Intelligent Design and Evolution?

[ding]

Intelligent Design considers the fact that a Creator incorporated a means by which the universe evolves and grows. Consider that if something (we'll call it a God) was powerful enough to create the entire universe, then this creator was also intelligent enough to ensure that the inner workings of life and creation were able to sustain itself without guidance, or a 'hands-on' approach. Consider it part of that free will thing.

I don't dispute anything you say here, except for the notion that it accurately reflects "official" Intelligent Design dogma. Those who actively champion the notion of "Intelligent Design" absolutely do not describe it as you have. If you read up on it just a little bit, it quickly becomes obvious that it's barely modified Creationism.

Would that be true of someone who believes that the laws of nature are such that they are designed to produce a certain kind of "crop?"

 

[Darkwind]

Intelligent Design considers the fact that a Creator incorporated a means by which the universe evolves and grows. Consider that if something (we'll call it a God) was powerful enough to create the entire universe, then this creator was also intelligent enough to ensure that the inner workings of life and creation were able to sustain itself without guidance, or a 'hands-on' approach. Consider it part of that free will thing.

I don't dispute anything you say here, except for the notion that it accurately reflects "official" Intelligent Design dogma. Those who actively champion the notion of "Intelligent Design" absolutely do not describe it as you have. If you read up on it just a little bit, it quickly becomes obvious that it's barely modified Creationism.

These are My own thoughts on the matter. I don't follow any dogma with regard to religion.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No, just make your argument. Start with your premises, then use them to draw a conclusion. You can do it. All by yourself.

No. I am doing it this way.

Do you believe the potential for consciousness and/or intelligence existed when space and time were created?

Sorry, you'll have to answer them yourself. If you have anything resembling a decent argument, it will stand on its own. Catch you later, I guess.

I figured you were too scared to play. Bye.

You are the one that won't make his argument. A decent argument does not depend on another person's opinion. If it makes you feel any better, your argument is predictable and cliche, and it is easily dismissed as circular as you eventually are forced to admit that you are assuming a magical god as evidence for a magical god. So probably wise of you to keep it in reserve.

You are the big talking scientist who is afraid to discuss science.

Do you believe the potential for consciousness and/or intelligence existed when space and time were created?

You do understand this discussion is about the laws of nature, right?

You do believe in the laws of nature, right?

You are qualified to have this discussion, right?

You aren't afraid of a dumb ass christian, are you? Cause it seems that way to me.

You can always spot a charlatan right away. He doesnt actually state his argument. He asks questions in hopes of poking holes and making appeals to emotion, relying on the emotional error that, hey, if that guy is wrong, then the charlatan must be right.

State your argument. Or don't, ya sissy.

 

[ding]

No. I am doing it this way.

Do you believe the potential for consciousness and/or intelligence existed when space and time were created?

Sorry, you'll have to answer them yourself. If you have anything resembling a decent argument, it will stand on its own. Catch you later, I guess.

I figured you were too scared to play. Bye.

You are the one that won't make his argument. A decent argument does not depend on another person's opinion. If it makes you feel any better, your argument is predictable and cliche, and it is easily dismissed as circular as you eventually are forced to admit that you are assuming a magical god as evidence for a magical god. So probably wise of you to keep it in reserve.

You are the big talking scientist who is afraid to discuss science.

Do you believe the potential for consciousness and/or intelligence existed when space and time were created?

You do understand this discussion is about the laws of nature, right?

You do believe in the laws of nature, right?

You are qualified to have this discussion, right?

You aren't afraid of a dumb ass christian, are you? Cause it seems that way to me.

You can always spot a charlatan right away. He doesnt actually state his argument. He asks questions in hopes of poking holes and making appeals to emotion, relying on the emotional error that, hey, if that guy is wrong, then the charlatan must be right.

State your argument. Or don't, ya sissy.

I'm using the Socratic method. You fear my questions.

Do you believe the potential for consciousness and/or intelligence existed when space and time were created?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Sorry, you'll have to answer them yourself. If you have anything resembling a decent argument, it will stand on its own. Catch you later, I guess.

I figured you were too scared to play. Bye.

You are the one that won't make his argument. A decent argument does not depend on another person's opinion. If it makes you feel any better, your argument is predictable and cliche, and it is easily dismissed as circular as you eventually are forced to admit that you are assuming a magical god as evidence for a magical god. So probably wise of you to keep it in reserve.

You are the big talking scientist who is afraid to discuss science.

Do you believe the potential for consciousness and/or intelligence existed when space and time were created?

You do understand this discussion is about the laws of nature, right?

You do believe in the laws of nature, right?

You are qualified to have this discussion, right?

You aren't afraid of a dumb ass christian, are you? Cause it seems that way to me.

You can always spot a charlatan right away. He doesnt actually state his argument. He asks questions in hopes of poking holes and making appeals to emotion, relying on the emotional error that, hey, if that guy is wrong, then the charlatan must be right.

State your argument. Or don't, ya sissy.

I'm using the Socratic method. You fear my questions.

Do you believe the potential for consciousness and/or intelligence existed when space and time were created?

Just state the argument. Socrates would smack you for being a sissy. Socrates could state his argument.

 

[ding]

I figured you were too scared to play. Bye.

You are the one that won't make his argument. A decent argument does not depend on another person's opinion. If it makes you feel any better, your argument is predictable and cliche, and it is easily dismissed as circular as you eventually are forced to admit that you are assuming a magical god as evidence for a magical god. So probably wise of you to keep it in reserve.

You are the big talking scientist who is afraid to discuss science.

Do you believe the potential for consciousness and/or intelligence existed when space and time were created?

You do understand this discussion is about the laws of nature, right?

You do believe in the laws of nature, right?

You are qualified to have this discussion, right?

You aren't afraid of a dumb ass christian, are you? Cause it seems that way to me.

You can always spot a charlatan right away. He doesnt actually state his argument. He asks questions in hopes of poking holes and making appeals to emotion, relying on the emotional error that, hey, if that guy is wrong, then the charlatan must be right.

State your argument. Or don't, ya sissy.

I'm using the Socratic method. You fear my questions.

Do you believe the potential for consciousness and/or intelligence existed when space and time were created?

Just state the argument. Socrates would smack you for being a sissy. Socrates could state his argument.

Actually he would be smiling right now. He's seen this before.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You are the one that won't make his argument. A decent argument does not depend on another person's opinion. If it makes you feel any better, your argument is predictable and cliche, and it is easily dismissed as circular as you eventually are forced to admit that you are assuming a magical god as evidence for a magical god. So probably wise of you to keep it in reserve.

You are the big talking scientist who is afraid to discuss science.

Do you believe the potential for consciousness and/or intelligence existed when space and time were created?

You do understand this discussion is about the laws of nature, right?

You do believe in the laws of nature, right?

You are qualified to have this discussion, right?

You aren't afraid of a dumb ass christian, are you? Cause it seems that way to me.

You can always spot a charlatan right away. He doesnt actually state his argument. He asks questions in hopes of poking holes and making appeals to emotion, relying on the emotional error that, hey, if that guy is wrong, then the charlatan must be right.

State your argument. Or don't, ya sissy.

I'm using the Socratic method. You fear my questions.

Do you believe the potential for consciousness and/or intelligence existed when space and time were created?

Just state the argument. Socrates would smack you for being a sissy. Socrates could state his argument.

Actually he would be smiling right now. He's seen this before.

That's nice, but I have to think that Socrates would always be capable of stating his argument.

You? I'm starting to think you dont know how to form an argument...as evidenced by about 40 posts of avoiding this seemingly simple task.

 

[ding]

You are the big talking scientist who is afraid to discuss science.

Do you believe the potential for consciousness and/or intelligence existed when space and time were created?

You do understand this discussion is about the laws of nature, right?

You do believe in the laws of nature, right?

You are qualified to have this discussion, right?

You aren't afraid of a dumb ass christian, are you? Cause it seems that way to me.

You can always spot a charlatan right away. He doesnt actually state his argument. He asks questions in hopes of poking holes and making appeals to emotion, relying on the emotional error that, hey, if that guy is wrong, then the charlatan must be right.

State your argument. Or don't, ya sissy.

I'm using the Socratic method. You fear my questions.

Do you believe the potential for consciousness and/or intelligence existed when space and time were created?

Just state the argument. Socrates would smack you for being a sissy. Socrates could state his argument.

Actually he would be smiling right now. He's seen this before.

That's nice, but I have to think that Socrates would always be capable of stating his argument.

You? I'm starting to think you dont know how to form an argument...as evidenced by about 40 posts of avoiding this seemingly simple task.

My argument has been made about a hundred times here. It's not that hard to find.

That's pretty ironic considering you refused to answer whether or not the potential for consciousness existed when space and time were created.

The answer is obviously yes BTW. Anyone who knows anything about science and logic would know this. Which is why I asked about your background. I'm sorry it paralyzed you.