Programming of Life - Intelligent Design

[Radrook]

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

You misunderstood me as usual.

 

[KCfromNC]

You misunderstood me as usual.

So clear it up : are you OK with the designer being unintelligent purely natural processes?

 

[bhsmte]

So clear it up : are you OK with the designer being unintelligent purely natural processes?

This will be interesting.

 

[Radrook]

So clear it up : are you OK with the designer being unintelligent purely natural processes?

No I am not OK with that viewpoint. As I clearly pointed out before-to us nature indicates a mind at work and not just mindless chemicals reacting with each other and eventually producing brains. Also, as I explained before-I consider the natural processes themselves as having been designed and set into motion by an intelligent designer.

 

[KCfromNC]

No I am not OK with that viewpoint.

But you just said you weren't arguing for any particular type of designer. Now you seem to be saying the opposite. Which one of your claims are we supposed to believe?

As I clearly pointed out before-to us nature indicates a mind at work and not just mindless chemicals reacting with each other and eventually producing brains. Also, as I explained before-I consider the natural processes themselves as having been designed and set into motion by an intelligent designer.

OK, so you're hoping for a supernatural non-material intelligence who pre-exists the known universe. Why not just come clean and say that? What's with all the hiding what you are actually talking about?

 

[bhsmte]

But you just said you weren't arguing for any particular type of designer. Now you seem to be saying the opposite. Which one of your claims are we supposed to believe?



OK, so you're hoping for a supernatural non-material intelligence who pre-exists the known universe. Why not just come clean and say that? What's with all the hiding what you are actually talking about?

He is all over the place.

 

[Radrook]

But you just said you weren't arguing for any particular type of designer. Now you seem to be saying the opposite. Which one of your claims are we supposed to believe?



OK, so you're hoping for a supernatural non-material intelligence who pre-exists the known universe. Why not just come clean and say that? What's with all the hiding what you are actually talking about?

You are equating the designer with what was designed in order to support your claim that it designed itself. The designed is NOT the designer. It merely displays evidence of having been designed. Their is no central area of within this process that can be identified as mind. DNA is info, it is NOT a mind. It is evidence of a programing mind. But it itself is just info.

BTW
If you wish to talk God why not take it to the theological areas?
Be glad to discuss it there.

 

[Radrook]

He is all over the place.

Not at all bon ami. It just seems that way because you are felicitously and happily hippity hopping galore all over the place.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

You are the one who brings God into the subject when you state that atheists refuse to accept ID because it brings God into the picture.

 

[Loudmouth]

No I am not OK with that viewpoint.

Then you reject theistic evolution which has unintelligent purely natural causes producing the biodiversity we see today.

Also, as I explained before-I consider the natural processes themselves as having been designed and set into motion by an intelligent designer.

No, you don't. That would make the processes unintelligent, which you reject.

 

[Radrook]

But you just said you weren't arguing for any particular type of designer. Now you seem to be saying the opposite. Which one of your claims are we supposed to believe?



OK, so you're hoping for a supernatural non-material intelligence who pre-exists the known universe. Why not just come clean and say that? What's with all the hiding what you are actually talking about?

Nope! That is your idea not mine. I clearly keep telling you that the designer need not be supernatural. For example, it can be imagined as from another dimension, or an alternate universe or even from one of the infinite universes which your scientists are fond of hypothesizing about in order to avoid our realm's fine tuning. Such a designer would not be itself part of our natural laws as applicable to our dimension or our cosmos but could be their source instead..

 

[Radrook]

Then you reject theistic evolution which has unintelligent purely natural causes producing the biodiversity we see today.



No, you don't. That would make the processes unintelligent, which you reject.

I previously posted links explaining that theistic evolution isn't restricted to the narrow definition you are describing but you choose not to listen.

 

[Radrook]

You are the one who brings God into the subject when you state that atheists refuse to accept ID because it brings God into the picture.

Horse before the cart!

 

[bhsmte]

Not at all bon ami. It just seems that way because you are felicitously and happily hippity hopping galore all over the place.

LOL

 

[bhsmte]

Horse before the cart!

No, we call it, reality. Some people are in tune with reality, some aren't.

 

[Radrook]

Some people are in tune with reality, some aren't.

Nice self description as your constant negation of reality demonstrates.

 

[KCfromNC]

You are equating the designer with what was designed in order to support your claim that it designed itself.

When you have to resort to making stuff up like this I know I've hit a nerve. Can you try to respond to what I actually wrote?

If you wish to talk God why not take it to the theological areas?

You're the one saying you can't accept a natural designer. And you're the one proposing the solution is a warmed-over version of modernist conservative Protestant religious belief.

 

[KCfromNC]

Nope! That is your idea not mine. I clearly keep telling you that the designer need not be supernatural. For example, it can be imagined as from another dimension, or an alternate universe or even from one of the infinite universes which your scientists are fond of hypothesizing about in order to avoid our realm's fine tuning. Such a designer would not be itself part of our natural laws as applicable to our dimension or our cosmos but could be their source instead..

If you have no idea what laws do or don't govern whatever this alleged designer how can you possibly pretend to know that it would even be capable of designing our universe?

And lets get real. If you've got to make up an imaginary place where our natural laws don't apply for your designer to hide in, that's about as close to supernatural as you can get without just admitting you really want the ID to be your god. Why all the games? What's so hard about just coming clean about what you really believe?

 

[Radrook]

When you have to resort to making stuff up like this I know I've hit a nerve. Can you try to respond to what I actually wrote?



You're the one saying you can't accept a natural designer. And you're the one proposing the solution is a warmed-over version of modernist conservative Protestant religious belief.

What am I making up according to your reality?

Nope! I clearly explained that natural designer objection but you prefer to ignore it in order to misrepresent.

 

[Radrook]

If you have no idea what laws do or don't govern whatever this alleged designer how can you possibly pretend to know that it would even be capable of designing our universe?

And lets get real. If you've got to make up an imaginary place where our natural laws don't apply for your designer to hide in, that's about as close to supernatural as you can get without just admitting you really want the ID to be your god. Why all the games? What's so hard about just coming clean about what you really believe?

As previously and interminably explained before, absence of such knowledge does not make an inference of intelligent design an impossibility. Ponderously proposing that it does doesn't make it so. You know?

My designer hides fearfully from scientists because he's afeared that they might tweak his aquiline nose and estuff his nostrils with atheistic pepper? LOLWROF? What pathologically pathetic designer is that pray tell? Inquiring minds want to know.

BTW
Ever hear about discussing things from a hypothetical viewpoint? Look it up. It might have a salutary calming effect whenever you read my responses due to proper insight into the issue..