Intelligent Design is not creationism

Quote from traderNik:

Lol...jem, you took the bait hook line and sinker :)

It was obviously a joke, you numbskull. The post I was allegedly quoting was directly above the post I made. You're too full of your own self-importance to understand when a joke is being made at your expense.

With regard to recognizing science - we have shown in this thread that the faithful claim that the statement 'The Earth appears designed to me' is science. We have pointed out that this is the equivalent of saying 'Genesis appears to be a true account of the Creation of Life on Earth to me, so I am going forward on the assumption that it is true'.

The ID/Creationsist here have never been able to provide one shred of empirical evidence for ID/Creation. I defy you now, here to provide a link to anything which even remotely resembles proof of ID. I do not mean some Christian scientist saying 'The Earth appears to be designed to me'.

Until you can do this, you are just another myopic believer who is now resorting to ad hominem because he can't win a debating point. I have admitted that I was wrong in these threads in the past and I am man enough to do it again if shown to be wrong. You, on the other hand, are a wannabe who finds it necessary to subtly include clues that you are an attorney in your posts. Why is that, jem? Don't you realize that it makes you look like a fool? If you were able to step back and look at your own behaviour, you would see that it is only the losers on here who trumpet what they do, or their accomplishments. Most of us remain silent about our personal lives. You feel a need to embellish - and that says it all.

And by the way... use the spell checker next time, okay? Your inability to construct a complete sentence undermines the credibility you are so desperately trying to achieve here.

And regarding your insult to kjkent... anyone who reads your posts and compares them to kj's will know get a lesson in the difference between quality and rubbish.

Have a better day than the one your having.


I have time to construct a sentence as I am flat now.

You are a troll and a fake.

I gave you quotes of real scientists who are not religious. Your refuse to acknowledge anything that does not fit your tiny brain's world view. Why have you not refuted the work of those scientists?

You are not interested in the truth or learning.

You are a fabricating troll.

Acknowledge and refute the science if you have a shred of self worth.
 
TraderNik:
I pointed out that Teleologist had claimed to have empirical evidence of design and then when pressed for it, folded like a cheap suit and mumbled something about 'you guys wouldn't believe me anyway' and skulked off.

More lies. Let me set the record straight. Origin of life researchers don't have a theory yet. They are building an intuitive, cumulative, circumstantial case that's sensitive to subtle clues. ID doesn't have a theory yet. It's researchers are likewise building an intuitive, cumulative, circumstantial case that's sensitive to subtle clues. But that's not good enough for the ID critics. The “evidence” they need for ID must be shocking, undeniable, and revolutionary.

I’m not interested in providing some type of shock for the ID critics. I’m interested in whether an explicit teleological approach can carry out a progressive investigation that serves to weaken or strengthen ID suspicions and whether it can help expand our understanding of biotic reality.
 
Quote from traderNik:

Sorry 2c, stu, et al. You guys are on your own with these people.
cheers mate... i only come here when i need to listen to some random anti-darwin rants and squeals and talk about appearances and subtle clues and out of context quotes etc... that's all there is in this thread from the ID/Creationist camp, and no reason that should change...
 
no reason to respond to the quotes of hoyle, greenstreet and davies if they conflict with your belief system.


Astronomer Paul Davies has said that the evidence for design is overwhelming.

Astronomer George Greenstein says: AS we survey the evidence, the througt insistently arises that some supernatural ageny or rather Agency, must be involved. Is it possible that sudenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon proof of the existence of a Supreme Being. Was it God who stepped in and so providently create the cosmos for our benefit.

Professor Sir Fred Hoyle says that it looks s if a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics as well as with chemistry and biology.

And after reviewing these quotes in his book Susskind says "Davies and Greenstein are serious scholars, and Hoyle was one fo the grete scientists of the twentieth century. As they point out, the appearance of intelligent desing is undeniable.
 
Quote from jem:

no reason to respond to the quotes of hoyle, greenstreet and davies if they conflict with your belief system.


Astronomer Paul Davies has said that the evidence for design is overwhelming.

Astronomer George Greenstein says: AS we survey the evidence, the througt insistently arises that some supernatural ageny or rather Agency, must be involved. Is it possible that sudenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon proof of the existence of a Supreme Being. Was it God who stepped in and so providently create the cosmos for our benefit.

Professor Sir Fred Hoyle says that it looks s if a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics as well as with chemistry and biology.

And after reviewing these quotes in his book Susskind says "Davies and Greenstein are serious scholars, and Hoyle was one fo the grete scientists of the twentieth century. As they point out, the appearance of intelligent desing is undeniable.

BULLSHIT
 
Bullshit ? well at least that is a response.

Lightyears ahead of trollnik who has chosen to ignore their existence because they compete with his worldview.
 
Quote from jem:

no reason to respond to the quotes of hoyle, greenstreet and davies if they conflict with your belief system.
no reason to respond to the quotes of hoyle, greenstreet and davies where they conflict with the scientific method.
 
Quote from stu:

no reason to respond to the quotes of hoyle, greenstreet and davies where they conflict with the scientific method.


when you can show their conclusions are not based on good science or the scientific method you will let us know.

Because the founder of string theory Dr. Susskind said these men know good science. I gave you quotes in this thread on that point.
 
Quote from jem:

Bullshit ? well at least that is a response.

Lightyears ahead of trollnik who has chosen to ignore their existence because they compete with his worldview.

maybe not a good response but the only one I had at the time :cool:
 
Quote from jem:

when you can show their conclusions are not based on good science or the scientific method you will let us know.
Here then , let me show....

















see that?
No science / no scientific method
Quote from jem:

Because the founder of string theory Dr. Susskind said these men know good science. I gave you quotes in this thread on that point.
Susskind is not the founder of string theory. That's like saying Einstein is the founder of science
Good scientists don't conclude on speculation.
That you "gave quotes" is in itself meaningless.
 
Back
Top