Intelligent Design is not creationism

Stu wrote:

No. You are a joke. You seriously think you can thwart the design inference by invoking infinite regress or by putting words like fairy in front of design. Truly pathetic.

 

Now you're getting confused. This was to do with making a claim then you insisting everyone else determines what is evidence for your claim. It was only a couple posts back. Please try stay focused.

Here, this is how silly that argument you made is...

Quote from Telelologist :
edit.... ID to FD
" If you want to claim that evidence for FD doesn't exist then you need to have determined what counts as evidence for FD and after examining ALL the data from the natural world, failed to find it. You haven't done that. So, the best you can logically claim is that from the data you've examined, you have found nothing that YOU would count as evidence for FD."


No Tele, your argument is silly AND self-defeating.

 

Then read what you wrote....

Quote from Teleologist:
" I am not aware that Behe ever claimed to have anything in common with Francis Crick. That's is my contention because both of them claim that intelligence was behind the origin of life on earth."

Your contention is that Behe never claimed to have anything in common with Francis Crick..because you assert they had something in common.

Your contention is contradictory. But then again, slippy duplicitous talk is a design feature of ID.

Behe has never made a scientific hypothesis for ID in his life,
The only ones he makes are those already made in science which he repeats. Then he mangles them to try to fit assertions of ID.
I said.... "He [Behe] has an unsupported claim called ID.. In affirmation of that claim, he signed up to a recorded mandated agenda invoking 'God into Science'.."
That is where Behe;s intentions to invoke God into Science were made perfectly clear. For some peculiar reason, apologists like you try to extricate him from that in order to hide God , which ID. does "infer".

 

It was wrong to make the inference of murder . No one intended murder so it is not ”teleological causation." any longer

You said above murder was known to be intended and that was “teleological causation.”
The detective came to a wrong conclusion through the inference that was “teleological causation.” It was wrong. so you just throw the blame on the dick, nothing to do with the wrong inference through “teleological causation.”

But you thwart inference of natural design by invoking the infinite regress in ID, all the time.!! Are you in your right mind?

Infinite regress was not a matter raised by the death. It is nevertheless always a part of teleology. Teleology is a philosophy to do with ends or purposes, so it can ultimately always lead to infinite regress.

ID invents an inference which no evidence supports, ignores the inference which evidence overwhelmingly supports, then begs a question of infinite regress.

Just how bad do you want your argument to be?

 

That you seriously think putting Intelligent in front of design works any better, is what's truly pathetic.

 

Intoxicated Design works for me.

There's evidence of DWI everywhere.



Jesus

 

"You are pathetic."

"No, you are pathetic."

"No, you are truly pathetic."

"You are truly pathetic+1."

Very rational stu, very adult.

You are doing a bang up job of representing the ever rational, ever reasonable, and ever scientific objective unemotional atheist point of view...sure you are.

What a joke, and the joke is on you.

 

Pathetic Design also works.


Jesus

 

Sure seems to work dude.
TrollZzz does embody the manifestation of Pathetic Design,. Still, it's evidence I suppose, which is something more than ID has ever managed.

 

stu are who stu quotes.

What a geek you is...