Intelligent Design is not creationism

You continually refer to someone elses research.

Are you unable to think and answer for yourself?

You appear for all intents and purposes exactly like the Christian who does nothing but quote some particular scripture when they are unable to formulate an argument on their own...

Quote from 2cents:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from 2cents:

and i understand that u don't understand 'random', nor the concept of proof, nor how darwin's work tore apart the faith-based obscurantist account of life's origins thks for the laugh nonetheless

checking out for now...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------so... that was 'a lot' for u hey?

jokes aside, since you were asking for maths & concepts etc pages back, why don't u research temporal hierarchies as i'd earlier suggested, and read the link i have provided on randomness for instance? not yr field? how about emergence? doesn't mix too well with faith i know but... what can u do?...
More...
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:


Unfortunately the average person thinks evolution means Darwinism. Listen to the new sometime when they mention evolution, and it is meant dogmatically in the same vein as Darwin, not just observed biological processes. Teachers present evolution not in isolation as simply a biological process as it should be presented, but rather as the cornerstone of a much larger concept of Darwinism and the origin of man.
More...

You continue to misrepresent the theory of evolution.

"Observation of biological processes" itself is a theory of anything, just like the observationn of falling apples is not a theory of gravity. Theory of evolution is a complete scientific theory, including the evolution of man, which by definition also includes a theory on the origin of man.

Darwinism, OTOH, is a strawman set up by anti-evolution religious fanatics. Because its "proponents" have absolutely no understanding of science, of course Darwinism is not science at all. It's a collection of nonsense that sounds similar enough to the scientific theory to the layman. Creationists use it in their debate, instead of facing up to the real theory.

It is funny because this is not a normal debate. Any attempt to educate these people on what real theory of evolution is falls on deaf ears. They just continue on their dellusional attack on the faux Darwinism.
 
Oh, it is a "complete" theory, founded on complete unfalsifiable assumptions, i.e. that changes in biological organisms are the product of ignorant chance, and that life arises from non life....

If you don't like the term Darwinism, feel free to use whatever term you like, but simple observed process of change and changes in biological organisms are a very far cry from the suggestion that observed change is unguided, unplanned, random, spontaneous, and from ignorance...and results in higher and higher species following the theory of "natural" selection.

The former observation of change is a fact, the latter is a fantasy of the human mind, which cannot be falsified.

What is also quite interesting to see, is that the programming for these changes in biological organisms, as well as the immutable nature of a survival instinct, are thought to exist without a programmer.

Imagine that, a program of "evolution" that came from nothing. That would be quite magical...

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

You continue to misrepresent the theory of evolution.

"Observation of biological processes" itself is a theory of anything, just like the observationn of falling apples is not a theory of gravity. Theory of evolution is a complete scientific theory, including the evolution of man, which by definition also includes a theory on the origin of man.

Darwinism, OTOH, is a strawman set up by anti-evolution religious fanatics. Because its "proponents" have absolutely no understanding of science, of course Darwinism is not science at all. It's a collection of nonsense that sounds similar enough to the scientific theory to the layman. Creationists use it in their debate, instead of facing up to the real theory.

It is funny because this is not a normal debate. Any attempt to educate these people on what real theory of evolution is falls on deaf ears. They just continue on their dellusional attack on the faux Darwinism.
More...
 
You personally don't answer questions, you refer to someone else for answers via a link, exactly the same way a theist refers people to their scripture of choice...

Heck, it is okay with me if you really don't understand what you are referring to sufficient to explain it yourself, I understand how faith works.

Just no room for discussion with either a fundamentalist theist or a fundamentalist atheist, or fundamentalist whatever, when they have no ability to dialogue for themselves, but rather have taken things on faith and refer to the source of their faith....

Okay with me if you let others do your thinking for you...
Quote from 2cents:

which question is it u want answered that i haven't yet answered in the last n pages my son?
More...
 
Simple logic is obviously not your game...

All you would have to do is show how it is logically impossible for ID to be true...

and/or logically impossible for Non ID to be false...

But then that house of straw would no longer withstand the scrutiny of common sense...



Quote from 2cents:

falsifiable, zizzz, falsifiable... read up son... this is not yr game...

just out of kindness: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability nite nite ;-)
More...
 
james bond wrote:
Darwinism, OTOH, is a strawman set up by anti-evolution religious fanatics. Because its "proponents" have absolutely no understanding of science, of course Darwinism is not science at all.
More...

Are you aware that Richard Dawkins refers to himself as a Darwinist? Does that mean he doesn't understand science and is a religious fanatic?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top