You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Intelligent Design is not creationism
- Thread starter Teleologist
- Start date
Teleologist said:
James Bond replied:
Nice dodge. If you really had any evidence that Darwinism has contributed anything to advance the field of medicine you would have provided it rather than engage in ad hominem attacks.
What knowledge has Darwinism contributed to microbiology, molecular biology, and the treatment of infectious diseases?
James Bond replied:
Idiot. Take a college biology course, then we'll talk.
Nice dodge. If you really had any evidence that Darwinism has contributed anything to advance the field of medicine you would have provided it rather than engage in ad hominem attacks.
Quote from Teleologist:
Nice dodge. If you really had any evidence that Darwinism has contributed anything to advance the field of medicine you would have provided it rather than engage in ad hominem attacks.
If an idiot shouts 2+2=6 on the street, what do you think the proper response to him should be? Prove to him that 2+2=4?
BTW, I've started another thread on evolution. If you want to see evidence of evolution go read that thread.
quote from teleologist
The first cells were designed. I have empirical data which supports this assertion
quote from the rest of us
Wow, really? That would change things in this thread. Can you provide a link to the research or summarize it?
..........now, the last thing we would expect from this religious mystic would be to accuse someone else of trying to dodge anything, considering this incredibly dishonest combination of assertion/denial.quote from teleologist
Why should I?
However, this is not the world of the expected... this is the world of the believers, where anything goes, where appeal to authority equals fact, where believers are allowed to claim that they have scientific proof of ID/Creation and then out of the other side of their mouth claim that the scientific method is based on falsehoods.
Can you believe that he actually accuses someone else of 'dodging the question'??quote from teleologist
Nice dodge. If you really had any evidence that Darwinism has contributed anything to advance the field of medicine you would have provided it rather than engage in ad hominem attacks.
The answer - yes, it's all too believable.
TraderNik wrote:
More lies. I said that one could build a circumstantial case based on subtle clues that the first cells were products of bioengineering. But you ID critics want "overwhelming evidence" and that translates to "show us the designer designing." If you are ever willing to settle for something less than that let me know..........now, the last thing we would expect from this religious mystic would be to accuse someone else of trying to dodge anything, considering this incredibly dishonest combination of assertion/denial.
When we asked for such data that you claimed to support a design inference (while not ruling out a non-design inference, as you claimed), you dodged every time.Quote from Teleologist:
Data can be interpreted from either a teleological or non-teleological perspective. That I can interprete certain data as supporting a design inference doesn't stop you from interpreting the same data from a non-teleological perspective. The only thing that would back you into a corner would be some kind of extraordinary evidence that couldn't possibly be interpreted from a non-teleological perspective. And what would that be other than seeing the designer designing?
Compare your two posts and you know who's lying.Quote from Teleologist:
More lies. I said that one could build a circumstantial case based on subtle clues that the first cells were products of bioengineering. But you ID critics want "overwhelming evidence" and that translates to "show us the designer designing." If you are ever willing to settle for something less than that let me know.
Well, well... it seems that Telologist has deleted his post, jb! Hmmm... I wonder why that is. Possibly because he knows that his outrageous lies will be easily refuted.Quote from james_bond_3rd:
Compare your two posts and you know who's lying.
and then, when challenged...Quote Zeleologist:
My inference that the first cells were designed is based on EMPIRICAL DATA
:eek: Amazing!! These people seem unaware that all posts are archived and can be found by searching!!Quote from Zeleologist:
I never said that I had empirical data to support the inference that the first cells were designed.
Empirical data... subtle clues... but hey, who's counting?Quote from Zeleologist:
I said that one could build a circumstantial case based on subtle clues that the first cells were products of bioengineering.
Thread Closed.
TraderNik,
What post did I delete? And show where I said this:
"I never said that I had empirical data to support the inference that the first cells were designed".
What post did I delete? And show where I said this:
"I never said that I had empirical data to support the inference that the first cells were designed".