Intelligent Design is a Fact- Evolution is a Theory!

[Quetzal]

Try a little maturity please!

I tried, you couldn't be reasoned with. While I have you, when you get a BBQ sandwich, do you prefer your slaw on the sandwich or on the side?

 

[McBell]

Yet I am the one with a proven factual method of creating life on a new planet while you are still holding a theory full of holes.

**climbs up onto pontoon boat**

 

[McBell]

So it's just a word game.

Humpty Dumpty Pigeon Chess to be more precise....

 

[Deathbydefault]

Thought that might get your attention so before you rush to post your arguments read:

We have been designing organism for a long time through cross breeding and inbreeding species like dogs, horses, cats and any domesticated animals. It is is intelligent design not natural selection and is intended to produce an organism with specific traits.

We can now clone animals with no natural selection involved in the process to create a living organism.

We create genetically modified animals and plants in labs all the time and that food you eat today is probably a result of intelligent design that happened in a lab.

Intelligent design is not creationism. Intelligent design does not require a God or even a genius and has nothing to do with magic or super natural powers.

Intelligent design is the application of science to create living organism or modify genes and DNA to produce changes in organisms.

Intelligent Design is a Fact!

I do believe intelligent design is used in the context of most, if not all organisms being designed by a higher pre-existing intelligence.
Semantics is fine sometimes, to think things out from a different perspective, but it's a pointless argument nonetheless.

 

[Dante Writer]

So it's just a word game.
I favor using intelligence in designing things too.
But I don't call it "Intelligent Design" because that would be misleading.

The origin of life isn't part of evolution, so this isn't a real criticism of it.
Evolution also doesn't address cosmology, plasma physics or metalurgy.
I'm OK with this.
As for the holes, it's more interesting to not know everything.
This leaves things to explore.

If you mean the usual ID (supernatural), I don't see its being useful.

"So it's just a word game."

No it the difference between factual and verified science and non factual religiosity and theories of evolution.

"But I don't call it "Intelligent Design" because that would be misleading."

Probably would be in your case but like I said it does not require a God or a genius.

"The origin of life isn't part of evolution."

Right- let's just ignore how no life forms could not start through evolution and focus on other stuff.

"As for the holes, it's more interesting to not know everything."

One of those holes is where did that life originate so it could evolve. Without that your theory falls apart.

 

[Revoltingest]

How about you go start your won discussion instead of hijacking mine.

Or is it OK if we do the same to any Evolutionist posts to stop all discussion so this forum is meaningless?

Try a little maturity please!

I just answered another poster's question.

If all you claim is that intelligent design is used by mankind, then we've no disagreement.
But it seems that you're addressing something else.
What?

 

[allfoak]

You get what you deserve @Dante Writer .
This thread is a joke just like your attitude toward us here.
do you think your arrogance and demeaning attitude goes unnoticed?

 

[Altfish]

Why as it has no relevance?

Intelligent Design is not creationism as I made clear in my post.

The court case was about ID I quote Judge Jones in his summing up...
"ID is not science" and “ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation”; it relies on “flawed and illogical” arguments; and its attacks on evolution “have been refuted by the scientific community.”

I could go on. I'm sure you will!!

 

[Sapiens]

How about you go start your won discussion instead of hijacking mine.

Or is it OK if we do the same to any Evolutionist posts to stop all discussion so this forum is meaningless?

Try a little maturity please!

How about you stay on topic? This is the Evolution vs. Creationism forum and you are arguing (as observed, rather poorly) the meaning of Intelligent Design from a perspective that would even make Behe, Berlinskii and Gish cringe.

 

[Dante Writer]

I do believe intelligent design is used in the context of most, if not all organisms being designed by a higher pre-existing intelligence.
Semantics is fine sometimes, to think things out from a different perspective, but it's a pointless argument nonetheless.

"designed by a higher pre-existing intelligence."

No- that is Creationism and to lump the two together is an immature trick to avoid the fact that Evolution does not address the origin of life.

 

[Dante Writer]

The court case was about ID I quote Judge Jones in his summing up...
"ID is not science" and “ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation”; it relies on “flawed and illogical” arguments; and its attacks on evolution “have been refuted by the scientific community.”

I could go on. I'm sure you will!!

No- the court case is an example of how creationists have tried to hitch a ride on Intelligent Design because it is a factual science and the result is now people like you try to lump them together.

ID is a fact and is done every day.

 

[Revoltingest]

"So it's just a word game."

No it the difference between factual and verified science and non factual religiosity and theories of evolution.

"But I don't call it "Intelligent Design" because that would be misleading."

Probably would be in your case but like I said it does not require a God or a genius.

"The origin of life isn't part of evolution."

Right- let's just ignore how no life forms could not start through evolution and focus on other stuff.

"As for the holes, it's more interesting to not know everything."

One of those holes is where did that life originate so it could evolve. Without that your theory falls apart.

So are you now using "ID" in the conventional sense, & favoring it over evolution?

 

[Quetzal]

No- that is Creationism and to lump the two together is an immature trick to avoid the fact that Evolution does not address the origin of life.

Are you really this dense in ignorance or are you just having a go at our expense?

 

[allfoak]

Are you really this dense in ignorance or are you just having a go at our expense?

I think the latter is obvious.
In fact if you look at his posting history, it is all he does.

 

[Dante Writer]

I just answered another poster's question.

If all you claim is that intelligent design is used by mankind, then we've no disagreement.
But it seems that you're addressing something else.
What?

I made that clear- ID could address how life originated on this planet. That and evolution working together fills in that big hole that spontaneous life from inorganic materials leaves.

You must first accept that Intentional design is a fact before you can look at how it may have been used.

 

[Revoltingest]

Are you really this dense in ignorance or are you just having a go at our expense?

I can't really pin down what it is he wants to discuss.

 

[Dante Writer]

I think the latter is obvious.
In fact if you look at his posting history, it is all he does.

Now you are just plain lying since I just joined this forum and neither of those are my discussions.

 

[McBell]

I think the latter is obvious.
In fact if you look at his posting history, it is all he does.

Bold empty claims supported by even more bold empty claims defended with elementary school level tactics using high school level vocabulary.

 

[Dante Writer]

I can't really pin down what it is he wants to discuss.

Sure you can- you just don't want that discussion so you tried to hijack it instead.

 

[Revoltingest]

I made that clear- ID could address how life originated on this planet. That and evolution working together fills in that big hole that spontaneous life from inorganic materials leaves.

You must first accept that Intentional design is a fact before you can look at how it may have been used.

I don't see intentional design as necessary.
Evolution has superior explanatory power.