Intelligent design or evolution

Tele, all you do is play word games - your entire argument is sophistry.

Ethmer, demonstrate objectively and in forensically valid, academically sound manner that religious faith be differentiable from superstion.

Any proponent of the creationist/ID-iot proposition -
demonstrate objectively and in forensically valid, academically sound manner that creationism/ID-iocy be supported by any evidence whatsoever.

0 Replies

Quote:

How am I playing word games? I just asked you who isn't a creationist by your definition? Come on, let's cut to the chase here.

Yes, teleologist, I concur with Eorl you are playing word games. But thats cool.
A person who doesnt think creationism is correct is not a creationist. I would have thought that was obvious, and I would not have though that it is a point to be argued.

Quote:

I'm aware that many creationists are ID supporters but that doesn't make ID the same as creationism.

My understanding is that religous persons fought for creationism to be taught in US schools. Their fight was lost. They then (are now?) fought for ID to be taugh in schools.
ID seems to be creationism (creation by god) made broader (creation by an intelligent being - ie. a god). It is also non-disprovable, just like the religons themselves. Something being non-disprovable however is not a good reason to believe it.

ID is not a valid science, it could be called a pseudoscience - like scientology. Both of which are nonsense mumbo and neither should be taught to impressionable young people. We want tommorows generation to be intelligent.
Religon is used when we dont know things - science is used when we do.

0 Replies

lol, I like the phrase "ID-iocy"

0 Replies

RaceDriver205 wrote:

Religon is used when we dont know things - science is used when we do.

Science can indeed be used "when we don't know things".

0 Replies

What the...? Why is it that the Creationists and ID-ists always insist on making posts like this? Numerous posts, at that. There's about five active ones so far... All of which demonstrates that ID is not a valid scientific alternative to Evolution and is nothing more than an attempt to pick a fight.

0 Replies

Come on guys, if you are going to claim that ID is creationism then the least you can do is define creationism or spell out who isn't a creationist. If we don't define our terms we are bound to misunderstand one another.

0 Replies

OK Tel, see if your mind can grasp this in the realm of our discussion.
ID=Creationism=A "supreme Being" created the heavens and the earth and everything contained there in. By their definitions he/she/it knew exactly what they were doing.

Evolution= things evolved from tthe smallest of matter to form complex life forms and these forms evolved based off their individual environments.

ID does not equal ecolution

0 Replies

ralpheb says:

Quote:

ID=Creationism=A "supreme Being" created the heavens and the earth and everything contained there in. By their definitions he/she/it knew exactly what they were doing.

Okay, so you define creationism as the belief that a supreme being created the heavens and the earth and everything contained there in. Fine. Only one problem. That isn't ID.

William Dembski says:

Quote:

First off, intelligent design is not a form of anti-evolutionism. Intelligent design does not claim that living things came together suddenly in their present form through the efforts of a supernatural creator. Intelligent design is not and never will be a doctrine of creation. (No Free Lunch, pg. 314)

0 Replies

Tele wrote:

Come on guys, if you are going to claim that ID is creationism then the least you can do is define creationism or spell out who isn't a creationist. If we don't define our terms we are bound to misunderstand one another.

C'mon, now Tele - creationism may be defined as a belief that creation occurred, bringinging about our current sphere of reference.

[/b]Creation entails a creator, a causal entity or condition of being.
[/b]That said purported creator would effect creation entails that creation be consequent to an expression of will on the part of that purported creator.
[/b]That there be either will or expression thereof entails sentience, intelligence.
[/b]Inherrent to that purported creator's expression of will is that the purported creator design - intend, structure, effect - the process of creation.
[/b]Inherrent to design is that there be a designer capable of intending, structuring, and effecting said design, thereby creating that which was designed, hence, the designer perforce would be the creator of that which had been designed, hence the designer would be the creator

See: Circular Logic

0 Replies

I giggle at the part where Tele claims Man is a designer and aliens are too!

0 Replies

I don't see it like that timber.

Words,discussion,debate,fights,wars etc are products of human beings.There is nothing outside of human beings which is discussable because there is no agency to discuss it.

That is obvious I think even you will agree.

So the human condition is what it is all posited on.

The human condition comes in one lump and,if history and sociology be the guide it looks like there is a human psychic need to have a supernatural reference outside of itself without which civilisation itself may not have happened.

But I suppose that's incomprehensible as well but there it is.

0 Replies

It is incomprehensible why anyone who is putatively well-educated would believe that civilization would not exist without organized religion.

0 Replies

timberlandko says:

Quote:

Inherrent to design is that there be a designer capable of intending, structuring, and effecting said design, thereby creating that which was designed.

Sure, and since that's inherent in the term "intelligent design" why not let the term "intelligent design" define itself? You ID critics are confusing the issue by calling ID creationism. It is a tenet of creationism that the designer of life on earth is supernatural. ID doesn't claim the designer is supernatural. And there are other tenets of creationism that ID doesn't hold to. Who exactly do you think is confused by the term "intelligent design" and will better understand it by being told it's creationism? Atheists certainly don't need this "clarification". So who are these non-atheists you are attempting to enlighten with your ID is creationism mantra?

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

What the...? Why is it that the Creationists and ID-ists always insist on making posts like this? Numerous posts, at that. There's about five active ones so far... All of which demonstrates that ID is not a valid scientific alternative to Evolution and is nothing more than an attempt to pick a fight.

There are some Creationists / Intelligent Designers that not only clone themselves to make it look like there is more, but start multiple threads to give the impression of a real controversy.

Tempest in a Teapot

0 Replies

Setanta wrote-

Quote:

It is incomprehensible why anyone who is putatively well-educated would believe that civilization would not exist without organized religion.

Suggest an alternative scenario then starting from the early matriarchies.

0 Replies

Chum-

Don't kid yourself that it isn't a real controversy.

And "some" is a very weak word choice.Some people eat razor blades.

0 Replies

Quote:

There are some Creationists / Intelligent Designers that not only clone themselves to make it look like there is more, but start multiple threads to give the impression of a real controversy.

Well, this thread isn't one of them is it?

0 Replies

From a thread started by Teleologist who has so far dodged the below questions as he knows it would expose Creationism / Intelligent Design for the scam that it is!

Chumly wrote:

Hi yah Teleologist, I'm waiting.........are you afraid?
Teleologist wrote:
Been there, done that.
That's great, I am sure Micah Sparacio and Mike Gene will be talking to the aliens any day now, and all the ID'ers will start worshiping UFO's!
Teleologist wrote:
This thread is about ID not being creationism. It is not a thread devoted to proving ID is science.
Giggle! If you claim it's "not a thread devoted to proving ID is science" then you cannot claim in this same thread "ID is limited by the scientific method". You are the one who moved off topic. I am simply challenging your assertion "ID is limited by the scientific method". And you still can't reply.
Teleologist wrote:
Man is already a designer.
This is great, show me your proof that man is the "intelligent designer" and if as you claim "Man is already a designer" why do ID'ers lend credenceneed to aliens?
Teleologist wrote:
You evidently find a contradiction here that I fail to see.
I'll say it again, it's truly not hard: if it is beyond the scope of ID to determine the nature of a designer from billions of years ago then how can you say "ID does not posit a supernatural creator?
Teleologist wrote:
Would you agree that studying the supernatural is beyond the scope of science?
No at all, the scientific method has been applied to the claims of the supernatural very successfully.
Teleologist wrote:
Would it then make no sense to you if someone claimed that science does not posit a supernatural creator?
Would what make no sense to me?
Teleologist wrote:
I'm considering starting a new thread on ID and science.
Then why don't you? You have said you were going to a number of times already, and such a thread was even started in your honor, but hey start one right now, go for it!
Teleologist wrote:
In the meantime you might want to consider this: Can you give me one good reason why a teleological approach can't run an investigation based on observations, logic, and testing? I can show you that it can.
Go ahead, show me the teleological approach can run an investigation based on observations, logic, and testing, I'm waiting.........

Chumly wrote:

Hi Teleo,

Nope you have not answered my questions! You only answered that you claim Micah Sparacio and Mike Gene believe Aliens are Intelligent Designers, which is awfully weak as you will see.

Everything else you continually and duplicitly dodge.

On the topic of Micah Sparacio and Mike Gene, given that you have claimed "ID is limited by the scientific method" where is Micah Sparacio's and Mike Gene's scientific method to show that Aliens are Intelligent Designers?

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Chum-

Don't kid yourself that it isn't a real controversy.

And "some" is a very weak word choice.Some people eat razor blades.

It is a controversy in the same sense that:

Alien abductions are a controversy
Astral projection is a controversy
Astrology is a controversy
Flying carpets are a controversy
Flying pigs are a controversy
Ghosts are a controversy
Levitation is a controversy
Santa Claus is a controversy
Talking horses are a controversy
The Tooth Fairy is a controversy
Witches are a controversy
Wizards are a controversy
Zombies are a controversy

0 Replies

Now that is real sohpistry.Excellent Chum.

Ask the Dover taxpayers.

0 Replies

Intelligent design or evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know