Intelligent Design is not creationism

It is not as I would have it, you are having your own way just as you wish. I wish no way for you...

So your position would have been that X-Rays do not exists, sub atomic particles, gamma rays, quarks, etc. all do not exist back 500 years ago, right, because no one had evidence of them...

Can you show me an object which appears in nature and cannot possibly be the product of either human and/or natural processes?

Easy.

The Universe itself in totality...the whole thing...not the parts, not spot existence, but the whole enchilada...

Quote from kjkent1:

Until such time as I can find evidence of a designer, no designer exists -- not as you would have it, the other way around.

Do you have some evidence of a designer to share, other than some poetic statment of your belief?

Can you show me an object which appears in nature and cannot possibly be the product of either human and/or natural processes?
More...
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

It is not as I would have it, you are having your own way just as you wish. I wish no way for you...

So your position would have been that X-Rays do not exists, sub atomic particles, gamma rays, quarks, etc. all do not exist back 500 years ago, right, because no one had evidence of them...
More...

No, that wouldn't be my position at all. The existence of something does not automatically demonstrate that it was caused by an intelligent act. And, there is not reason to infer the existence of a designer, absent actual evidence of one.

So, if you can show me that X-rays eminating from the center of our galaxy were caused by some intelligence, then that would be evidence of design. Absent that, the X-rays exist, but they are not designed, because they display no evidence of being designed.

Edit: you edited your prior post after I responded. You say that the universe is not the product of some natural act. OK, prove it.

If you can't, then the universe is fully natural.
 
You did not answer the questions I asked....

Repeat:

Tell us what the designer of the crystals would look like?

How would you know him if you found him/her/it?

What exactly would constitute evidence of a designer? A signature like in a painting?

A written manuscript describing in detail the process?

How do you know that the signature isn't there, but you just can't see it with the tools you are looking with?

____________________________



Quote from kjkent1:

No, that wouldn't be my position at all. The existence of something does not automatically demonstrate that it was caused by an intelligent act. And, there is not reason to infer the existence of a designer, absent actual evidence of one.

So, if you can show me that X-rays eminating from the center of our galaxy were caused by some intelligence, then that would be evidence of design. Absent that, the X-rays exist, but they are not designed, because they display no evidence of being designed.
More...
 
Hmm, a designer does not exist because you have no evidence that meets your criteria for a designer's existence, but you know the Universe is the product of a natural act...even though you have no evidence of same.

That's a nice little assumption circle you got going on there...

Quote from kjkent1:

So, if you can show me that X-rays eminating from the center of our galaxy were caused by some intelligence, then that would be evidence of design. Absent that, the X-rays exist, but they are not designed, because they display no evidence of being designed.

Edit: you edited your prior post after I responded. You say that the universe is not the product of some natural act. OK, prove it.

If you can't, then the universe is fully natural.
More...
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Hmm, a designer does not exist because you have no evidence that meets your criteria for a designer's existence, but you know the Universe is the product of a natural act...even though you have no evidence of same.

That's a nice little assumption circle you got going on there...
More...

Occam's Razor. All things being equal the simpler solution is preferable. Inferring a creator means that you must BELIEVE that most complex creation possible occurred first, without any foundation at all.

Whereas if you accept the EVIDENCE of universe as a roiling sea of turbulent matter and energy, then everything which follows is scientifically measurable.

There is evidence of a roiling universe. There is no evidence of a creator. Universe 1, creator 0. Game over.
 
You believe uncountable spontaneous unguided unplanned random events are the cause of this universe and everything within it, and I believe a single intelligent designer is responsible.

Hmmm, and your belief is the simplest...

That's why it is your belief, I guess...

Oh, so you are now calling game over?

My mistake, I thought you were actually sincere and adult in this discussion, and not playing childish games.

Again, my mistake...

You are a sure fired winner at your games, gotta give you that...that's gonna get you laid 4 sure...

p.s. You didn't answer my questions, but apparently in your game that is not required...

Quote from kjkent1:

Occam's Razor. All things being equal the simpler solution is preferable. Inferring a creator means that you must BELIEVE that most complex creation possible occurred first, without any foundation at all.

Whereas if you accept the EVIDENCE of universe as a roiling sea of turbulent matter and energy, then everything which follows is scientifically measurable.

There is evidence of a roiling universe. There is no evidence of a creator. Universe 1, creator 0. Game over.
More...
 
ARogueTrader(ART)/Optional77/JaneDoe/Zx/Etc.:
>You believe uncountable spontaneous unguided
>unplanned random events are the cause of this
>universe and everything within it, and I believe a
>single intelligent designer is responsible.

>Hmmm, and your belief is the simplest...

As long as one avoids the question "How did the single intelligent designer come into being?" then your belief would seem to be the simplest.

I'm not in the habit of avoiding questions of that importance -- and thus (until someone addresses that question with evidence of value) your belief is by far the most complex and unbelievable.

JB
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

You believe uncountable spontaneous unguided unplanned random events are the cause of this universe and everything within it, and I believe a single intelligent designer is responsible.

Hmmm, and your belief is the simplest...

That's why it is your belief, I guess...

Oh, so you are now calling game over?

My mistake, I thought you were actually sincere and adult in this discussion, and not playing childish games.

Again, my mistake...

You are a sure fired winner at your games, gotta give you that...that's gonna get you laid 4 sure...

p.s. You didn't answer my questions, but apparently in your game that is not required...
More...

Actually, I'm just playing according to the rules which you have succinctly demonstrated by your conduct over the past couple of years.

Answering your questions is a waste of time, because you never return the courtesy.

As for adult conversation, this website is a testament to your complete unwillingness to engage ANYONE in adult conversation over the course of a discussion.

Which you have just demonstrate in this last post, as you didn't get your way, so you immediately resort to ad hominem as a means of trying to cause your opponent to continue to engage.

I'm not gonna play foil to your socratic method. If you won't prove up your affirmative case, then we have nothing to talk about.

So, either produce your evidence of a designer, or there isn't any.
 
So in your mind, the designer has to have come into being? What exactly does come into being mean when you use the phrase?

Then, exactly why does a designer have to come into being?

Exactly when does a thought come into being?

LOL!!!

R^R

Quote from Turok:

ARogueTrader(ART)/Optional77/JaneDoe/Zx/Etc.:
>You believe uncountable spontaneous unguided
>unplanned random events are the cause of this
>universe and everything within it, and I believe a
>single intelligent designer is responsible.

>Hmmm, and your belief is the simplest...

As long as one avoids the question "How did the single intelligent designer come into being?" then your belief would seem to be the simplest.

I'm not in the habit of avoiding questions of that importance -- and thus (until someone addresses that question with evidence of value) your belief is by far the most complex and unbelievable.

JB
More...
 
ARogueTrader(ART)/Optional77/JaneDoe/Zx/Etc.:
>What exactly does come into being mean when
>you use the phrase?

It means to reach whatever form/capability was required to be able to "intelligently design" the world/universe we occupy.

JB
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top