Programming of Life - Intelligent Design

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

Actually, you just made it repeatedly confusing.

I'm still not clear what this mysterious "version" of ID is and how it is supposedly different from the model as presented by Behe and his cohorts, which apparantly also doesn't clash with theistic evolution... eventhough the sites you link to, which supposedly you agree with, repeat Behe's arguments word for word and argue explicitly against theistic evolution.

You've build a labyrinth of confusion, obfuscation, incompatible ideas and self-contradictory statements. At this point, I actually even doubt that you yourself can still keep track of all the stuff you've said this past month.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

These links were all posted in your signature. Which I notice you have removed now.

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.

You never "cite" from a website. You just post a link and leave it at that.
I've never seen you cite or summarize anything you've linked to.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Could "the designer" then also be a physical process, resulting in natural design?

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

So you are fine with the idea that the processes of evolution are responsible for the apparant design in biological structures? That counts as a "whatever", right?

 

[Radrook]

Actually, you just made it repeatedly confusing.

I'm still not clear what this mysterious "version" of ID is and how it is supposedly different from the model as presented by Behe and his cohorts, which apparantly also doesn't clash with theistic evolution... eventhough the sites you link to, which supposedly you agree with, repeat Behe's arguments word for word and argue explicitly against theistic evolution.

You've build a labyrinth of confusion, obfuscation, incompatible ideas and self-contradictory statements. At this point, I actually even doubt that you yourself can still keep track of all the stuff you've said this past month.

Then that is your flaw not mine since I am perfectly understood all the time except when it has to do with an intelligent designer. Then a storm of supposed utter inability to reason properly suddenly and very predictably breaks out.

 

[Radrook]

These links were all posted in your signature. Which I notice you have removed now.



You never "cite" from a website. You just post a link and leave it at that.
I've never seen you cite or summarize anything you've linked to.

I removed them to avoid the annoyance of having them cunningly misunderstood. I originally posted them upon request from you folks and for your benefit because of your constant claims of utter inability to think properly.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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..

OK, so if the designer isn't supernatural, what role would God play ?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Show me where I argued against theistic evolution. I did not.

Evolution's Probability - Dr Dean Kenyon, Biology Professor [moved from Life Sciences]

Flies in the face of theistic evolution.

Just one example. There are many more.

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..

In theistic evolution, the brain evolved.

 

[KCfromNC]

What am I making up according to your reality?

Your claim that I said a designer designed itself.

 

[KCfromNC]

As previously and interminably explained before, absence of such knowledge does not make an inference of intelligent design an impossibility.

That's nice. Do you believe everything which can't be 100% proven to be wrong? That's a pretty terrible standard for believing anything - and certainly not a great basis for pretending others are willfully ignorant when they don't follow along with the game.

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?

The one you made up in your post. Did you forget what you wrote already?

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..

If you're just making stuff up what's with all of the claims that others are blind for not accepting it? You seem to have a tough time keeping your story straight.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No I am not OK with that viewpoint.

Off course you aren't.

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.

Who's "us"?
And by what process is the brain produced, in your opinion?

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

So you don't deny the natural process of evolution exists?
This sounds a bit like deism. A deity that kickstarts the universe and sits back to watch it unfold according to (deterministic?) parameters set in place at the moment of kickstarting it.

Is such a worldview compatible with your idea of an ID?

 

[Radrook]

OK, so if the designer isn't supernatural, what role would God play ?

AGAIN!

What role any god or God would play is totally irrelevant to the justifiable inference of intelligent design in nature. Whether you conclude that a God, an alien, and extra-dimensional being, or even a sentient self-aware, extra dimensional machine as Isaac Asimov proposed in one of his short stories was responsible is totally irrelevant to that conclusion. That is a very simple concept and makes anyone claiming incomprehension of it look silly..

 

[KCfromNC]

AGAIN!

What role any god or God would play is totally irrelevant to the justifiable inference of intelligent design in nature.

Only true if you're saying that you have proof that God isn't the ID. If you can't prove that, you can't be sure that the ID isn't God, in which case the role of that god would be quite relevant.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Then that is your flaw not mine since I am perfectly understood all the time except when it has to do with an intelligent designer. Then a storm of supposed utter inability to reason properly suddenly and very predictably breaks out.

When everybody is telling you that you are being confusing, perhaps the flaw is yours and not "everybody else's".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I removed them to avoid the annoyance of having them cunningly misunderstood. I originally posted them upon request from you folks

Yes, indeed you did. And our request was for you to detail what ID as you understood it is exactly, what predictions it makes and what your stance was on the origination of the flagellum.

You then posted those linkes, indeed you did.

And when we started pointing out how the stuff written there was in direct contradiction with other stuff you said, suddenly you started to retreat again and once more began to accuse us of all kinds of dishonesty and stuff, while we were just responding to your answer to our request.

Now those links are removed and you apparantly distance yourself from what is written there.

And once again, we are left confused about what it is exactly that you believe.
The request remains unanswered.

and for your benefit because of your constant claims of utter inability to think properly.

Says the guy who can't go 2 posts without contradicting himself.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

What role any god or God would play is totally irrelevant to the justifiable inference of intelligent design in nature.

I'm not asking about ID in the abstract, what I'm asking is that in your personal worldview, where it is apparently possible for the world we see to be a product of a non-supernatural designer, what role do you believe God would play if that was the case ?

If you don't want to say what role god would play if the ID wasn't supernatural, just say so; it's a personal question, we're not entitled to an answer. Alternatively, if you know anyone who is a theist and believes in a non-supernatural ID, what role does God play in their belief system.

I'm curious to know how a non-supernatural ID fits into a theist worldview.

 

[Loudmouth]

Nope! That is your idea not mine. I clearly keep telling you that the designer need not be supernatural.

And yet you claim that atheists refuse to accept ID because it would require a belief in supernatural.

 

[Loudmouth]

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

Then it isn't theistic evolution. You reject theistic evolution.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

Based on what evidence?

 

[Loudmouth]

AGAIN!

What role any god or God would play is totally irrelevant to the justifiable inference of intelligent design in nature.

What evidence supports the inference?

 

[Radrook]

Then it isn't theistic evolution. You reject theistic evolution.

Please look up the definition of theistic evolution.