Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Thank you sir.

On this we are in full agreement.

It only shows that no reasoning was applied to this crappy assertion.

Coming from an aborted religious, I call it crass or supine ignorance..

I could read that in so many ways...

And I would call it absolute truth.

The atheistic arguments in this thread are an abomination to reason, logic, and science.

Did you really say 'absolute truth' there ? Guess who is actually 'over the edge' !

One more time, you don't know what atheists are, let alone mind reading them.

What passes for an absolute truth to you, not even taking it to a philosophical level, is just some layman notion, with no foundation.

Your comprehension of people is simply nonexistent.

The atheistic arguments in this thread are an abomination to reason, logic and science.

That is the truth. And it is the absolute truth.

Gonna go into another of your silly word salad posts to refute it?

Yeah, I do know what atheists are.

And no mind reading is necessary to say what I said about their posts in this thread...just "reading."



Stop trying to sound like Fresco. You cannot pull it off..and you are making me laugh when I am trying to stay serious.



I've got you pegged for a glass-jawed, tomato can in debate, Timur. My comprehension of people is just fine.

No sound argument in your replies.

Just some crap as usual.

There's nothing fine with your low level comprehension of words.

As sound as sound can be, Timur. You just need help understanding them.



Nah. You want to consider my comments to be crap, because you have trouble refuting what I say.



I have excellent comprehension skills...and I am able to handle words skillfully also.

You are grasping at straws...and doing a laughable job of it.

I should be kind and thank you for providing laughs.

Thanks, Timur. I love ya.

What passes for an argument to you is only a series of ipse dixit assertions.

You certainly already know that your love is not reciprocated.

That is sort of an ipse dixit assertion on your part, Timur.

Not thinking today???

Well...why should this day be different from any other day?



Okay...but my love is not contingent upon reciprocation.

I love ya no matter what!

Well, again, your understanding of the simplest things is amazingly poor.

But your persistence in the dumbness of your assertions is confounding..

The one fact we know about Frank is that he is persistent.

Nah...yer just sayin' that to make me laugh at you.



You "confound" easily.

But we already knew that.

Come back for more, now...ya heah!

See?

All hat, not cattle..

The way he uses it, it's not one of his qualities (if any)..

Let's play Devil's advocate, because I like to be annoying, not to anyone in specific, but to common sense and consensus, and I myself am a big supporter of Darwinism.
Now...from there how should one defend Intelligent Design properly and in a different distinct way without recurring to an agent animism and creatures of any sort ? How should we turn the illogical in logical, and move the argument around. Moreover the very idea of purpose which has been ditch by the majority of contemporary thinkers how could it be retrieved along with this ?
One wonders and one thinks and revolves the concepts upside down n sideways n sometimes something just a tid bit interesting pops up...
You see Intelligence is not of agents, but of Nature...now what kind of Intelligence is such that it is not of agents but of systems and does not require the specificity of self awareness to be what it is, intelligent, that is...how could this be that it is not quite what we normally refer to as being intelligent and yet this is what Intelligence actually is...the order of things, and how they come to pass, the process by which they unfold, the "regula" that bounds what otherwise seems unbounded unlimited and infinitely open to error...progress to nothingness...as if such thing was even conceivable...
Oh there is "intelligent design" al right but not of a god, nor big nor small, not of any consciousness, which itself to be, requires uneasiness, imperfection, lack of completeness...this design which is intelligent is different...this design has no designer nor time. It is the design of all designs which was not designed by anyone....it is the archetype made thing, things, made world, and eternal and lonely...intelligence blossoms from the coming to know that which already is. It couldn't be otherwise...one does not come to know that which is not...this intelligence is therefore cold and dead and silent. It has no words to speak of, just facts to show, just reality...
Darwinism on the other hand is more tangible, more palatable to our common sense impression of a moving unfolding free world...a world which evolves without apparent purpose heading to nowhere...its not that Darwinism it is wrong it most certainly it is not...but it is true that it is lacking and incomplete on accounting for the deepest questions of philosophy. Darwinism explains reality within time, cause and effect, ecosystems and natural selection...it does not explain the mathematical beauty, the pure equilibrium, of the all process. And yes those two are not mutually exclusive if not in the mundane clash of the waves on the top of a very deep ocean...people love conflicts and gang wars...they love throwing rocks at each other like one loves football...it is the nature of humans...
Anyway...ditto !

If we look at the estimated age of this planet and of mankind, it's obvious we are still in the process of evolution and scientific discovery.

Beyond our current 'scientific' knowledge about our planet and mankind, there's not much we can speculate about. *But science fiction is a good hint.

C'mon, Timur, smile.

You look like you've got a cattle prod stuck up yer butt.

"All hat, not cattle..."

What a card you are!