Your whole argument rests on this single statement. ID Theory is the claim that processes only exist because of a creator. It is just a baseless assertion with no evidence to support it, and therefore should not be considered to be even slightly scientific.
Well, thanks for the answer. There is no reason to think that processes only exist because of a creator - but at least we now know what ID 'Theory' is.
p.s. And to make things worse: it is a circular argument.
If we were to continue along the line of questioning started with "Is my stone designed"... Panda: "Are planets designed?" RB: "Yes. Planets are designed by a creator." Panda: "How do you know?" RB: "All processes are designed by a creator." Panda: "Is rain designed?" RB: "Yes. Rain is designed by a creator." Panda: "How do you know?" RB: "All processes are designed by a creator."
The conclusion that stones, planets and rain (and all other processes) are designed by a creator is based upon the premise that all processes are designed by a creator.
If I were you And I wish that I were you All the things I'd do To make myself turn blue
Don't forget that this does not apply to Yahweh. He created himself. And no, it's not special pleading because Yahweh can by definition do anything.
Hope that sorts things out for you.
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
Why? you gave no reason? Yet I can still post and not banned like everywhere else. my answers are good and reasonable and not breaking any rules. This is a conversation to persuade each other. Nothing wrong WHATSOEVER with my answers here. I know that. I address in good faith and humour and will everyone here. The whole thread is show the wrong thinking of creationists. If we are wrong then we must see our error. Banning us for the error , we do not see, is very oddly wrong. One should seek a audience and not censor away one side. can i get a vote on this?!