Intelligent Design is not creationism

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from Teleologist:

Stu wrote:


So your test confirms that the Mount Rushmore-like structure on Mars is an artifact?

No. There is no Mt. Rushmore-like structure on Mars. There is a mountain, a few black dots that we don't know whether they're shadows or some dark rocks. Here is a link that describes the origin of the Martian image and the controversy about it:
http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF7/710.html
Human eyes are really good at making out patterns where none exists. Look at this picture:

Can you honestly say that this does not appear to be a bird shape to you? But we know it's just clouds!

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from pattersb:

how about property tax breaks for those who privately educate their kids? They pay taxes also. From the liberals cold-dead hands will they reliquinsh their monopoly on public education.

"brainwashed by the church". Newton was a biblical scholar. I'll wait for the santa claus prick to pop up. In a country whose morality is going down the toliet, (not coincidently while the "GOD IS DEAD" crowd is gaining more and more ground), the prick attacks santa claus.

In any event, you've conceded that there is a place for ID and other theories of existence in public schools, besides teaching kids the the "fact" that everything just sort of happened after an explosion.

Victory!

Yes, let's just declare victory in Iraq and get the hell out of there.

 

[Teleologist]

James Bond wrote:

Proof of ID" means overwhelming empirical evidence for ID you idiot . Not just circumstancial evidence. Why did you crop my second setence off that included "overwhelming empirical evidence?" Was it because it didn't fit your argument?

What a moron. The ID critics on this thread are repeatedly asking for proof of ID. That means (as you say) that they are demanding overwhelming empirical evidence for ID. But they only require circumstancial evidence for a non-teleological origin of life. That's my point.

 

[pattersb]

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

Yes, let's just declare victory in Iraq and get the hell out of there.

We have already won in Iraq. Saddam will swing from a tree limb soon.

Iraq was never about winning, in lieu of a surrender, it would always be measured by degrees of failure or success.

 

[Teleologist]

James Bond wrote:

No. There is no Mt. Rushmore-like structure on Mars.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? I never said there was a Mt. Rushmore-like structure on Mars. It was a hypothetical example.

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from Teleologist:

What a moron. The ID critics on this thread are repeatedly asking for proof of ID. That means (as you say) that they are demanding overwhelming empirical evidence for ID. But they only require circumstancial evidence for a non-teleological origin of life. That's my point.

Nonsense. All accepted scientific theory are supported by overwhelming empirical evidence. That includes the theory of evolution. Your ignorance of such evidence does not mean that the evidence doesn't exist. You do not represent the state of knowledge in science.

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from Teleologist:

So your test confirms that the Mount Rushmore-like structure on Mars is an artifact?

Quote from Teleologist:

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? I never said there was a Mt. Rushmore-like structure on Mars. It was a hypothetical example.

We'll just let you debate yourself. Have fun.

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from pattersb:

We have already won in Iraq. Saddam will swing from a tree limb soon.

Iraq was never about winning, in lieu of a surrender, it would always be measured by degrees of failure or success.

If we've already won, why are we still there, dying everyday?

 

[Teleologist]

James Bond wrote:

Nonsense. All accepted scientific theory are supported by overwhelming empirical evidence.

I never claimed ID was a scientific theory. I compare it with origin of life research. Witness simply that there is no theory of abiogenesis. Instead, there are countless speculations with very little consensus (apart from the appeal to a reductionist approach employing only non-teleological causes). The notion of panspermy (although not directed panspermy) is beginning to be mentioned among scientists without scoffing. Articles with the most meager results (stringing together a half-dozen amino acids or so without an enzyme) get published in Science or Nature. Or as Paul Davies writes in his book about abiogenesis:

"Many investigators feel uneasy about stating in public that the origin of life is a mystery, even though behind closed doors they freely admit they are baffled."

Thus, the question is why are scientists still so baffled? At a time when we understand biology, chemistry, and physics better than ever, why has not the study of abiogenesis been proportionately enlightened?

 

[stu]

Quote from Teleologist:

Stu wrote:


So your test confirms that the Mount Rushmore-like structure on Mars is an artifact?

Yes but it was the chisel marks that clinched it.

The problem is Mt Rushmore is specific and known not to have formed naturally on Earth or Mars, for it then to do so on Mars means Santa's magical Elves must have carried another one there which they made at the North Pole. Surely everyone knows they wouldn't waste their time that way.

It doesn't work. Dropping what is known to be man made designed artifact into an otherwise wholly natural surrounding which does not need design to form its shape, makes Mt Rushmore artificial. If Mars the Universe Earth needed a designer - an artisan to produce It's artifacts - the whole lot would be as artificial as Mt Rushmore.

Is that what you ID'ers really want. An artificial Cosmos. One that did not form naturally?