Intelligent Design is not creationism

[Teleologist]

Stu wrote:

Behe is a joke.He has no hypothesis. If he did, then so do I . A hypothesis - and more empirical evidence in just a few words for Fairy Design than Behe has managed in the whole of his nutty evangelical snake in a lab coat career.

No. You are a joke. You seriously think you can thwart the design inference by invoking infinite regress or by putting words like fairy in front of design. Truly pathetic.

 

[stu]

Quote from Teleologist:

No, it's your argument that is silly. If someone observes things in nature that they think warrants a design inference, but then wants to argue that the Designer is either "God, aliens, a powerful demigod" or "the tooth fairy" they can. But then they've moved beyond the scope of ID which merely infers design from empirical evidence and makes no claim as to the nature of the designer.

Now you're getting confused. This was to do with making a claim then you insisting everyone else determines what is evidence for your claim. It was only a couple posts back. Please try stay focused.

Here, this is how silly that argument you made is...

Quote from Telelologist :
edit.... ID to FD
" If you want to claim that evidence for FD doesn't exist then you need to have determined what counts as evidence for FD and after examining ALL the data from the natural world, failed to find it. You haven't done that. So, the best you can logically claim is that from the data you've examined, you have found nothing that YOU would count as evidence for FD."


No Tele, your argument is silly AND self-defeating.

 

[stu]

Quote from Teleologist:

It is my contention that Crick and Behe have something in common. I'm sure Behe would agree. That I'm not aware of Behe commenting directly on this particular matter doesn't make my contention contradictory.

Then read what you wrote....

Quote from Teleologist:
" I am not aware that Behe ever claimed to have anything in common with Francis Crick. That's is my contention because both of them claim that intelligence was behind the origin of life on earth."

Your contention is that Behe never claimed to have anything in common with Francis Crick..because you assert they had something in common.

Your contention is contradictory. But then again, slippy duplicitous talk is a design feature of ID.

Quote from Teleologist:

More nonsense. Unless you can show where Behe has invoked God in a scientific hypothesis, your claim that he has an agenda of bringing God into science is nothing but hot air

Behe has never made a scientific hypothesis for ID in his life,
The only ones he makes are those already made in science which he repeats. Then he mangles them to try to fit assertions of ID.
I said.... "He [Behe] has an unsupported claim called ID.. In affirmation of that claim, he signed up to a recorded mandated agenda invoking 'God into Science'.."
That is where Behe;s intentions to invoke God into Science were made perfectly clear. For some peculiar reason, apologists like you try to extricate him from that in order to hide God , which ID. does "infer".

 

[stu]

Quote from Teleologist:

Teleology didn't jump the gun or come to the wrong conclusion. In your scenario the detective's initial inference was wrong. But 99.9% of the time when a dead body is found with a knife stuck in the back the inference to murder would be correct. So it was perfectly logical for the detective to initially suspect a murder had occurred. And the way to overturn this suspicion is with evidence of an accident. What no one in their right mind would do is attempt to thwart an inference to murder by invoking infinite regress! That's the point that sailed right over your head.

Quote from Teleologist:

.." the person died because someone intented it. This is teleological causation."

" the detective's initial inference was wrong."

It was wrong to make the inference of murder . No one intended murder so it is not ”teleological causation." any longer

You said above murder was known to be intended and that was “teleological causation.”
The detective came to a wrong conclusion through the inference that was “teleological causation.” It was wrong. so you just throw the blame on the dick, nothing to do with the wrong inference through “teleological causation.”

Quote from Teleologist:

What no one in their right mind would do is attempt to thwart an inference to murder by invoking infinite regress!

But you thwart inference of natural design by invoking the infinite regress in ID, all the time.!! Are you in your right mind?

Infinite regress was not a matter raised by the death. It is nevertheless always a part of teleology. Teleology is a philosophy to do with ends or purposes, so it can ultimately always lead to infinite regress.

ID invents an inference which no evidence supports, ignores the inference which evidence overwhelmingly supports, then begs a question of infinite regress.

Just how bad do you want your argument to be?

 

[stu]

Quote from Teleologist:

No. You are a joke. You seriously think you can thwart the design inference by invoking infinite regress or by putting words like fairy in front of design. Truly pathetic.

That you seriously think putting Intelligent in front of design works any better, is what's truly pathetic.

 

[I am...]

Quote from stu:

That you seriously think putting Intelligent in front of design works any better, is what's truly pathetic.

Intoxicated Design works for me.

There's evidence of DWI everywhere.



Jesus

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

"You are pathetic."

"No, you are pathetic."

"No, you are truly pathetic."

"You are truly pathetic+1."

Very rational stu, very adult.

You are doing a bang up job of representing the ever rational, ever reasonable, and ever scientific objective unemotional atheist point of view...sure you are.

What a joke, and the joke is on you.

Quote from stu:

That you seriously think putting Intelligent in front of design works any better, is what's truly pathetic.

 

[I am...]

Quote from stu:

That you seriously think putting Intelligent in front of design works any better, is what's truly pathetic.

Pathetic Design also works.


Jesus

 

[stu]

Quote from Teleologist:

Truly pathetic.

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

"You are pathetic."

"No, you are pathetic."

"No, you are truly pathetic."

"You are truly pathetic+1."

Quote from I am...:

Pathetic Design also works

Sure seems to work dude.
TrollZzz does embody the manifestation of Pathetic Design,. Still, it's evidence I suppose, which is something more than ID has ever managed.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

stu are who stu quotes.

What a geek you is...

Quote from stu:

I am a geek, I am a geek, I am a geek, I am a geek...ad infinitum...plus one, of course.