timber wrote-
Quote:It would seem we are done here.
The scientific evidence is piling up that that was a short squitter.It was too concise to qualify for even small bullshit.
Teleologist wrote:Quote: You are the one who claimed you had empirical evidence for your thesis.
And you are the one that claims there is no evidence for intelligent design in the natural world. But how could you know this without having some idea of what counts as evidence for ID? Without some criteria to go by you could look right at evidence for ID and not recognize it. So unless you are being disengenuous you have looked for evidence of ID and not found it. So what were you looking for? If you haven't even looked for it I will assume your "no evidence" claim is just an argument from ignorance.
Were there any evidence supportive of ID-iocy, if the proposition were not construct born of ignorance and superstition, a discussion the nature of which we presently are engaged would be at best improbable. Nothing offered by any participant in this and similar discussions amounts to evidence for Id-iocy or its bedfellows, while all actual evidence offered demonstrates the "argument from ignorance" charge only may be levelled against the proposition you forward and vainly attempt to defend. That no evidence for that propostion has been presented is a matter of no wonder; none exists.
Quote:Oh and Teleologist, you yourself are being disingenious. Where is your proof? You keep saying there's proof, but you haven't provided any.
I don't keep saying there is proof. What I keep saying is that ID is not creationism in the sense that 99% of Americans understand the term. I also keep saying that ID isn't anti-evolution. ID critics are constantly misrepresenting ID as anti-evolution.
Teleologist wrote:My complaint is with ID critics that label ID as creationism in order to make it look like Biblical literalism and when their ploy is exposed try to justify their tactic by referring to a version of creationism that is so watered-down that it includes everyone but atheists.
There is no need to dismiss ID as biblical literalism. It can be dismissed as pseudo-science.
Teleologist wrote:
I don't keep saying there is proof. What I keep saying is that ID is not creationism in the sense that 99% of Americans understand the term. I also keep saying that ID isn't anti-evolution. ID critics are constantly misrepresenting ID as anti-evolution.
99%???? Where do you get that? Americans and Europeans both have associated ID with creationism.
Tele wrote-
Quote:. ID critics are constantly misrepresenting ID as anti-evolution.
Can't you see that they have to. They can't discuss it properly because they know that their own lives and their most cherished emotions could not withstand the pure blast of untrammeled science.
spendius wrote:Can't you see that they have to. They can't discuss it properly because they know that their own lives and their most cherished emotions could not withstand the pure blast of untrammeled science.
Rubbish. ID isn't science. It has never been science and you agreed with me in the "Science and Mathematics" forum that it wasn't science, which makes this post either two-faced or hypocritical.
wandeljw wrote:Teleologist wrote:My complaint is with ID critics that label ID as creationism in order to make it look like Biblical literalism and when their ploy is exposed try to justify their tactic by referring to a version of creationism that is so watered-down that it includes everyone but atheists.
There is no need to dismiss ID as biblical literalism. It can be dismissed as pseudo-science.
That cracked me up . . . go one, Boss.
Wolf wrote-
Quote:Rubbish. ID isn't science. It has never been science and you agreed with me in the "Science and Mathematics" forum that it wasn't science, which makes this post either two-faced or hypocritical.
I didn't agree with you at all Wolf.I agreed with the obvious fact that ID isn't science. You make it sound like I made a concession to you personally.
I don't see what was two-faced or hypocritical about what I said.Your repitition of the obvious fact that ID isn't science is exactly what I was getting at.You want to stay down there with that as if it is an earthshaking piece of wisdom or something.You are using that tactic because you don't wish to discuss what this debate is really about.And you are not alone by any means.
Quote:There is no need to dismiss ID as biblical literalism. It can be dismissed as pseudo-science.
Sure, when one strategy fails try another one. The Biblical literalism ploy was used for about 20 pages and when that was soundly discredited some of the ID critics switched to the ID isn't science argument.
Teleologist wrote:Quote:There is no need to dismiss ID as biblical literalism. It can be dismissed as pseudo-science.
Sure, when one strategy fails try another one. The Biblical literalism ploy was used for about 20 pages and when that was soundly discredited some of the ID critics switched to the ID isn't science argument.
Not true. Posters on this thread have simultaneously criticized ID as creationism and pseudo-science. Your response, Teleologist, has been to water down ID to the point where it would be meaningless to study ID for any reason.
Quote:Wolf_ODonnell wrote:
I've noticed people tend to ignore me, regardless of what I say.
I don't ignore you Wolf but often your posts and those around it are simply impossible to address.But I read them all.It's mixed up confusion man, an' it's a killin' me.
During active discussions on this subject there's no chance of anything else.
wande wrote-
Quote:Not true. Posters on this thread have simultaneously criticized ID as creationism and pseudo-science. Your response, Teleologist, has been to water down ID to the point where it would be meaningless to study ID for any reason.
You still don't have an inkling wande what the purpose or hopefully the function of ID is.
You must laugh at witch doctors and shamans on the same surface level in order to have an opinion about it.
Quote:Posters on this thread have simultaneously criticized ID as creationism and pseudo-science.
Sure, they argued that ID was pseudo-science because it's creationism.
Teleologist wrote:Quote:Posters on this thread have simultaneously criticized ID as creationism and pseudo-science.
Sure, they argued that ID was pseudo-science because it's creationism.
Readers of this thread are seeing devolution in action.
Teleologist wrote:Quote:There is no need to dismiss ID as biblical literalism. It can be dismissed as pseudo-science.
Sure, when one strategy fails try another one. The Biblical literalism ploy was used for about 20 pages and when that was soundly discredited some of the ID critics switched to the ID isn't science argument.
And yet you have failed to answer who the designer is.
Rather you have argued that the designer is irrelevent and ID supports evolution. So in other words ID is the SAME as evolution. No valid designer, no reason to search for one and things evolve. That describes the science of evolution. Without a designer there is no ID. By arguing that the designer is irrelevent you have made ID nonexistent.
It only may be inferred that Teleologist's grasp of forensics is of no other magnitude than his apparent grasp of semantics, science, philosophy, and theology. Not only has Teleoligist neither refuted nor discreditted anything beyond his own absurdities, but every point he has made in defense of his proposition has been shredded.
Teleologist wrote:Sure, they argued that ID was pseudo-science because it's creationism.
I have not argued that. Here, in fact, is your post and my still unanswered challenge to you:
Teleologist wrote:Creationism posits a supernatural creator. ID doesn't.
Chumly wrote:If as you claim ID does not posit a supernatural creator, it must follow that ID gives credence to a natural creator, therefore show me where ID'ers give credence to the concept that advanced extraterrestrials are the intelligent designers.
paradose says:
Quote: Answer the question. Who is the designer and how does he design without creating anything? Until you can aswer that your arguments have no standing.
So if you're not an atheist you're a creationist?
