Intelligent Design Creationism

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where was nature during her pregnancy or during copulation? I didn't see it in our bedroom.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MrH:
Bad visuals. Severe trauma. Dan, pass me the lye, will you? I'm getting rid of these eyes once and for all.John Paul:
That wouldn't be a great loss as it is clear you didn't use them anyway. For anyone else reading this:
I used the "I didn't see nature" line to directly respond to MrH's "We don't see the designer", crap. Also the ONLY way nature had anything to do with babies is if (and only if) life arose from non-life via purely natural processes (and then to the question, where did nature come from?). Seeing there isn't any evidence to support life from non-life via purely natural processes why, besides belief, why would anyone infer that it did (besides faith)?

LM:
Actually, the bigger stretch is inferring design in biological systems by referring to non-reproducing, man made designs.John Paul:
LoL! I am laughing because Stephen Jones opens his book Darwin's Ghost using an analogy of manufactured goods. Go figure...

holmes:
But you could see the nature. Unless you had the lights off (or your eyes closed) you should have seen all the organs responsible for the generation and distribution of semen, as well as what "caught" them.John Paul:
As I have stated- you can only consider my or my wife's body parts as being part of nature if life originated via purely natural processes.holmes:
If you had conceived artificially you could even watch the sperm puncturing the egg and fertilization begin.With special cameras you could even watch the gestational being grow after implantation.All of that was natural processes using the natural materials interacting right before your eyes.John Paul:
That is nothing but assertion. Where is your evidence that sexual reproduction originated via purely natural processes?holmes:
Nowhere (unless you went with artificial insemination) did you see any 3rd party entering the picture at any time to rearrange pieces and parts and "construct" your baby.John Paul:
And nowhere has anyone observed purely natural processes give life from non-life and give sexual reproduction to asexual populations.holmes:
I am unsure why admitting that we see nothing but the materials found in nature, interacting naturally, is crap, but asserting an intelligent force we do not see and have never seen built your baby "by design" is not.John Paul:
Just because something is found in nature does NOT mean it has natural origins. My house is in the woods. My house was designed and built by an intelligent agency. When we observe nature designing specified complexity I will understand your position. As of now we have never observed this, so why infer it?

I have asked what is Intelligent Design Creationism and have been met with silence. Go figure...

holmes:
I believe this is inaccurate. You are a part of nature by being part of the natural world, which is the ongoing processes of the materials we see around us. How those processes originated does not make them any less part of the natural world.John Paul:
I believe that is inaccurate. But this inaccuracy is derived from defining nature.holmes:
For example, you mention a house. While it may have been designed and constructed, its "life" within the environment will be natural until a wrecking company comes to take it down.John Paul:
My house is and until they knock it down, remain man-made. We have processes in place to differentiate between man-made and nature-made.holmes:
This is the same argument they gave for urea, and then it was manufactured in a lab.John Paul:
Who are they? Is urea any where close to being as specified or complex as life? NO!How is sex a natural process? What is your basis for defining it as such? Couldn't sex be the product of an intelligently designed process? And yes in educated circles the advent of sexual reproduction is an enigma.Ya see holmes, I have never seen anyone build or design Stonehenge yet I can say with conviction that it is the product of design. No one alive seen the Sphinx being built or designed, any question that it was?If you walked through the woods, came upon a meadow and after the meadow were 10,000 trees spaced 10 meters apart in exact 100x100 rows, would you think this was a product of nature or design?

I have asked what is Intelligent Design Creationism and have been met with silence. Go figure...holmes:
MrH has created many well written posts explaining why ID theory is in fact a form of creationism and so IDC theory.John Paul:
Really? Where and why didn't he point these out?holmes:
You asserted that this was not true, stating in support only that you are right and anyone that says otherwise is wrong.John Paul:
Which shows you didn't read my posts.holmes:
You then used a quote from Behe to make an argument for IDs objectivity, without realizing that does not actually make the case that ID is any less about creationism.John Paul:
That is false. Behe's quote has nothing to do with Creation. Behe is NOT a Creationist.holmes:
You need to make a case for why ID is not a form of creationism.John Paul:
This has been done many times on various websites and publications. I can't force anyone to educate themselves to what it is they want to debate against.For my part I will not call you an evolutionist but rather Ignoramus stupidicus.

Percy you have a lot of concerns. I have a life and it does NOT revolve around this discussion board. I post when I can. If I appear to "leave" a discussion or thread it is most likely because there is nothing worth responding to.So if you want to kick me off of this board I really don't care. I can find other forms of entertainment just as easy as I found this.So I say farewell and ado. Hopefully some of you will come to the court house when we finally do bring this to a head- allowing ID in a science classroom. I will look for you there....

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------John Paul writes:
I have a life and it does NOT revolve around this discussion board. I post when I can.Percy:
You are ignoring the primary point and addressing yourself to the inconsequential setting of context. No one is expected to maintain a continuous presence here, but you, like Fred Williams before you, have established a pattern of behavior that involves taking several discussions to midpoint, then leaving for a period of up to a few weeks, then returning to begin discussions in other threads while ignoring the earlier threads. If this is unintentional and inadvertent then I'm bringing it to your attention so you can break this pattern.John Paul:
I leave because sometimes where I go does not have internet access. When I return I usually look at the active threads first. Seeing thyat I can answer everyones' posts I answer what I can. If this were a one on one debate that would be different. Right now I am responding to several people, most who appear clueless as to what they are debating against.

RAZD:
I am mildly amused when people who claim to be christians support ID, as I don't think they have thought through all the ramifications.John Paul:
I am not a christian. I was once but I grew out of it.ID hasn't gone to court as such. It will if it has to and I am more than willing to do so.