Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 59 (9025 total)
90 online now:
AnswersInGenitals, AZPaul3, hooah212002, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat) (5 members, 85 visitors)
Newest Member: JustTheFacts
Post Volume: Total: 883,315 Year: 961/14,102 Month: 364/597 Week: 142/96 Day: 10/27 Hour: 0/1

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Is my rock designed?
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member

Message 4 of 219 (481310)
09-10-2008 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by mike the wiz
09-10-2008 9:30 AM

Re: Why is my rock here?
So the rock was designed?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by mike the wiz, posted 09-10-2008 9:30 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member

Message 36 of 219 (482574)
09-17-2008 1:25 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by BVZ
09-17-2008 1:19 AM

Okay... are there really NO ID supporters on this board who can help me figure out if a simple rock is designed or not?

No, there are not.

Come on guys. I know you are out there.

What makes you so sure?

If ID 'theory' can't even be used for something as simple as this, what use is it?

Its only purpose is against evolution, have you not read the Wedge Document?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by BVZ, posted 09-17-2008 1:19 AM BVZ has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by BVZ, posted 09-23-2008 1:53 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member

Message 140 of 219 (640436)
11-09-2011 2:57 PM

They're makin' claims! Quick, everybody pile on and angrily correct all his errors regardless of whether or not they're on topic.

Er... no, please don't.

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by EWCCC777, posted 11-09-2011 3:48 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member

Message 144 of 219 (640441)
11-09-2011 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by EWCCC777
11-09-2011 3:48 PM

The topic is: How do you use ID theory to determine if something, say a rock, was designed or not?

There's no need to talk about evolution or god, I mean "The Designer". If your answer is, "it can't", well then that's that. I agree, it cannot. Its not a real theory and its not science and it doesn't actually *do* anythign at all. Its a sham to disguise religion.

Here's a list of the things you typed that are incorrect:

The DA by definition demands a supernatural, transcendent, metaphysical being.

I'm not sure what "DA" means though...

It{evolution} is no more likely to be empirically proven than is design

many evolutionary concepts cannot be proven

whether evolution is just as valid an idea as Design, or whether Occam would be more pleased with it, is a matter of opinion.

His Majesty Stephen Hawking's idea that the universe sprang from nothingness

{abiogenesis} could be said to boast only shaky compatibility with the Principle of Parsimony

it {Creation} is certainly simpler than the idea of so many years and so many miniscule changes taking us from "goo-to-you,"

I'm not going to get into why they are incorrect because it has nothing to do with how ID can be employed to determine design.

Oh, hey, I'm still waiting for reply to Message 73

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by EWCCC777, posted 11-09-2011 3:48 PM EWCCC777 has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021