a God and at the same time believe the universe might look random to science. Yes.
could Susskind or anyone else be wrong about multiple universes and still correct about the anthropic priciple giving the appearance of design. Yes could be.
so none of Stu's arguments really meant anything. He was just looking to get a rise out of someone.
A basic principle of science is that things are not always as they appear on the surface, and that at deeper levels things appear differently as perspective changes, the classic example being the view of something as a solid, to finding at a deeper level that it is not solid but particles with lots of empty space, to a field of waves at a deeper level...to who knows what eventually.
When I listen to Darwinists explain away their faith, they constantly use words like "it appears" "it may be" "it is possible" "it could be"...
Then they conclude with all certainty that their ancestors are apes, and they are ultimately the spawn of lifeless ignorance.
Hard to argue with that...
When I listen to Darwinists explain away their faith, they constantly use words like "it appears" "it may be" "it is possible" "it could be"...
Then they conclude with all certainty that their ancestors are apes, and they are ultimately the spawn of lifeless ignorance.
Hard to argue with that...