Intelligent Design is not creationism

Quote from Teleologist:

Tradernik wrote:


Evidently you've forgotten all of it. Where is your proof of a non-teleological origin of life?
More...

The answer is still the same as it was the last 10 times you asked this same question in this thread. You are the one claiming that life is designed. So far the only proof you have provided is

"Can you prove it wasn't designed'?

The only shocking thing is that a grown man would believe that this sophistry would ever fly.

ID is Christian Creation theory rebranded for the 21st century. It is a faith-based belief system. There never was and never will be proof for it. Ours is a secular society in its public face. The ID/Creationists have as their stated goal the remaking of society in 'a manner more consistent with theistic ideals'. This is not wanted by the majority of citizens.

The ID'ers in this thread have provided only assertion in response to calls for proof of their theory. They have also, in a bizarre twist, attacked the scientific method, the very method which they claim supports their theory. This reveals some confusion on their part.

As revealed by Zeleologist's last 10 posts, they have nothing left in the tank, except repeatedly asking the same questions over and over again. Zeleologist has asked the question above at least 25 times in this thread and has received the same answers from Christians and non-Christians alike. It is only vanity and intellectual arrogance that forces him to continue posting, after his arguments have been shot to hell.
 
Quote from Teleologist:

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.
More...

Oh my God... could it be that you misunderstood this post so completely?

Actually, I don't believe it. I think you are just baiting me at this point.

In fact... what the hell am I talking about, Z? Baiting is all you ever do on this site!!!
 
TraderNik wrote:
The answer is still the same as it was the last 10 times you asked this same question in this thread. You are the one claiming that life is designed. So far the only proof you have provided is

"Can you prove it wasn't designed'?
More...

Why do you continue to misrepresent what I've said? Where did I ever say I could prove life was designed?
 
Quote from Teleologist:

TraderNik wrote:


Why do you continue to misrepresent what I've said? Where did I ever say I could prove life was designed? I will spell out my position one more time and let's see if you can comprehend it. I claim there is as much evidence for a teleological origin of life as there is for a non-teleological origin of life. If you dispute this then let's see your evidence for a non-teleological origin of life.
More...

The proof of non-teleologic origin is that this theory is simpler than the teleologic theory.

Proposing the existence of a designer, requires that an organized intelligence with infinite power has always existed, while proposing no designer merely requires that organization can occur by chance.

There is no proof of any sort that a designer has always existed, however there is abundent proof that randomness can self organize.

http://mgl.scripps.edu/projects/tan.../TangibleModels/self-assembling-virus-web.mov

If even one proof of the latter exists, it is infinitely greater in amount than the amount of proof existing for the former.
 
Quote from Teleologist:

TraderNik wrote:


Why do you continue to misrepresent what I've said? Where did I ever say I could prove life was designed?
More...

No one is misrepresenting you. Nik was pointing out that you claimed life was designed without providing any proof. And yet you were asking for proof that life was not designed, and insisting that otherwise one should believe in design without a proof.

You're the one misrepresenting others.
 
James Bond wrote:
No one is misrepresenting you. Nik was pointing out that you claimed life was designed without providing any proof. And yet you were asking for proof that life was not designed, and insisting that otherwise one should believe in design without a proof.
More...

More misrepresentation. I've never claimed life was designed, so I'm under no obligation to offer proof that life was designed. And I've never insisted that anyone should believe in design. It's the ID critics that insist life is undesigned and that every reasonable person should agree with them. Therefore they are obligated to offer evidence that supports their view. It is my contention that both sides in this debate are merely airing their suspicions. I happen to think my teleological suspicions are as empirically based as the non-teleological suspicions of the ID critics.

All investigations begin with suspicions. There is no reason why a teleological approach can't run an investigation based on observations, logic, and testing. It is merely an alternative view. It is capable of exploring and interpreting scientific data (thus it can use science) and it can also generate subsidiary hypotheses and predictions (thus it can guide science)."
 
Quote from Teleologist:

More misrepresentation. I've never claimed life was designed, so I'm under no obligation to offer proof that life was designed. And I've never insisted that anyone should believe in design. It's the ID critics that insist life is undesigned and that every reasonable person should agree with them. Therefore they are obligated to offer evidence that supports their view. It is my contention that both sides in this debate are merely airing their suspicions. I happen to think my teleological suspicions are as empirically based as the non-teleological suspicions of the ID critics.

All investigations begin with suspicions. There is no reason why a teleological approach can't run an investigation based on observations, logic, and testing. It is merely an alternative view. It is capable of exploring and interpreting scientific data (thus it can use science) and it can also generate subsidiary hypotheses and predictions (thus it can guide science)."
More...

I see. You're an ID advocate but don't believe in it. What a hypocrite!
 
Quote from james_bond_3rd:

I see. You're an ID advocate but don't believe in it. What a hypocrite!
More...

LOL. He's just jerking you off, buddy. He couldn't care less about ID, creationism or anything else. He just wants to keep you fighting with him, because that's how he maintains his superiority over others.

Happy Holidays.
 
The proof of non-teleologic origin is that this theory is simpler than the teleologic theory.

Proposing the existence of a designer, requires that an organized intelligence with infinite power has always existed, while proposing no designer merely requires that organization can occur by chance.

There is no proof of any sort that a designer has always existed, however there is abundent proof that randomness can self organize.
More...

Scientists first visiting Mars discover several pyramids similar to those found in Egypt. Proving that a non-teleological process was behind their origin is simpler than the proposing they were designed. Proposing a teleological process requires explaining the origin of the pyramid builders. This in turn requires that an organized intelligence with infinite power has always existed, while proposing no designer merely requires that organization can occur by chance.

There is no proof of any sort that a designer has always existed, however there is abundent proof that randomness can self organize.

Therefore, the scientists propose that the pyramids on Mars were the result of non-intelligent processes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top