Intelligent Design Passes Peer Review (Again)

Breakpoint ^ | 10/16/20 | John Stonestreet and

[Heartlander]

What are the undesigned objects we can look at to test this notion?

Again, a rock compared to an arrowhead. And again SETI is a good analogy...

[Heartlander]

Hey, and also in that previous thread you said you believe human conscience and consciousness ultimately emerged from mindlessness. I’m curious how you trust your own thoughts to be true? Also, where do you think our Constitutional rights come from?

[semimojo]

Again, a rock compared to an arrowhead.

But according to you, and I suspect the others although they won't say, a rock is designed.

I need to see undesigned objects so I can make sure they don't also contain CSI.

[freedumb2003]

>>Are you being serious? <<

I read the article. The conclusion is it is an interesting direction of thought. It does NOT say it has supplanted TToE, but it might augment it.

The fact you cannot summarize this tells us all you do not understand it. Mindlessly copying and paste is no way to go through life, son.

I did indeed prove my point. And your latest non-response underlines it.

[Heartlander]

Again, we are talking about ID theory - not me or what I believe. This should be very basic and easy to grasp.

[semimojo]

Hey, and also in that previous thread you said you believe human conscience and consciousness ultimately emerged from mindlessness.

Right, because I believe there was a time on earth before conscious humans existed so by definition consciousness emerged.

You never directly answered; do you think the universe was created with conscious humans in place? If not you also believe human consciousness emerged.

I’m curious how you trust your own thoughts to be true?

Do you only trust your thoughts because you think God put them there? Really?

[Heartlander]

I read the article. The conclusion is it is an interesting direction of thought. It does NOT say it has supplanted TToE, but it might augment it.

I never said supplanted TToE – but you read the article at www.sciencedirect.com and it is science – which proves my point – thanks BTW.

I did indeed prove my point.

Again, you have proven something – but it’s not what you think…

[Heartlander]

Oh, and I could try to explain to you ‘what you have proven’ – but you probably wouldn’t understand that either… it’s a shame…

[Heartlander]

I believe, like most people here, that intelligence comes from intelligence – consciousness from consciousness. This should not be a foreign concept.

So where do you think our Constitutional rights come from?

[semimojo]

I believe, like most people here, that intelligence comes from intelligence – consciousness from consciousness.

Yeah, but you're dodging the question you asked me.

Was there ever a time before human consciousness? If so, consciousness emerged via some mechanism.

So where do you think our Constitutional rights come from?

The Constitution, which is a product of men.

[Heartlander]

Was there ever a time before human consciousness? If so, consciousness emerged via some mechanism.

This is no mystery, as you are aware I am a Christian like most on this forum.

The Constitution, which is a product of men.

I could go on about this for quite some time – but if you haven’t figured it out by now – when you started asking the same question over and over without trying to even try to understand - and knowing I've answered this on the other thread - I figured turnabout is fair play. So as I said earlier, we’ve already danced this dance… Do you want to continue?

[semimojo]

This is no mystery, as you are aware I am a Christian like most on this forum.

Of course. You have strong faith and it informs your worldview, which I respect.

What I have trouble with is your unwillingness to leave it at that. You keep posting ID articles that are incoherent, logical messes in an attempt to wedge your faith into a scientific paradigm.

I'm not arguing that your beliefs are wrong, just that they're not scientific and in my view the teachings of the Bible were never intended to be.

[Heartlander]

I posted about another ID peer reviewed article. And yes, I do have strong faith which “again” – has nothing to do with ID theory – can’t seem to get that thru your head (speaking of incoherent, logical messes). The fact that I must repeat something to you over and over should give you a clue that maybe – just maybe - it’s not me – it’s you… Just saying…

You seem to have a strong belief system as well – what do you believe? Atheist, agnostic?

[freedumb2003]

>>Again, you have proven something – but it’s not what you think…<<

Yes. That you should stay in areas you understand.

[Heartlander]

Yep - didn’t think you’d understand... sad really...

[semimojo]

And yes, I do have strong faith which “again” – has nothing to do with ID theory – can’t seem to get that thru your head.

LOL. You're the one who keeps bringing up your faith.

I want to know where are the undesigned objects. I guess it's not fair to ask you to defend the other ID proponents but you posted the article.

[freedumb2003]

Do not put YOUR ignorance on me. Let us revisit this discussion:

Me: explan in your own words show how this science.
You: copy-paste, copy-paste, copy-paste

Me: No, in YOUR words explain.
You: copy-paste, copy-paste, copy-paste, COPY-paste, copy-PASTE, “So there!”

Me: Really, explain IN YOUR WORDS how this fits science (lists a few requirements).
You: copy-paste, copy-paste, copy-paste COPYPASTE!!!COPYPASTE!!!! COOOOOPY aaaaaand. paste. “and it has the word science in it.”

Me: *shrug* Well, thanks for the most fun I have since DLR. He confused sophistry with science, too since he also had no knowledge of the latter.