Intelligent Design is not creationism

Those you're trying to convince that ID is not creationism. Don't tell me that you started this whole thread just as a futile exercise.

On second thought, maybe you did.

 

As usual, you are mischaracterizing my position in order maintain the argument so that you can attempt to demonstrate your superior argumentation abilities via ad hominem, where you cannot prevail in your argument on the merits.

And, also, as usual, when you start your descent into the flame war, I will simply stop arguing with you, because it's a waste of my time.

 

You're right, an intelligent designer coming into being from nothing.

How stupid that sounds.

 

I wasn't saying you are stupid, not at all. I don't think that you are stupid, not trying to start a flame war.

I am saying the position your are putting forth sounds stupid if you just step back and look at it from a common sense perspective...

The position also sounds quite dogmatic, and reminiscent of the religious fundamentalists who are inflexible in their positions on the basis of faith. There is a rigidity to it that is disturbing, and not in my opinion representative of the real goal of science...

 

An eternal intelligent designer doesn't come into being.

Doh!

Let me ask you, when you go to sleep, and then wake up, when you wake up and your mind once again becomes active and your regain consciousness, do you come into being at that moment?

 

An eternal being who is an intelligent designer doesn't come into being.

Doh!

Let me ask you, when you go to sleep, and then wake up, when you wake up and your mind once again becomes active and your regain consciousness, do you come into being at that moment?

 

no causation...... "Seriously, just applying some common sense, do you realize how stupid that sounds?"

no causation...... "Seriously, just applying some common sense, do you realize how stupid that sounds?"

 

An eternal designer would need no causation to exist, as there was no beginning to the eternal designer...hence eternal, and what that designer then created would exist by the cause of the designer.

This really isn't that complicated stu...

Now, you aren't suggesting material life and the material universe is eternal, are you?

 

I take this as a concession-- I have been correct all along. Your article con -firms my statements almost exaclty (editing problem with firefox)

The weakness of gravity, the existence of just the right motley set of particles to form the building blocks of life—are these facts enough to cause physicists to abandon their quest for mathematical elegance and shift to embrace the anthropic principle? No, said Susskind, there is still the possibility that they arose by chance. "But there is one fine-tuning of nature, one accident, one conspiracy we might call it, which is so extraordinary that nobody thinks it's an accident."



What else, besides an intelligent designer, could have tailored the universe to fit the needs of planets and people, including unlikely features that defy current mathematical prediction? Susskind's answer lies in string theory—a mathematical model of nature to which many, if not most, physicists now subscribe.


Your choice AP or billions of parallel universes.

 

I stated this a few posts back. (ID or multiverse).

Both are equally as fanciful and equally as unprovable. It just comes down to one's preferred worldview. But without multiverse, given what physicists understand about the high improbablity of life in just "one shot/one bang" , we're defaulted to ID.

But what I don't get is why the need to attempt to remove ID from creationism? You can't include alien progenation into ID because that begs the question of what created the alien? And so on and so forth until you come to a terminus such as an uncreated and eternal supreme being. Which of course brings us right back to creationism.