Intelligent Design is not creationism

[Teleologist]

TraderNik:

The claim that ID/Creation is viable because it cannot be disproved reveals the fundamental flaw in the faith-based viewpoint.

I never asked you to disprove ID. I asked you for evidence of non-teleological evolution which is what you ID critics are promoting. Besides, when I ask you ID critics what you would count as evidence of ID you want proof that evolution is impossible.

 

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from me:
The claim that ID/Creation is viable because it cannot be disproved reveals the fundamental flaw in the faith-based viewpoint.

Quote from Teleologist:
I never asked you to disprove ID

Teleologist, you need to quit for the night man.

Wow.

 

[FanOfFridays]

Or just to make it perfectly clear...

Quote from Teleologist:
Where is your evidence that any major evolutionary feature originated non-teleologically?

In other words, disprove teleology. Why would we waste one second 'proving that evolutionary features originated non-teleologically'?? Teleology is a faith-based belief adhered to by a small group of mystics. We do not go about 'proving that evolutionary features originated non-Flying Spaghettily' or 'proving that evolutionary features originated non-Green Cheesianly' or 'proving that evolutionary features originated without the help of Santa Claus'.

If you have a belief in ID, or Flying Spaghetti, or Santa Claus, or ghosts and goblins as the creators of life on earth, it is up to you to PROVE it, not up to us to DISPROVE IT.

Get it?

Your choice to believe in ID or Green Cheese or Flying Spaghetti in the total absence of proof of any kind is YOUR CHOICE. Go ahead and believe it. If you believe that the scientific proofs of 'non-teleological' evolution (if that phrase even makes any sense, it is essentially the same as saying 'Non-Flying Spaghettian' evolution) are invalid, that is fine. Believe in that if you want. Just don't claim that ID is based in proof and don't try to claim that the proof of it is that there is no proof that 'major evolutionary features did not originate non-teleologically'. That is the worst kind of sophistry, almost at the level of what we have seen in ZTrolll...


Errrrr.....

Oops.

Thus...

Quote from Me:
The claim that ID/Creation is viable because it cannot be disproved reveals the fundamental flaw in the faith-based viewpoint.

And, unbelievably...

Quote from Teleologist:
I never asked you to disprove ID

 

[Teleologist]

TraderNik:

Why would we waste one second 'proving that evolutionary features originated non-teleologically'??

Because that what the theory you support claims! That's what this debate is all about! Teleological evolution versus non-teleological evolution.

Believe what you want. Just don't claim that your no-design theory is based on proof and don't try to claim that the proof of it is that there is no proof that major evolutionary features did not originate teleologically.

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from Teleologist:

Because that what the theory you support claims! That's what this debate is all about! Teleological evolution versus non-teleological evolution.

Believe what you want. Just don't claim that your no-design theory is based on proof and don't try to claim that the proof of it is that there is no proof that major evolutionary features did not originate teleologically.

No native English speaker can come up with such a sentence.

tel·e·ol·o·gy (tĕl'ē-ŏl'ə-jē, tē'lē-) pronunciation
n., pl. -gies.

1. The study of design or purpose in natural phenomena.
2. The use of ultimate purpose or design as a means of explaining phenomena.
3. Belief in or the perception of purposeful development toward an end, as in nature or history.

For some reason, you're avoiding the discussion of "purpose" but focusing on "design." But in the definition of the word "purpose" is as important as "design."

Do you believe that the "design" has a "purpose?" If so, whose purpose is that?

 

[Teleologist]

Your argument that I'm asking you to disprove ID is a joke. I'm asking you to prove your blind watchmaker theory. You're the one claiming that the origin and diversity of life on earth is solely the result of non-teleological processes. Let's see your evidence. Or are you just making a faith-based claim?

 

[stu]

...that's curious ,
you want proof the universe formed naturally but you only need it to "look like" it was ID/Created.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

"For some reason, you're avoiding the discussion of "purpose" but focusing on "design." But in the definition of the word "purpose" is as important as "design."

Ahhh, now we are getting down to it.

Finally. After all this time, finally the heart of the matter.

The existentialists support evolutionary theory not necessarily because it is logical or scientific per say, but because they are existentialists first and foremost, and reason and evaluate accordingly. The hiding behind science, and ignoring the logical fallacy of arguments from ignorance, supporting a theory that cannot be falsified, and not having any means with which to test design...except purpose.

They see no purpose in life, therefore it has to be ignorant chance, not ID.

Hey, that is cool with me. To each their own.

But teaching purposeless existentialism in the school system is flat out wrong.

So, there it is. That is really what this is all about. The existentialists are afraid that if we were to allow children in schools a choice to think that there is purpose, rather than no purpose, by design, then they might be inclined to think of God.

Fancy that...

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

No native English speaker can come up with such a sentence.

tel·e·ol·o·gy (tĕl'ē-ŏl'ə-jē, tē'lē-) pronunciation
n., pl. -gies.

1. The study of design or purpose in natural phenomena.
2. The use of ultimate purpose or design as a means of explaining phenomena.
3. Belief in or the perception of purposeful development toward an end, as in nature or history.

For some reason, you're avoiding the discussion of "purpose" but focusing on "design." But in the definition of the word "purpose" is as important as "design."

Do you believe that the "design" has a "purpose?" If so, whose purpose is that?

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

"For some reason, you're avoiding the discussion of "purpose" but focusing on "design." But in the definition of the word "purpose" is as important as "design."

Ahhh, now we are getting down to it.

Finally. After all this time, finally the heart of the matter.

The existentialists support evolutionary theory not necessarily because it is logical or scientific per say, but because they are existentialists first and foremost, and reason and evaluate accordingly. The hiding behind science, and ignoring the logical fallacy of arguments from ignorance, supporting a theory that cannot be falsified, and not having any means with which to test design...except purpose.

They see no purpose in life, therefore it has to be ignorant chance, not ID.

Hey, that is cool with me. To each their own.

But teaching purposeless existentialism in the school system is flat out wrong.

So, there it is. That is really what this is all about. The existentialists are afraid that if we were to allow children in schools a choice to think that there is purpose, rather than no purpose, by design, then they might be inclined to think of God.

Fancy that...

You don't even know Hegel. Do you know what existentialism is?

Since you are a big fan of Buddhism, do you know the connection between existentialism and Buddhism?

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

A doodle is by design, without much purpose...

By design, by choice, with purpose, a person draws aimlessly...which is a called a doodle...

Too funny...you continue to crack me up.

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

You don't even know Hegel. Do you know what existentialism is?

Since you are a big fan of Buddhism, do you know the connection between existentialism and Buddhism?