Intelligent Design is not creationism

TraderNik wrote:
The ID/Creationists, for all their hand waving, have never, nor will they ever, come up with one testable hypothesis that substantiates ID/Creation as the origin of life on earth. We waited for it for a total of what, 1400 post in all? Not one example. Just a bunch of faith-mongering talk.
More...

No one on this thread ever claimed they had a test to prove design. And you haven't come up with one testable hypothesis that substantiates a non-teleological origin of life. All you've done here is peddle your metaphysics.
 
TraderNik wrote:
Sorry, science does not proceed according to how things look or how they don't look.
More...

Nonsense. All scientific hypotheses begin with observation. And what is observation but how things look or don't look?
 
Quote from Teleologist:

if the design inference generates testable hypotheses that help us better understand biotic reality it will prove to be useful. That's all I expect of it.
More...

and what... a few hours later....

Quote from Teleologist:
No one on this thread ever claimed they had a test to prove design.
More...

If I tried, I couldn't make this stuff up.

I swear to God.

One thing that this thread has taught me is how I, as a person who came from an entertainment indsutry background, could make money in the markets. If even 10% of those I trade against are capable of making these two posts within hours of each other, then I can comfortably take money off of them for as long as they care to stay in the game.

ZZZzzzzzz, this will go down as one of your 'Hall of Shame' moments for sure, right behind that period about 6 months ago when you started threatening anal penetration whenever anyone pointed out your mistakes.
 
Quote from Teleologist:

Nonsense. All scientific hypotheses begin with observation. And what is observation but how things look or don't look?
More...

I've forgotten more about pure science than you will ever know, junior. Please don't lecture me about empiricism. You in particular, ZTroll.

No surprise that you would isolate this statement and twist it without reference to the original context of the assertion it was meant to counter. The only surprise is that you think these tactics would ever work with anyone except the most credulous... i.e. those who could engage in blind faith... errr... oh, damn!!

:)
 
Quote from 2cents:

nonsense... but what do u know about science?...
More...

Well its obvious, isnt it?
Some amazing thing "created" science.:)

"Magistrates, manufactured out of pure potentiality".

If anything was going to be created in this manner, WHY f**g magistrates?

Gaaack. Ban Z.
 
mmmhhh... not sure banning is appropriate here... ignorance is just a random function of knowledge distribution... agree zizzz, and teleo, jem & co, happen to be at a deep end in the wrong tail but someone has to, right?

the interesting thing is how they keep reciting their "ID teach the controversy" verses http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teach_the_Controversy ... d'u think we cld retrain them to sell sthg useful perhaps?? i mean, if we can do that with chimps...
 
Tradernik wrote:
I've forgotten more about pure science than you will ever know, junior.
More...

Evidently you've forgotten all of it. Where is your proof of a non-teleological origin of life?
 
Quote from Teleologist:
"If the design inference generates testable hypotheses that help us better understand biotic reality it will prove to be useful. That's all I expect of it. "

Quote from Teleologist:
"No one on this thread ever claimed they had a test to prove design."

That TraderNik thinks there is a contradiction here just goes to show the depth of his ignorance concerning ID, testable hypotheses, and proof.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top