Programming of Life - Intelligent Design

[Speedwell]

What about them?

Where is their "atheistic mentality? Perhaps they just don't like to see faith in God tied to a thoroughly discredited argument.

 

[Radrook]

Where is their "atheistic mentality? Perhaps they just don't like to see faith in God tied to a thoroughly discredited argument.

Maybe it is just discredited in their opinion.

 

[Speedwell]

Maybe it is just discredited in their opinion.

Depends on the argument. The ID of the Discovery Institute has been exposed for the fraud that it is. You, yourself, seem to have backed away from it and appear now to be satisfied to add "designer" to the list of the names of God and let it go with that. Nothing to discredit there, though it's not very useful, either.

 

[Radrook]

Depends on the argument. The ID of the Discovery Institute has been exposed for the fraud that it is. You, yourself, seem to have backed away from it and appear now to be satisfied to add "designer" to the list of the names of God and let it go with that. Nothing to discredit there, though it's not very useful, either.

I never said that my concept of an intelligent designer was totally based on the of any Discovery Institute. I have had this concept even before I knew that the Discovery Institute existed. I never added the term "designer" to my concept of a God since I did not introduce the term God into te discussion-you folks did.

 

[Speedwell]

I never said that my concept of an intelligent designer was totally based on the of any Discovery Institute. I have had this concept even before I knew that the Discovery Institute existed. I never added the term "designer" to my concept of a God since I did not introduce the term God into te discussion-you folks did.

What's the purpose of that song-and-dance? You have not tried very hard to hide your belief in biblical creationism.

 

[Radrook]

What's the purpose of that song-and-dance? You have not tried very hard to hide your belief in biblical creationism.

In other words, you want to create a straw man and force me to defend it. Isn't that rather illogical?

 

[Speedwell]

In other words, you want to create a straw man and force me to defend it. Isn't that rather illogical?

What straw man? Are you not a biblical creationist arguing in favor of a version of ID? Or, rather, a version of theistic evolution which you want to call ID for some reason?

 

[Loudmouth]

I never said that my concept of an intelligent designer was totally based on the of any Discovery Institute.

When asked if ID is falsifiable, you cite a website where it argues against theistic evolution. Why?

 

[bhsmte]

When asked if ID is falsifiable, you cite a website where it argues against theistic evolution. Why?

He probably didnt read his own source.

 

[Radrook]

What straw man? Are you not a biblical creationist arguing in favor of a version of ID? Or, rather, a version of theistic evolution which you want to call ID for some reason?

I am arguing from a purely ID position which doesn't necessitate the supernatural and you want to force it into the subject as if I am. That is straw man since I am not arguing from a religious standpoint and have made that repeatedly clear.

 

[Radrook]

He probably didnt read his own source.

Some sources are cited in order to prove the particular point under discussion and not because they are 100% representative of what one believes. That should need no explanation unless there is nitpicking involved.

BTW
I need not read endless reams of data totally irrelevant to a point being made in a website in order to cite related data from a website. That would be time-wasting and silly.

 

[Speedwell]

I am arguing from a purely ID position which doesn't necessitate the supernatural and you want to force it into the subject as if I am. That is straw man since I am not arguing from a religious standpoint and have made that repeatedly clear.

Yes, you have. And my question was, why? What is the point of trying to argue for the existence of a (non-religious) "designer?"

 

[Loudmouth]

Some sources are cited in order to prove the particular point under discussion and not because they are 100% representative of what one believes.

That's the problem. When you are discussing one point you will argue against theistic evolution. When you argue another point you will say that you accept theistic evolution. It's a bit schizophrenic.

BTW
I need not read endless reams of data totally irrelevant to a point being made in a website in order to cite related data from a website. That would be time-wasting and silly.

The main point of the entire webpage you cited is that the very features you have been pointing to could not come about through theistic evolution.

 

[Radrook]

Yes, you have. And my question was, why? What is the point of trying to argue for the existence of a (non-religious) "designer?"

I am not arguing for any kind of designer at all. I am just arguing for design. Whatever the designer is totally irrelevant to the display of design in nature. You are free to postulate whatever or whoever you wish and I would not argue against your opinion since it is irrelevant as long as you admit that design is evident. However, if the discussion were religious on a religious forum-then would give you my religious opinion.

 

[Radrook]

That's the problem. When you are discussing one point you will argue against theistic evolution. When you argue another point you will say that you accept theistic evolution. It's a bit schizophrenic.



The main point of the entire webpage you cited is that the very features you have been pointing to could not come about through theistic evolution.

It seems schizophrenic because you evidently misunderstanding what I clearly keep explaining for some mysterious reason,. Show me where I argued against theistic evolution. I did not. I clearly said that if the intelligent designer is involved in the evolutionary process that doesn't clash with the intelligent design concept because everything happening is dependent on an intelligent designer who designed the process and programmed it to happen this way. Which means that the info in the DNA comes from the intelligent designer and that the brain is his design..

 

[Speedwell]

I am not arguing for any kind of designer at all. I am just arguing for design.

OK, why?

Whatever the designer is totally irrelevant to the display of design in nature. You are free to postulate whatever or whoever you wish and I would not argue against your opinion since it is irrelevant as long as you admit that design is evident.

I certainly agree that "design" in the sense of functional organization is present--I ascribe it to natural forces.

 

[Loudmouth]

I am not arguing for any kind of designer at all. I am just arguing for design.

Then why did you claim that atheists ignore the evidence for intelligent design because it points to God?

You are free to postulate whatever or whoever you wish and I would not argue against your opinion since it is irrelevant as long as you admit that design is evident.

You still can't see the evidence, can you.

 

[Loudmouth]

It seems schizophrenic because you evidently misunderstanding what I clearly keep explaining for some mysterious reason,. Show me where I argued against theistic evolution.

You are claiming that the bacterial flagellum can't evolve.

I did not. I clearly said that if the intelligent designer is involved in the evolutionary process that doesn't clash with the intelligent design concept because everything happening is dependent on an intelligent designer who designed the process and programmed it to happen this way. Which means that the info in the DNA comes from the intelligent designer and that the brain is his design..

Evolution isn't dependent on a designer. That's the whole point. It is an entirely natural process that occurs spontaneously without a designer.

 

[Radrook]

Then why did you claim that atheists ignore the evidence for intelligent design because it points to God?



You still can't see the evidence, can you.

Because that's what atheists do?
In fact, they insist on bringing God into the subject despite my efforts to keep the supernatural out of it. They even call me a hypocrite or liar when I attempt it.

 

[KCfromNC]

I am not arguing for any kind of designer at all. I am just arguing for design.

No you're not. You wouldn't accept design by purely natural unintelligent processes, for example.