Intelligent Design is not creationism

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from Teleologist:

I suspect that if scientists succeed in creating life from non-life they will accomplish it through bioengineering and/or nanotechnology. Likewise for seeding other planets with life. If this is a possible future then I see no reason this couldn't have been how life began on earth.

1. Life started spontaneously on earth.
2. Life was put here by alien spacecraft. And the alien life was put on their planet by another alien spacecraft. And that alien life was put on their planet by...
3. Life was started by Invisible Freddie.
4. There had always been life on earth, even before when there was earth...
So your answer is #2.

Who seeded the first alien life?

 

[john dough]

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

1. Life started spontaneously on earth.
2. Life was put here by alien spacecraft. And the alien life was put on their planet by another alien spacecraft. And that alien life was put on their planet by...
3. Life was started by Invisible Freddie.
4. There had always been life on earth, even before when there was earth...
So your answer is #2.

Who seeded the first alien life?

God is the answer to all questions. Surely you must recognize this by now. Only a fool would deny God and risk eternal damnation.

Scientific investigation is simply unnecessary. Knowledge of the physical world is useless.

Put your faith in the Lord and all things good will come to you. Otherwise, your fate is sealed by a pillar of eternal fire.

Oh, and have a very Merry Christmas!

 

[stu]

Quote from Teleologist:

Once again. The hypothetical example of a Mount Rushmore-like structure being found on Mars is provided solely to refute the claim of ID critics that a design inference is thwarted by infinite regress or failing to identify the designer.

It hasn't worked. It's a hypothetical example, so is the Toaster on Jupiter. They both refute or establish nothing . Useless I think the word is. You have done nothing to even mitigate ID's irreducible infinite regress problem. Saying you have when you haven't doesn't work.

Quote from Teleologist:


The example of SETI works as well. Are the ID critics claiming that a signal from space consisting of a long series of consecutive prime numbers would fail to count as evidence of intelligent design because the identity of the sender was unknown?

Humans are intelligent designers. So what?
ID hasn't and can't and therefore won't add anything that is not already being done far better by science.

That's why ID is a sham ,there only to foster it's separate agenda . It adds nothing to research only to claim an Intelligent designer for the Universe where none is necessary essential or required in answer to rational human scientific enquiry. I think it fair to say that ID and toasters on other planets do not fall into the category ' items worthy of serious investigation '

 

[jem]

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

jem: Here is a clue. Go to wikipedia and search for "Big Bang."

You're just like a typical American child. Not only you refuse to learn. You think you're being clever by not learning.

And while I know for a fact all europeans are not pussies you are a advertisement for the premise of that thread. I make that statement because of your refusal to be a man and back up your statment with facts or sites to physicists who agree with you.

Your cite to wikipedia while informative did nothing to change our discussion. In fact I could give you some cites from that page which support what I have been saying.

prove I am and show some intellectual euro backbone.

by the way I know that some physicists speculate that the first thing out of the hole was a type of gravity, which is why I questioned you about your statement regarding time.

 

[Teleologist]

James Bond:

Life was put here by alien spacecraft. And the alien life was put on their planet by another alien spacecraft. And that alien life was put on their planet by...

Another attempt to thwart a design inference with infinite regress. It won't work. We are right back to my example of finding a Mount Rushmore-like structure on Mars. If large detailed faces were found on the side of a Martian mountain, scientists would infer the activity of sculptors even though they had no idea how the sculptors originated.

Similarly with respect to all examples in which we infer the activity of an intelligent agent. All those explanations fail to explain the origin of the agent itself. By your logic we can never infer design in any case. Therefore, if you are reading this, you have no justification for inferring that someone has written this post. It's best just to stop the regress of explanation at the computer screen itself.

 

[seneca_roman]

Quote from john dough:

God is the answer to all questions. Surely you must recognize this by now. Only a fool would deny God and risk eternal damnation.

Scientific investigation is simply unnecessary. Knowledge of the physical world is useless.

Put your faith in the Lord and all things good will come to you. Otherwise, your fate is sealed by a pillar of eternal fire.

Oh, and have a very Merry Christmas!

Let's say you have a serious but very curable disease and the knowledge if left untreated you will die. Would you put your faith in God or the Doctor who knows how to treat you?

Seneca

 

[john dough]

Quote from seneca_roman:

Let's say you have a serious but very curable disease and the knowledge if left untreated you will die. Would you put your faith in God or the Doctor who knows how to treat you?

Seneca

My post was intended as sarcasm.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Snowflake self?

You must be referring to your own self...

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

What happened to your snowflake "self?" Did it change into H2O without a command from God?

 

[Teleologist]

Stu:

You have done nothing to even mitigate ID's irreducible infinite regress problem. Saying you have when you haven't doesn't work.

There is no infinite regress problem. It's been completely refuted. It's been shown to be nothing more than a feeble attempt to thwart design inferences. It's pure nonsense.

Stu:

ID hasn't and can't and therefore won't add anything that is not already being done far better by science.

Have you had experience using ID? If not you speak from ignorance.

 

[john dough]

Quote from Teleologist:

Stu:


1. There is no infinite regress problem. 2. It's been completely refuted. 3. It's been shown to be nothing more than a feeble attempt to thwart design inferences. 4. It's pure nonsense.

1. There is too.

2. No it hasn't.

3. Cite the source.

4. In your opinion.