Where do Proponents Of Intelligent Design Propose the Designer Came From?

[Robert.Evans]

Except that I have in fact answered you.
You are the one who flat out refused to even look at the answers given.
Which is curious since you said you did not understand them.
i am still trying to figure out how it is you know you do not understand them when you refuse to even look at them.

So once again, you go right ahead and justify your false dichotomy however you like.
It is still a false dichotomy.

still no simple answer. okay. enough, forget it.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

. What is it that is inbetween intelligence and luck???

Evolution of course.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

...use their influence to effect gullible people who want to follow someone with a title

That's what priests do, isn't it?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

But nevertheless, it is obvious that Dawkins, for one, is making millions out of his position, a position he can explain no better than the average atheist on this forum that makes nothing for it. He does use his position and he does try to make out it is sceince or theology and nothing in between. There is a thin threshold between science and opinion and it can soon be blurred.

Why must you persecute Saint Dawkins like this?!

 

[Robert.Evans]

Evolution of course.

Evolution by luck or intelligence?

 

[Robert.Evans]

That's what priests do, isn't it?

sometimes I guess

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Somebody crapped on my lawn. If it wasn't a dog, then it must have been a unicorn.

 

[McBell]

still no simple answer. okay. enough, forget it.

It is not my fault you refuse to even look

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I am not sure if they should declare their opinions on such things. People are led by influential people- and that is what they are. I think science should be factual and then shut up. I don't want to know what their opinion is.

Couldn't agree more- the one person who did this was George Lemaitre, he went out of his way to disassociate his beliefs from his theory, it was the atheists who continually linked their preferred philosophical speculations with their theories. But that's the problem with academic v practical science- is any of it anything but opinion?

Hawking is considered by many to be the world's greatest living scientist- can anybody name his greatest achievement?

While many consider powered flight to be the greatest actual practical scientific advancement - brought to us by a couple of high school dropouts.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It's not so much scientists having opinions, but the opinions of scientists being given undue weight in subjects not related to their fields because they're scientists. I may want to listen to Dawkins for example when he speaks about biology, but concerning religion and philosophy he's pretty shallow despite the absurd authority bestowed upon him by his devotees.

I might listen to him for advice on PR campaigns, book sales... that's his area of expertise .


He makes our earlier point about atheist theories better than anybody. When the best selling book from the world's most celebrated evolutionist is called 'The God delusion' it's a bit of a giveaway that certain personal beliefs drive the science here rather than the other way around

 

[Shad]

Yes, M Theory, multiverse theory- both routinely labeled 'science' while being inherently beyond the inconvenience of scientific testing,

science the institution v science the method again

No. It is called theoretical physics. You know the same type that is used for your scripted responses about the Big Bang.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Evolution by luck or intelligence?

False dichotomy. Theological trickery.

 

[Robert.Evans]

False dichotomy. Theological trickery.

go on, give me a third. Evolution will not do.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

go on, give me a third. Evolution will not do.

Evolution is perfect, since it involves both luck and a sort of intelligence. Hurrah!

 

[McBell]

go on, give me a third. Evolution will not do.

To what end?
So you can flat out ignore them and then whine that you do not understand them and then lie about how they were not presented in the first place?
I mean, that is what you did with the TWO examples I presented to you.
Interestingly enough, evolution was not included in my examples.

So now you have three been presented to you.

 

[Unification]

Why must you persecute Saint Dawkins like this?!

Reverand Dawkins is worthy of adoration and praise by many sheep.

 

[Robert.Evans]

To what end?
So you can flat out ignore them and then whine that you do not understand them and then lie about how they were not presented in the first place?
I mean, that is what you did with the TWO examples I presented to you.
Interestingly enough, evolution was not included in my examples.

So now you have three been presented to you.

Evolution through luck or intelligence?
Now give the otehr two. It should be easy enough to type; you seem to be managing to type this. Go onm give it a try. Just type the words and I will answer.

 

[McBell]

Evolution through luck or intelligence?
Now give the otehr two. It should be easy enough to type; you seem to be managing to type this. Go onm give it a try. Just type the words and I will answer.

Fool me once shame on you.
Fool me twice shame on me.

Or do you prefer the pearls before swine meme?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Reverand Dawkins is worthy of adoration and praise by many sheep.

You just don't like what he says, it's too near the truth. But Saint Dawkins will be our first martyr.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Fool me once shame on you.
Fool me twice shame on me.

Or do you prefer the pearls before swine meme?

Evolution through luck or intelligence?
Now give the otehr two. It should be easy enough to type; you seem to be managing to type this. Go onm give it a try. Just type the words and I will answer.