Well, based on the way mankind behaves, the creator has to be
an alien life form of some sort....like, maybe transcendant,
perfect, omnipotent, all knowing, merciful, just, etc...
During the Dover trial a prosecution lawyer asked Dr. Padian
(witness for the evolutionists) if it were possible for a
creator to have evolved? Padian chose not to answer cause if he
said YES, the next question would be , then why do you oppose
the concept?, and if he said NO, then it would mean that
evolution didn’t do everything it is supposed to have done(
including evolving man-and man does create stuff y’now)
Just shows how philosophically self-deluded some of the defenders
against ID can be.
Gee, really? I just did a search of all of Padian's testimony during the Dover trial (using a full transcript of the entire trial), and I can't find this question being asked. Perhaps you could quote it for us.
Or perhaps it didn't happen.
Padian chose not to answer
Really? Feel free to cite the actual trial transcript.
If I don't hear back from you, I'll be glad to email Dr. Padian and let you know what *he* has to say about your claims, and the... unique argument you're trying to make on his behalf.
cause if he said YES, the next question would be , then why do you oppose the concept?,
He doesn't "oppose the concept". He opposes several of the false claims and fallacious arguments made on behalf of "ID", and rightly so. Faulty propaganda should indeed be opposed. This remains the case even if "a creator" could evolve.
and if he said NO, then it would mean that evolution didn’t do everything it is supposed to have done( including evolving man-and man does create stuff y’now)
Depends on what exactly you mean by "a creator". But yes, evolution can and has produced organisms (us) capable of making things. This does not mean, however, that arguments against "ID" are invalid, as they are not based on such a premise, nor does it support "ID", especially since "ID" posits that such creativity can *not* evolve or otherwise arise [i]de novo[/i] but must be "endowed" by a prior creator (even though such a claim requires "creators for each creator", thus "creators all the way down". Yeah, right.
Just shows how philosophically self-deluded some of the defenders against ID can be.
Actually, your attempted "argument" shows how "philophically confused" some defenders of ID can be, given how your attempt at a point includes a false dichotomy, a straw man, an ad hominem, sloppy reasoning, and perhaps a false assertion (unless you can produce the portion of the trial transcript in which this alleged exchange took place).
That seems more of an "own goal" than any kind of actual strike against those who recognize that "ID" is mostly all hat and no cattle.
Also, why do you imagine that "the prosecution" would ask such a question? You do realize which side was the prosecution, don't you? Or do you have trouble getting even the easy stuff right?