Quote from dr feelgood:
what is thing that builds our dreams yet slips away... from us..
There's no chance for us
It's all decided for us
This world has only one sweet moment
set aside for us
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
Stu wrote:
You are the deceiver and liar here. You claim Dembski and Behe incorporate theology in their hypotheses and when challenged to back your claim up with an example you run for the hills. Truly pathetic.
When push comes to shove, you adopt the same stance most creationists do . Just deny, deceive or lie your way through any of the stuff shown to you which you don't like the implications of.
You are the deceiver and liar here. You claim Dembski and Behe incorporate theology in their hypotheses and when challenged to back your claim up with an example you run for the hills. Truly pathetic.
That doesn't work. Calling me a liar because you choose to deny deceive and lie just doesn't wash.Quote from Teleologist:
You are the deceiver and liar here. You claim Dembski and Behe incorporate theology in their hypotheses and when challenged to back your claim up with an example you run for the hills. Truly pathetic.
It has been shown in these pages where and how Dembski and Behe incorporate theology in what you call their "hypotheses".. It's on record.
Pretend -deny - lie you were not shown and do not know , fine. Argue Behe & Demski do not incorporate theology, are not associated with the Discovery Institute and its core principles - fine. What's next.... the Pope does not incorporate catholicism in his religious surmisals and is not associated with the Vatican ?..
By all means stay in denial. Convince yourself lies and distortion will further the ID/creationist agenda. It's ok by me. Simply makes the whole sorry setup look even more duplicitous than it already is.
.
Stu:
>It has been shown in these pages where and how
>Dembski and Behe incorporate theology in what you
>call their "hypotheses".. It's on record.
Stu, you know where I stand on all this crap so this is an honest question ... I may be blind, but I've looked through this thread in an attempt to find an example of your point above and frankly I have been unable to locate one.
Please, if you would, could you point me in the right direction?
Thanks
JB
>It has been shown in these pages where and how
>Dembski and Behe incorporate theology in what you
>call their "hypotheses".. It's on record.
Stu, you know where I stand on all this crap so this is an honest question ... I may be blind, but I've looked through this thread in an attempt to find an example of your point above and frankly I have been unable to locate one.
Please, if you would, could you point me in the right direction?
Thanks
JB
No I shouldnât think you are being blind JB, it is par for the course that ID'ers like Tele, in the role of an apologist for Behe and Dembski, will adopt their declared tactics .. That is to say, choose to be unclear, use distractions, diversions misrepresentations, controversy , deceit, slight of hand, denial or plain lie, as they find nothing else (like science, fact, reality or truth) will support their beliefs
Letâs be clear. Neither Behe or Dembski have a hypothesis to which Teleologist refers, infers, or wishes they had,. They do not hold any scientific hypothesis.
IDâists say hypothesis , when actually the âhypotheses" put forward by them, are no better than those which could be made for Unicorns, or Odin ...
Cold Fusion is more of a scientific hypotheses,⦠and it isnât one!
That sort of tactic, where misrepresentation is used to create controversy or confusion, is the keystone of IDâs whole approach . Teleologist would pretend Dembski / Beheâs âhypothesesâ are scientific hypotheses, which are not about an Intelligent Designer Creator., and do not include theology. The approach is to masquerade âhypothesesâ as scientific, although they are patently no such thing.
You see, in doing that , Behe / Dembski and their worshppers like Teleologist, from then on so to persist, decide to deny and ignore the simple fact that those "hypothesis" cannot get past the bullshit filter, when actually looked at in any scientific terms.
As hard as Behe & Dembski have tried, no scientific basis or consensus for any part of their "hypothesis" has ever stood ground in science - in any way whatsoever.. therefore deceit and denial has been selected as part of their overall strategy.
Keep that in mind , whilst considering Behe and Dembski are senior fellows of the Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture. Now letâs consider more "hypothesis" they came up with. Ones on which are the foundation which all their other "hypotheses" rest upon. Ones which I ( and others) have already pointed out
"â¦.reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions" and to "affirm the reality of God."
â⦠the Center explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature.
âTo replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.â
Those are the same value of âhypothesesâ as any other they have tried to profess are scientific. Their âhypothesisâ are merely messages expressing opinions based on incomplete information.
Would you agree JB, their âhypothesesâ have nothing to do with theology.?? Or would you argue those are not âhypothesesâ as Teleologist might do?
At best Teleologist is relying on a disingenuous argument that allows for Behe / Demski to make some ID âhypothesesâ without containing the word God or Creator, in order to state - â their hypothesis donât contain theologyâ.
That, to put it politely, is being in selective denial of the actuality..
Like saying the Pope is not catholic when discussing which frock he should wear.
I suggest you enquire of Tele why he did not directly address these âhypothesesâ or these or these , (down the page)which he is in denial of, and in doing so, turns his argument into a deceit and lie.
His answer?â¦letâs speculate⦠He is being deceitful, therefore he will say I am the one being deceitful .
That JB, would be another ID type âhypothesisâ , pretty much on the same level as all the rest.
Quote from Teleologist:
Intelligent design has nothing to do with religion.
Show me where either Dembski or Behe incorporate theology into their hypotheses.
Letâs be clear. Neither Behe or Dembski have a hypothesis to which Teleologist refers, infers, or wishes they had,. They do not hold any scientific hypothesis.
IDâists say hypothesis , when actually the âhypotheses" put forward by them, are no better than those which could be made for Unicorns, or Odin ...
Cold Fusion is more of a scientific hypotheses,⦠and it isnât one!
That sort of tactic, where misrepresentation is used to create controversy or confusion, is the keystone of IDâs whole approach . Teleologist would pretend Dembski / Beheâs âhypothesesâ are scientific hypotheses, which are not about an Intelligent Designer Creator., and do not include theology. The approach is to masquerade âhypothesesâ as scientific, although they are patently no such thing.
You see, in doing that , Behe / Dembski and their worshppers like Teleologist, from then on so to persist, decide to deny and ignore the simple fact that those "hypothesis" cannot get past the bullshit filter, when actually looked at in any scientific terms.
As hard as Behe & Dembski have tried, no scientific basis or consensus for any part of their "hypothesis" has ever stood ground in science - in any way whatsoever.. therefore deceit and denial has been selected as part of their overall strategy.
Keep that in mind , whilst considering Behe and Dembski are senior fellows of the Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture. Now letâs consider more "hypothesis" they came up with. Ones on which are the foundation which all their other "hypotheses" rest upon. Ones which I ( and others) have already pointed out
"â¦.reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions" and to "affirm the reality of God."
â⦠the Center explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature.
âTo replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.â
Those are the same value of âhypothesesâ as any other they have tried to profess are scientific. Their âhypothesisâ are merely messages expressing opinions based on incomplete information.
Would you agree JB, their âhypothesesâ have nothing to do with theology.?? Or would you argue those are not âhypothesesâ as Teleologist might do?
At best Teleologist is relying on a disingenuous argument that allows for Behe / Demski to make some ID âhypothesesâ without containing the word God or Creator, in order to state - â their hypothesis donât contain theologyâ.
That, to put it politely, is being in selective denial of the actuality..
Like saying the Pope is not catholic when discussing which frock he should wear.
Quote from Teleologist:
Cite one example where it has been shown that Dembski and Behe incorporate theology into their hypotheses.
I suggest you enquire of Tele why he did not directly address these âhypothesesâ or these or these , (down the page)which he is in denial of, and in doing so, turns his argument into a deceit and lie.
His answer?â¦letâs speculate⦠He is being deceitful, therefore he will say I am the one being deceitful .
That JB, would be another ID type âhypothesisâ , pretty much on the same level as all the rest.
Quote from stu:
....ugh, terrible, even by your standards.
"physics tells us, time as we know it, began after the big bang."
Physics tells no such thing. Why don't you try to educate yourself a little in what physics does say before making such pathetic remarks about what "physics tells us".
Time AT the singularity, not AFTER it. Time couldn't have started AFTER the big bang. There would be no time for the big bang to begin.
It's a bit fukin obvious really.
"someone or thing who or which created the universe is by definition before time."
You mean by the fantasy definition you signed up to.
At Time - not before time. There can be no - before "time as we know it"
"When you are outside of time there may be know before."
While you're at it, it really is way past time for you to get better educated in basic English. How many times have you made that error now ? As many times as you used the word site instead of cite yet? Must be.
"Consequently there is no reason the designer would need a designer."
Consequently there is no reason for a designer.
STU I have explained this to you before and you clearly have no idea what the top mind in physics say regarding this subject.
Try reading physics before you spew your crap at me.
Nothing here from stu but a long winded exposition of what is essentially a poison the well fallacy.
That seems to be all that he is capable of fabricating these days...
That seems to be all that he is capable of fabricating these days...
Quote from stu:
No I shouldnât think you are being blind JB, it is par for the course that ID'ers like Tele, in the role of an apologist for Behe and Dembski, will adopt their declared tactics .. That is to say, choose to be unclear, use distractions, diversions misrepresentations, controversy , deceit, slight of hand, denial or plain lie, as they find nothing else (like science, fact, reality or truth) will support their beliefs
Letâs be clear. Neither Behe or Dembski have a hypothesis to which Teleologist refers, infers, or wishes they had,. They do not hold any scientific hypothesis.
IDâists say hypothesis , when actually the âhypotheses" put forward by them, are no better than those which could be made for Unicorns, or Odin ...
Cold Fusion is more of a scientific hypotheses,⦠and it isnât one!
That sort of tactic, where misrepresentation is used to create controversy or confusion, is the keystone of IDâs whole approach . Teleologist would pretend Dembski / Beheâs âhypothesesâ are scientific hypotheses, which are not about an Intelligent Designer Creator., and do not include theology. The approach is to masquerade âhypothesesâ as scientific, although they are patently no such thing.
You see, in doing that , Behe / Dembski and their worshppers like Teleologist, from then on so to persist, decide to deny and ignore the simple fact that those "hypothesis" cannot get past the bullshit filter, when actually looked at in any scientific terms.
As hard as Behe & Dembski have tried, no scientific basis or consensus for any part of their "hypothesis" has ever stood ground in science - in any way whatsoever.. therefore deceit and denial has been selected as part of their overall strategy.
Keep that in mind , whilst considering Behe and Dembski are senior fellows of the Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture. Now letâs consider more "hypothesis" they came up with. Ones on which are the foundation which all their other "hypotheses" rest upon. Ones which I ( and others) have already pointed out
"â¦.reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions" and to "affirm the reality of God."
â⦠the Center explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature.
âTo replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.â
Those are the same value of âhypothesesâ as any other they have tried to profess are scientific. Their âhypothesisâ are merely messages expressing opinions based on incomplete information.
Would you agree JB, their âhypothesesâ have nothing to do with theology.?? Or would you argue those are not âhypothesesâ as Teleologist might do?
At best Teleologist is relying on a disingenuous argument that allows for Behe / Demski to make some ID âhypothesesâ without containing the word God or Creator, in order to state - â their hypothesis donât contain theologyâ.
That, to put it politely, is being in selective denial of the actuality..
Like saying the Pope is not catholic when discussing which frock he should wear.
I suggest you enquire of Tele why he did not directly address these âhypothesesâ or these or these , (down the page)which he is in denial of, and in doing so, turns his argument into a deceit and lie.
His answer?â¦letâs speculate⦠He is being deceitful, therefore he will say I am the one being deceitful .
That JB, would be another ID type âhypothesisâ , pretty much on the same level as all the rest.