Generalization fallacies abound...
What a trip. You speak of IDers in absolute terms about what you see as absolutism...
How ironic...
Many IDers just think intelligent design is more probable than ignorant chance.
By the way, do you have some scientific fact as to why the universe exists, and when it came into being, or if it is eternal, and when it will end, if it will end?
Uhhh, didn't think so...
I have said it before, I will say it again, you are entitled to your belief systems just as much as the next guy...
What a trip. You speak of IDers in absolute terms about what you see as absolutism...
How ironic...
Many IDers just think intelligent design is more probable than ignorant chance.
By the way, do you have some scientific fact as to why the universe exists, and when it came into being, or if it is eternal, and when it will end, if it will end?
Uhhh, didn't think so...
I have said it before, I will say it again, you are entitled to your belief systems just as much as the next guy...
Quote from stu:
pattersb,
I was trying to put to you that which Ricter had pointed out - ID'ers won't listen or try to understand any "facts". Especially those "facts" which do not leave ID as the only possible reasonable explanation. That is what ID is about.
So your response was... " what do your 'facts' say about where life BEGINS "
You see? The "facts" mentioned were those to do with Gravity, nothing about "where life BEGINS" You had just fulfilled the very modus operandi of an ID'er. Talk about facts to do with Gravity and the response is, {paraphrasing).. ok smartass where are the "facts" which prove creation . And you have the temerity to post a link to the definition of non sequitur after committing such a classic one yourself.
You know as a "fact" where things began is unknowable. It is the same knowledge ancients had about things they knew to be unknowable. But it turned out to be things knowable. Because you or I cannot know where particles can materialize from, but "know" they must come from other particles or a previous cause, does not mean it is unknowable where particles do actually come from.
Then when particle pairs are found not to require cause, but occur spontaneously ,the circularity argument you refered to stops and it's time again for Ricter's point to ring home again.... ID'ers will never have any uncaused particle proven as "fact". But they will -of course- have an uncaused God !
To an ID'er, you are with us in God Creator, or against us in Random Chance. There are no other possibilities. No Natural causation. The spontaneous and Natural occurrence of particles out of nothing at all can never be natural to the ID'er. The purely Natural occurrence is after all, - other to God or Random.
On religious people being regularly mocked and ridiculed, I find that idea to be over defensive bordering on a persecution complex. Everyone, every group is regularly mocked and ridiculed in some way or other. Religious people are subjected to ridicule no more than others, nor entitled to any special treatment compared to any others.