Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Main reasons I have encountered:
1. Because they only accept explanations within the natural parameters.
2. Because of a strong aversion to religion.
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.Because that's what they usually do.
Sounds cool. According to you then, maybe not the god you believe in.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?
What about theists who reject ID?Main reasons I have encountered:
1. Because they only accept explanations within the natural parameters.
2. Because of a strong aversion to religion.
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.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: "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.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.
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.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.
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: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.
Well, then unfortunately that places you among the biased observers!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.
Wow, you couldn't have done a better job of demonstrating my point if you'd tried. Thank you!Well, then unfortunately that places you among the biased observers!
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 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.
We call this reality, which posts in this thread strongly support.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.
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?
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.
False! I respond constantly
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
Which is of course to any objective observer a humongous load of steaming horse manure.
What about them?What about theists who reject ID?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?