Programming of Life - Intelligent Design

[Loudmouth]

Main reasons I have encountered:

1. Because they only accept explanations within the natural parameters.

So you are saying that intelligent design can't be natural? Are you saying that it has to be supernatural?

2. Because of a strong aversion to religion.

But you just said that ID is not religious.

 

[bhsmte]

Because that's what they usually do.

It wouldnt have anything to do with evidence and lack there of, would it? Or maybe that even the folks who tout ID, cant give a scientific definition of the same, or provide an objective falsifiable test for it and admit if ID is science, than astrology would also be science? I would imagine in your mind, it could never be for these reasons.

 

[bhsmte]

Under the ID argument and on this science forum, I am not making any specific claim at all,

BTW
You want to know what the possibilities might be under the ID scheme? Well, how about one of your hypothetical extra dimensional beings? Or a being from one of your hypothetical infinite number of multi-universes?

Sounds cool. According to you then, maybe not the god you believe in.

 

[bhsmte]

The more the merrier.

Why is that?

 

[Speedwell]

Main reasons I have encountered:

1. Because they only accept explanations within the natural parameters.
2. Because of a strong aversion to religion.

What about theists who reject ID?

 

[Loudmouth]

It seems that Radrook has taken up some very contradictory positions. We are told that ID is not religious at all, and then we are told that atheists refuse to accept ID because it is religious. We are told that if abiogenesis and evolution are true then that is still consistent with intelligent design. That same person who makes this claim has a link in their signature that says intelligent design would be falsified if life evolved. We are then told that ID does not state that the designer is a deity. This is completely contradicted a few moments later when we are told that atheists refuse to accept ID because it points to a creator God.

Anyone else noticing this?

 

[bhsmte]

It seems that Radrook has taken up some very contradictory positions. We are told that ID is not religious at all, and then we are told that atheists refuse to accept ID because it is religious. We are told that if abiogenesis and evolution are true then that is still consistent with intelligent design. That same person who makes this claim has a link in their signature that says intelligent design would be falsified if life evolved. We are then told that ID does not state that the designer is a deity. This is completely contradicted a few moments later when we are told that atheists refuse to accept ID because it points to a creator God.

Anyone else noticing this?

The contradictions start flowing, when one makes claims, refuses to support them, doesnt respond to questions and they really, really need to protect their personal belief. Scramble mode eventually ensues and they cant keep track of their own words.

 

[Radrook]

So you are saying that intelligent design can't be natural? Are you saying that it has to be supernatural?



But you just said that ID is not religious.

The: "I just can't understand you!" or the: "I just cain't see what you can possibly mean by that!" or comments involving straw man are not rebuttals.

 

[Radrook]

The contradictions start flowing, when one makes claims, refuses to support them, doesnt respond to questions and they really, really need to protect their personal belief. Scramble mode eventually ensues and they cant keep track of their own words.

False! I respond constantly and you folks claim incomprehension of simple English. After which you folks proceed to INVENT arguments and attribute them to me. If I respond to those responses the you simply do the same thing again ad infinitum. After which you then claim tongue in cheek that I refuse to answer and that am self-contradicting. Which is of course to any objective observer a humongous load of steaming horse manure.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

False! I respond constantly and you folks claim incomprehension of simple English. After which you folks proceed to INVENT arguments and attribute them to me. If I respond to those responses the you simply do the same thing again ad infinitum. After which you then claim tongue in cheek that I refuse to answer and that am self-contradicting. Which is of course to any objective observer a humongous load of steaming horse manure.

I'm been an objective observer of this thread for a few days now. Trust me, you are very much guilty as charged. What I've seen from you is:
1. Unsupported claims
2. Refusal to admit you made those claims
3. Backtracking to say you never made the claims in the first place
4. Refusal to accept you are wrong when the evidence of your own posts is played back to you
5. Outright refusal to engage honestly in debate
6. A single, repeated argument of "Anyone who disagrees with me is blind, stupid and dishonest. You're all atheists with a huge anti-Christian agenda"

Get over yourself.

 

[Radrook]

I'm been an objective observer of this thread for a few days now. Trust me, you are very much guilty as charged. What I've seen from you is:
1. Unsupported claims
2. Refusal to admit you made those claims
3. Backtracking to say you never made the claims in the first place
4. Refusal to accept you are wrong when the evidence of your own posts is played back to you
5. Outright refusal to engage honestly in debate
6. A single, repeated argument of "Anyone who disagrees with me is blind, stupid and dishonest. You're all atheists with a huge anti-Christian agenda"

Get over yourself.

Well, then unfortunately that places you among the biased observers!

BTW
I will never admit to claiming things I never claimed nor to neglecting things that I never neglected simply because of the agreed upon accusations that I have. Whenever there is a misunderstanding and a post is cited-I clarify it./ However, the clarification is not accepted and the interpretation that best serves the atheistic agenda is preferred. Whereupon another explanation is demanded and I pass since it will only result in the same unendurably monotonous interminably repetitive baloney.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Well, then unfortunately that places you among the biased observers!

Wow, you couldn't have done a better job of demonstrating my point if you'd tried. Thank you!

 

[Loudmouth]

The: "I just can't understand you!" or the: "I just cain't see what you can possibly mean by that!" or comments involving straw man are not rebuttals.

I am trying to figure out your position by asking questions. That's not a strawman.

Are you saying that intelligent design does not involve natural processes? Are you saying that intelligent design requires the designer to do what natural processes can't?

 

[Loudmouth]

I will never admit to claiming things I never claimed nor to neglecting things that I never neglected simply because of the agreed upon accusations that I have. Whenever there is a misunderstanding and a post is cited-I clarify it.

Really? I asked for clarification on intelligent design, and this is the response I got:

The: "I just can't understand you!" or the: "I just cain't see what you can possibly mean by that!" or comments involving straw man are not rebuttals.​

How does that clarify anything?

 

[bhsmte]

I'm been an objective observer of this thread for a few days now. Trust me, you are very much guilty as charged. What I've seen from you is:
1. Unsupported claims
2. Refusal to admit you made those claims
3. Backtracking to say you never made the claims in the first place
4. Refusal to accept you are wrong when the evidence of your own posts is played back to you
5. Outright refusal to engage honestly in debate
6. A single, repeated argument of "Anyone who disagrees with me is blind, stupid and dishonest. You're all atheists with a huge anti-Christian agenda"

Get over yourself.

We call this reality, which posts in this thread strongly support.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Main reasons I have encountered:

1. Because they only accept explanations within the natural parameters.
2. Because of a strong aversion to religion.

Why would these two points be a problem, if ID, as you so much like to claim, doesn't posit religion or supernatural entities?

Could it perhaps be that the ID model has some other problems then just the badly disguised religious ones?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What about theists who reject ID?

Obviously, they are really closet atheists with an atheistic agenda entrenched in a world-wide, cross-generation atheistic conspiracy

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The: "I just can't understand you!" or the: "I just cain't see what you can possibly mean by that!" or comments involving straw man are not rebuttals.

There's nothing strawman-ish about it.

You DO make the claim that is not a religious argument only to say in the next breath that people don't accept it becaus "atheism".

As Loudmouth correctly noticed, you're so all over the place that you can't even properly keep track of your own collection of self-contradictory claims.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

False! I respond constantly

You respond, but you never answer questions.

I'm still waiting on answers to questions that you've been asked WEEKS ago, several times per week - sometimes even per day.

These include, but are not limited to:
- what is your falsifiable definition ID?
- what independently verifiable test can be used to detect ID or non-ID?
- what is your position concerning the evolution of the flagellum?

And many many others.

Not once did you give a straight answer to any of these.
Instead, you just respond with some silly excuse for why you don't feel like answering.

That flagellum question for example... I asked you that on at least 3 occasions in the form of a "yes" / "no" question. The last time, I even literally said that it doesn't cost you much energy to type 2 or 3 letters to answer the question.

Instead, you respond with a whole paragraphe of nonsense accusations and still no answer.

which you folks proceed to INVENT arguments and attribute them to me. If I respond to those responses the you simply do the same thing again ad infinitum

As always, I will ask you to support this accusation by linking to a single post where exactly that happened.

And as always, I fully expect you to either completely ignore that request, or you will invent some silly excuse about not having the motivation to dig through the forums in search of such an example.

Which is behaviour that is 110% consistent with yours being a false accusation and the act in question never having actually happened.

Which is of course to any objective observer a humongous load of steaming horse manure.

Then it's kind of funny that all of us are coming to that same conclusion, independently from one another.

Maybe you should think about that.

 

[Radrook]

What about theists who reject ID?

What about them?