The final capitulation. The ID'ers have completely run out of excuses, evasions, assertions and half-truths. The only thing left is for them to take the words of their opponents, edit them so that the meaning is reversed, and post them as their own words. Pathetic. Thread Closed.
Wait a minute... Here you seem to be admitting that ID is just a matter of opinion!!! I apologize for not seeing this earlier. I just saw the cut and paste hack job you did on my words and posted in response to that. Very interesting. Coming from anyone else, I would say that the italicized segment above is evidence that an empirical approach is being taken. However, this is not the case for ID'ers - it is all a matter of opinion. Because of course, there can be no design inference without evidence. That is the definition of inference. Just in case you aren't aware, I will illustrate. A man lives in the White House. He has a Secret Service detail. He flies around in a specially designed Boeing 747. He addresses the American people on the radio every two weeks. We can infer that this man is the President of the United States. So.... what is the evidence that ID'ers are putting forth to support their claim that a logical inference is that God exists? The answer is that they are putting forward nothing other than the opinion that life on earth was designed. The above would go something like this There is life on earth. It seems designed to us!! We can't believe it isn't designed. How could random chemicals assemble themselves into life? Evolution is a faith based system. Can you prove ID wrong? We can infer that life on earth was designed There is no evidence whatsoever, no reason except faith and opinion to infer an intelligent designer, and they seem proud of the fact. This in spite of the bewildering fact that they are proffering ID as a scientifically provable theory (and is it not interesting that even though I have hammered the ID'ers about this point about 30 times, no one has attempted to answer to this glaring contradiction). Z.....when will you learn...
God damn, I keep going back over this post and finding more BS. When I said there is no evidence for ID, I obviously meant that there is no evidence for ID being put forward by those who claim that they have evidence for ID!!!! I am not looking for evidence of ID. You are not looking for evidence that the Moon is made of Green Cheese, are you? Is that what ID proponents are doing? Looking for evidence that the moon is made of Green Cheese?? Unreal, the intellectual dishonesty of these people. It is my gut feeling that no evidence for ID could ever be found, since it is a purely faith-based belief system. Having said that, when ID'ers step up and say 'we have evidence of ID', I and all intellectually honest people will say 'Wow!! Really?? That is amazing - what is the evidence??' The problem is that ID'ers have stepped up and said 'ID is scientifically provable'. and we have said 'Really? Wow, okay. So what are the proofs you have?' and ID'ers have responded by avoiding the question and asking us to disprove ID, or by telling us that the scientific method is brainwashing, as you, Zeleologist/pilier, have been doing in this thread and 3 other threads that you have started. I am like Cap Obvious. I have changed my mind completely on certain issues over the years. Generally speaking I seem to be shifting to the right, politically and on social issues. I am perfectly willing to hear what proofs are being offered for ID. Unfortunately, no one can provide anything but assertion and evasion, like 'life on earth is designed because it is apparent to us that it is designed'.
TraderNik wrote: You are truly clueless about ID. When you ask for evidence of ID you are really asking for evidence of the supernatural. ID has nothing to do with the supernatural. And evidence isn't the same a proof. You are continuously confusing evidence with proof. TraderNik wrote: Not me. I never claimed ID was a theory and never claimed I could prove ID. All I expect of ID is that it generate insight into the biotic world.
TraderNik wrote: Your mistaken notion that I am several other persons on this thread has led you to attribute statements to me that I never made. I never asked anyone to disprove ID and I never said the scientific method is brainwashing. You have now succeeded in confusing yourself to the point you don't know who said what.
and why would we??? the reason for all of these discussions is that some posters out here like yours truly firmly believe that thats a separate matter from a requirement that there be a creator / creators or from the necessity to stick to the text of some allegoric account of origins in a particular religious tradition somewhere on this planet... and that in any event it is disconnected from the scientific approach, thats got its own internal problems, granted, but who doesn't...
cute... well, faith and god are 2 vastly different concepts... would you agree? now one can have faith in sthg and designate this as god and why not... although thats not absolutely necessary and not a universal practice in world religious traditions, but then again, why not... dawkins etc, i don't care much about them, might be irritating personalities, dunno, i don't live in the states (i like jared diamond and a couple others, but evolution is not a US-proprietary theory)... but even so, what does this have to do with evolution theory and why would YOU say that evolution theory as it stands is basically wrong, or clashes with your faith, religious practice / traditions etc?
When you begin to see yourself as intelligent, you may remember that there is an intelligent designer...THE intelligent designer. Clues are here and there. But you are not yet ready to see, for example, how light can change between waves and particles depending on the perciever. What is implied by ID'ers is that there is a separate ID - out there somewhere - just as certain religionists propose a separate God out there somewhere. This is an identification value that creates illusions out of light. You are re-acting to this...acting it out again and again...every time you agree that YOU are not the designer. There is a choice always to not be reactionary, but to create anew out of light as the cause that you are. You are doing that anyway. It may as well be a conscious decision! Jesus