Intelligent Design is not creationism

[stu]

Quote from I am...:

All I did was subtract "+ 1" (ie. I am my own maker, I am greater...etc. ) from both sides of a false equation, and applied basic algebra.

You did subtractions on top a false equation and then applied algebra.?
Do you just simply ignore the problem you will have doing that?
Working on false equations will likely give false answers.

The equation I have put to you over and over is this: God+1 = Gilbert. You can say it's false all you like but you have not shown it to be so. Producing faulty answers off of false equations will not do.

You can make up as much other stuff all you like, but you have not resolved that particular one.

Its real simple jes. If you cannot do God+1 then God is not omnipotent.
If you can , then God's value has changed to Gilberts.

Quote from I am...:

That is why when you turn faith back in the direction of reality, you can move a mountain.

Faith only enough to move a mountain. But not faith enough to move a mountain +1.

stu

 

[stu]

Quote from Teleologist:
There are only two possibilities here.

There are three

Quote from Teleologist:
Either what looks like design in nature is real or it is an illusion.

. ....or what you are calling design is not design, but is something else you have omitted to mention. That too would be real. Not an illusion.

Quote from Teleologist:
Children in school should not be taught that the purposefulness they observe in biological processes has been scientifically proven to be an illusion because that's not true.

Children aren't being taught that 'purposefulness is scientifically proven to be an illusion'. So what's your real beef?

False accusation and red herrings. are reasons why ID/Creationism is treated with such contempt. The many groundless and often downright dishonest statements made by its proponents loses any of its own purposefulness for ever being taken seriously.

Quote from Teleologist:
What is true is that there is an invalid a priori assumption of ateleology in biology and this invalid assumption is attached to what is taught in school.

Invalid does not work in science. Invalid is not science.

ID/Creationists constantly do try to create an invalid a priori assumption to fix onto science, outside of what science teaches. But it's not working and it won't work because it's not science.

Quote from Teleologist:
Philosophical materialism disguised as empirical science has no business being taught in the public schools. Eliminate the metaphysical corruption, and let the apparent design in nature speak for itself.

I agree wholeheartedly with you on that.

Philosophical materialism disguised as empirical science is a fitting description for ID/Creationism. That indeed has no business being taught in public school.

Quote from Teleologist:
ID has nothing to do with the supernatural.

That being the case you will need to step away from ID/Creationists philosophical speculations and any metaphysical faith beliefs to apply the scientific method.

But it is already applied. So you would find what science does .
That "apparent design" then speaks out for itself... It shouts EVOLUTION at you.

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Oh, and one last thing, I wonder if you even realize how illogical these two statements are when taken together:

1. You were butchering Buddhism.

2. But this is enough to show how superficial z10's copying and pasting is.

So I am copying and pasting butchered Buddhism?

Really too funny...

Your inability to see the meaning of the words is beyond belief.

How does one butcher a message by copying and pasting? Here is an example:

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Oh, and one last thing, when taken together, I butchered Buddhism.

Really too funny...

That was a nice cut&paste job, wasn't it? And fixed your grammar, too.

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

You are the expert on Buddhism to know who is butchering what?

It is just amazing to me how atheists think they know about the truth of religions they don't even practice...

Are you a practicing Buddhist? As I said before, you don't have to be a chicken to know that a chicken can't swim.

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from I am...:

When? In time only. This gives it time to cease holding belief. There is an attempt to prove it true...in time. And there is time to prove it untrue. This world is the experience of faith in that equation...the "evidence of things not seen", the "proof of things hoped for". Faith is not natural in the original equality. Like belief, it is used to hold this world together. And when it is withdrawn, the world will disappear. That is why when you turn faith back in the direction of reality, you can move a mountain. Time is not natural. It will end when the last Son of God withdraws his belief in a false equation.



Jesus

Jesus, you're thick.

Answer the question. When (as in "under what circumstances") does G=G+1 hold?

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

You are comparing a chicken not swimming to a spiritual practice?

Tell me, could someone act like they were a Buddhist, wear flowing robes, shaved head, living in a Buddhist Temple, be seen chanting, meditating under a tree, etc. and not actually be practicing Buddhism?

It is pretty clear from the evidence that you provide that people who have never practiced or been on a spiritual path judge a spiritual practitioner on the basis of how they act...not on the basis of what goes on inside the person.

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

Are you a practicing Buddhist? As I said before, you don't have to be a chicken to know that a chicken can't swim.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

Your inability to see the meaning of the words is beyond belief.

You see the meaning of words?

Oh Lordy Lordy, Lordy...

How does one butcher a message by copying and pasting? Here is an example:


That was a nice cut&paste job, wasn't it? And fixed your grammar, too.

Now the self appointed grammarian alters quotes as the only method of saving face?

Oh, the materialistic chit never ends...

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Your inability to see the meaning of the words is beyond belief.

You see the meaning of words?

Oh Lordy Lordy, Lordy...

thefreedictionary.com:
see 1 Pronunciation (s)
v. saw (sô), seen (sn), see·ing, sees
v.tr.
1. To perceive with the eye.
2.
a. To apprehend as if with the eye.
b. To detect by means analogous to use of the eye: an electronic surveillance camera that saw the activity in the embassy yard.
3. To have a mental image of; visualize: They could still see their hometown as it once was.
4. To understand; comprehend: I see your point.
...

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

"I see, said the blind man as he picked up his hammer and saw."

Really amazing that some folks select the 4th definition of a word, when they can just as easily use the first definition of another word to communicate their meaning...

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

thefreedictionary.com:
see 1 Pronunciation (s)
v. saw (sô), seen (sn), see·ing, sees
v.tr.
1. To perceive with the eye.
2.
a. To apprehend as if with the eye.
b. To detect by means analogous to use of the eye: an electronic surveillance camera that saw the activity in the embassy yard.
3. To have a mental image of; visualize: They could still see their hometown as it once was.
4. To understand; comprehend: I see your point.
...

 

[Teleologist]

Stu said:

That "apparent design" then speaks out for itself... It shouts EVOLUTION at you.

Not accidental/coincidental evolution but rather evolution by design.