ID or ToE?

[Greg1234]

Whut?

It cannot be simplified further. Not my domain at this point.

Go on, what are the core tenents of Darwinish and how has each one been refuted?

[repeat pending]

Those aspects of creationism that can be falsified have been - young earth,

And Darwinism depends on the integrity of the big bang.

global flood,

Unrelated, already addressed.

irreducable complexity etc.

Unrefuted. Only a small fraction.

 

[Non sequitur]

The very "scientific knowledge" upon which Darwinism is based has been refuted.

[citation needed]

Even if it was, which I disagree with, what does it matter?

If he believed in anal-probing lollipop aliens, what does that have to do with what has been tested that he said?

Nope, just Science.

ID is just science?

ID is "Science +1". It involves the unnecessary, since things work fine without it.

Actually, ID does not recognize the designer (in secret).

In the 13th century Thomas Aquinas argued that natural things act to achieve the best result, and as they cannot do this without intelligence, an intelligent being must exist, setting the goal and providing direction, and this being is God.

Its leading proponents—all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute —believe the designer to be the Christian God.


But we're supposed to believe that the people who started it and pioneered the whole movement, who have it pasted everywhere that it is the Christian God, really don't mean it?

 

[Nostromo]

And Darwinism depends on the integrity of the big bang.

I'm just going to assume this is because you have trouble with reading and comprehension, rather than something to do with you being monumentally stupid.

 

[Split Rock]

I'm just going to assume this is because you have trouble with reading and comprehension, rather than something to do with you being monumentally stupid.

I think you should instead assume this is because Greg is being monumentally trollish. Anyone who continues to take him seriously here is being monumentally naive.

 

[Greg1234]

I'm just going to assume this is because you have trouble with reading and comprehension, rather than something to do with you being monumentally stupid.

Oy, another one.

The individual linked the age of the earth with the creation of man.

I linked the big bang with Darwinism. The big bang is used to determine the age of the universe.

 

[Hespera]

I think you should instead assume this is because Greg is being monumentally trollish. Anyone who continues to take him seriously here is being monumentally naive.

Correlation Sickness is another possibility.

 

[Greg1234]

In the 13th century Thomas Aquinas argued that natural things act to achieve the best result, and as they cannot do this without intelligence, an intelligent being must exist, setting the goal and providing direction, and this being is God.

Its leading proponents—all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute —believe the designer to be the Christian God.


But we're supposed to believe that the people who started it and pioneered the whole movement, who have it pasted everywhere that it is the Christian God, really don't mean it?

I think this video sums up how this argument is going to turn out,

 

[AV1611VET]

I think this video sums up how this argument is going to turn out,

Give it up, bro -- you've already been called a troll, remember?

Unless you agree 100% with these guys, you have no right to either go to the doctor or use a computer.

And your user title reeks of antiscientism --

 

[Non sequitur]

Actually, ID does not recognize the designer (in secret).

Its leading proponents—all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute —believe the designer to be the Christian God.

I think this video sums up how this argument is going to turn out,

- You say that ID doesn't recognize the designer.

- I say the designer postulated by ID is the God of Christianity.

- You show me a video where Casey talks about the designer being God.


Thanks for proving my point?

 

[Hespera]

- You say that ID doesn't recognize the designer.

- I say the designer postulated by ID is the God of Christianity.

- You show me a video where Casey talks about the designer being God.


Thanks for proving my point?

thanks for letting the turtle show you can run fast?

 

[Non sequitur]

Give it up, bro -- you've already been called a troll, remember?

Unless you agree 100% with these guys, you have no right to either go to the doctor or use a computer.

And your user title reeks of antiscientism --

No, no, no...

You've got it backwards.


He offers substance, you offer quips.

 

[Nostromo]

Give it up, bro -- you've already been called a troll, remember?

Unless you agree 100% with these guys, you have no right to either go to the doctor or use a computer.

And your user title reeks of antiscientism --

There is the alternative that perhaps he speaks quite a lot of rubbish, and that's why we don't agree with him.

 

[Hespera]

No, no, no...

You've got it backwards.


He offers substance, you offer quips.

Id like someone to offer an explanation for why its ok for a christian to deliberately or negligently speak falsehoods.

Im really curious how people who think they are obligated by god to behave in a truthful, ethical and honest manner feel so free not to.

 

[Greg1234]

- You say that ID doesn't recognize the designer.

- I say the designer postulated by ID is the God of Christianity.

- You show me a video where Casey talks about the designer being God.


Thanks for proving my point?

ID doesn't identify the designer. He was continually harassed about his personal life and spoke about it in the end.

 

[Non sequitur]

ID doesn't identify the designer. He was continually harassed about his personal life and spoke about it in the end.

ID did identify the designer as the Christian God.

I really don't follow ID, so I don't know how much backpedaling they've done recently, though...




(I can't wait to see them team up with this group.)

 

[Cabal]

There is the alternative that perhaps he speaks quite a lot of rubbish, and that's why we don't agree with him.

Now play fair, that's just not as personally edifying as a persecution complex.

 

[Cabal]

(I can't wait to see them team up with this group.)

I think a good solution to the problem of ID is to start heavily promoting the idea that the Islamic god is the designer, and see how long it takes the stalwarts to snap.

 

[Greg1234]

I really don't follow ID

Frequently raised but weak arguments against Intelligent Design | Uncommon Descent

 

[AV1611VET]

Frequently raised but weak arguments against Intelligent Design | Uncommon Descent

I like #5:

5] Intelligent Design is “Creationism in a Cheap Tuxedo”

In fact, the two theories are radically different. Creationism moves forward: that is, it assumes, asserts or accepts something about God and what he has to say about origins; then interprets nature in that context. Intelligent design moves backward: that is, it observes something interesting in nature (complex, specified information) and then theorises and tests possible ways how that might have come to be. Creationism is faith-based; Intelligent Design is empirically-based.
​

 

[Hespera]

I think a good solution to the problem of ID is to start heavily promoting the idea that the Islamic god is the designer, and see how long it takes the stalwarts to snap.

nah. just take two of our most prolific posters for creoism and elevate them as spokespeople for the ism. give them a lot of money to use spreading their ideas about flood water on neptune, etc.