Suppose the Resurrection was proven false, what would explain the Gospels?

The Pixie

Well-known member
If it will help to shut up the pixie's purple parroting, may I chime in?

YES, I think the designer is actually the Christian God!
No, that does not help - I appreciate plenty of Christians think the designer is the Christian God! I will only stop when Martin answers it. See if you can persuade him to.
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
No, that does not help -

OK, then let's at least have some fun and make the best of a monotonous situation. Readers, give your prediction on the number of times in his next response to Martin, Pixie will parrot in purple THIS:


And what of yourself, Martin? Do YOU think the designer is actually the Christian God?
 

Algor

Well-known member
After weeks of The Pixie crying about not being informed of when I respond... i certainly changed some things up.
How sad it must be to hold the personal need to claim people are copying their 'patented' style ... I have seen hundreds of posts by others that maybe the Pixie is copying? Or maybe our self-proclaimed PhD actually taught everyone how to post responses. Too funny The Pix can be very amusing at times.


Just a few of our PhD's most memorable blunders and confusions:

"Evolution is as close to proven as possible"... Too funny and has been shot down so so many times NOTHING in darwinian Evolution have been proven besides macro evolution where the little birdie beaks all grew longer/shorter/thicker or thinner depending on the need... but no birds ever turned into anything other than a bird.

"Evolution could be false; if mermaids existed, that would prove it false."... Again a failed attempt from a (self-proclaimed) phd. The Pix then was exposed and shown that just because a part mushroom-crab-pixie-girl-fish does not exist offers zero credibility to Evolution.... that was lost on the Pix or went way over their head.

The Pixie wants everyone to know that she/he fully believes in Darwinian Evolution - but in so many posts the PIXIE herself (or himself) self destructs their own logic and tries to push for 'co-option' and 'preadaptation' .. .actually using links to support both anti-Darwin concepts.... Darwin is about random, slow blind processes. the Pixie has no responses for all the massive evidence of how life actually showed up so rapidly and then pretty much just stayed as it was. What the Pix tried to push was just talking from the other side of the mouth and effectively abandoning Darwinian theory for that of a much more rapid one.

The Pixie tried to pass off the Goatsbeard as an example of a new species.... in fact going so far as claiming that the inability to interbreed is a text book example of a species... but then when called out - Wolves, dogs interbreed .... and many many other species as well the Pix tried to walk back and claim it is all 'fuzzy' LMAO.

The Pixie openly claimed that the scientific study for life outside of Earth 'SETI' .. by hundreds of scientists using real and valid science.... "uses science but is not science" The contortions, word salads and mental gymnastics the Pixie then tried to pull of supporting why SETI is not science is just amazing.... but lacking in any reason nor logic... I should see if we can get an actual scientist working on SETI to set the Pix straight.... if that would even help who knows. The Pix only wants to fake ignorance and claim some other poster (unnammed - probably the Pix for all we know since their logic is lacking and reasoning is only opinion based)....
Can't run from that one PIX. you can try to quote another unnamed poster and try to use their uneducated OPINION off as some type of post-able link that you feel comforts your false claims... but you really need to try harder... SETI is a scientific endeavor ...uses science and is science.
I have to give you credit for persistence.

Did you ever do those PubMed searches I suggested?
 

Martin23233

Active member

ID Is About Religion​


Fact:

It is a fact that the Discovery Institute maintains two web sites, one (intelligentdesign.org) carefully stripped of religion to present the "sciency" face of ID. The other (discovery.org) that reveals they sponsor conferences like "The Convergence of Science & Theology" and "Dallas Conference on Science & Faith".

This is not just my opinion. People can go to these web sites and see the truth for themselves.
Fact there are many Christians that do not believe in ID.. Many Catholics don't, most all Thomasts(mostly Catholics) do not, No Jehovah Witnesses that I have debated does.... list goes on so clearly The Pix is just all bluster. here is just one proof of proving The Pixie's claims are just Pixie dust:


her he thinks the designer is God. It is a fact that he ignored the question all three times. These are facts anyone can confirm by going back through the last couple of pages of the thread. This is not my opinion.

The simple fact is Martin cannot say one way or another whether he thinks the designer is God.

And the reason for that is that the answer is yes, but if he admits that, the disguise slips and ID is revealed to be creationism.

Fact:

ID is about religion. This has been established in a court of law.
Since our resident 'self-proclaimed' PhD keeps on messing up lets just correct he/she:
https://intelligentdesign.org/whatisid/

No. The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the “apparent design” in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.

So clearly we can see how wrong/incorrect/misinformed/mistaken The Pixie is .. is she/he trying to be deceitful? well once the Pix is shown the facts but still tries their ploy of ID = Religion.... and fails...then one has to honestly ask what is the agenda?
As was explained before (and of course ignored) many in the religious field do align with ID showing strong evidence for there being a God as adopted by the Discovery Institute by most there..... however that is not evidence for ID ='s Religion/s
The resident 'self-proclaimed' PhD just embarrasses themselves when trying to make a false association between one partial example with all other possible examples... the logic just failed badly for her/him. Why make such a blunder from a self-proclaimed PhD?
 

Martin23233

Active member
Pixie's purple parroting presents probabilistic possibilities. Martin's moronic maunderings make morose meditation.
What problems would Pixie's purple parroting possibly be? Once Pixie can factually grasp ID one can actually answer. Otherwise it would be like explaining basics about algebra when the child can only count to 10 (or something like that).
Opps.. we really should not be talking about The Pixie w/o tagging them... you know how the Pixie complains about people who don't respond directly (even though they clearly type in her name)... rather sensitive that type of thing is.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member

Statistics​


Last time around I pointed out that Martin quoted less than 15% of my posts to him, ignoring 85%. Previously he skipped my entire post, and before that quoted 6% of my posts, and ignored 94% of it.

My last post had 5335 characters in it (excluding quotes). Martin's last post replying to that had 981 characters quoted from my post. That means he is ignoring 82% of my post, so pretty similar to last time.


Most Christians Reject ID​

Fact there are many Christians that do not believe in ID.. Many Catholics don't, most all Thomasts(mostly Catholics) do not, No Jehovah Witnesses that I have debated does.... list goes on
Right.

So we agree most most Christians reject ID. Fact is, most Christians accept evolution. Of the hundreds of thousands of scientists working right now in biology and who accept evolution, a large fraction of them will be Christians.

So what exactly is your point Martin?

Are you saying ID has some validity because your fellow Christians reject it? Want to talk me through your thinking there?

Did not think so.

so clearly The Pix is just all bluster.
Wait - you are concluding I am all bluster from the fact that most Christians agree with me that evolution is true?

I am curious. Do you every actually think before you post? You might want to consider doing so.


A Paper By Koons and Gage​

here is just one proof of proving The Pixie's claims are just Pixie dust:

It is interesting that Martin cannot present the argument in his own words. I can only speculate, but I am guess he does not actually understand it. For those who want to read it, you can find it here without having to sign in to anything.

So what is the paper about? From the abstract:

In recent years, a number of Catholic philosophers, theologians, and scientists have expressed opposition to ID. Some of these critics claim that there is a conflict between the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas and that of the ID movement, and even an affinity between Aquinas’s ideas and theistic Darwinism. We consider six such criticisms and find each wanting

So this is a paper that is trying to reconcile ID with Catholicism. That is, Koons and Gage are trying to persuade their fellow Christians that ID is true. And Martin wants us to think this paper is someway supports his increasingly-laughable claim that ID is not about religion?

Again, I am guess Martin does not understand the paper. Did he even read it?


Two Faces Of ID​

Since our resident 'self-proclaimed' PhD keeps on messing up lets just correct he/she:
https://intelligentdesign.org/whatisid/
As I proved before, the Discovery Institute has two faces. One face maintains the façade, and tries to looks all sciency. The other face, they let the façade slip, and we see the faith that it is built on.

Martin seems to think that quoting from the former face will distract us, so we do not see the latter face.

Here is a great example of the all sciency façade of the Discovery Institute
No. The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the “apparent design” in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.
Sounds great.

But read it carefully. The difference between ID and creationism is the former starts with empirical evidence, the later with religious text.

What did Martin start with? Did he look at the bacterial flagellum and saw the hallmark of design, and so became an IDists? Or was he Christian first, regularly reading the Bible, and that was what led him to be an IDist? What of other IDists? How many of them were theists first, intimately familiar with those religious texts, and only later looking for design in nature?

What intelligent design is, then, is an edited account of what happened. Each IDist started with the religious text, but they edit that bit out of the account to make it look like it is not really creationism.

Can you answer this question, Martin?

And what of yourself, Martin? Do YOU think the designer is actually the Christian God?

Of course not. To do so would reveal that - like the other IDists - you started with the religious text, but now - like the other IDists - you want to present this façade called ID.



False Accusations​

So clearly we can see how wrong/incorrect/misinformed/mistaken The Pixie is .. is she/he trying to be deceitful? well once the Pix is shown the facts but still tries their ploy of ID = Religion.... and fails...then one has to honestly ask what is the agenda?
Martin is so full of it. I have proved beyond reasonable doubt that ID is about religion. A court of law has determined that ID is about religion.

As was explained before (and of course ignored) ...
This from the guy who regularly ignores 80% to 100% of my posts! The unabashed hypocrisy here is astounding.

As was explained before (and of course ignored) many in the religious field do align with ID showing strong evidence for there being a God as adopted by the Discovery Institute by most there..... however that is not evidence for ID ='s Religion/s
What is it Martin thinks I have ignored here?

Is he really claiming I have ignored the fact that virtually all IDists are creationists? I am pretty sure I have pointed that out in support of my position. But Martin is, it seems, desperate to accuse me of ignoring something, so he is accusing me of ignoring something that actually supports my position and undermines his own!

The resident 'self-proclaimed' PhD just embarrasses themselves when trying to make a false association between one partial example with all other possible examples... the logic just failed badly for her/him. Why make such a blunder from a self-proclaimed PhD?
What is he even taking about here? What partial example? What does that even mean? Either something is an example of other or not.


That Oh-so-taxing Question For Martin Again​

What problems would Pixie's purple parroting possibly be? Once Pixie can factually grasp ID one can actually answer. Otherwise it would be like explaining basics about algebra when the child can only count to 10 (or something like that).
So in Martin's head, answering this simple yes/no question is like explaining algebra to a young child:

And what of yourself, Martin? Do YOU think the designer is actually the Christian God?


Martin's Only Hope​

Opps.. we really should not be talking about The Pixie w/o tagging them... you know how the Pixie complains about people who don't respond directly (even though they clearly type in her name)... rather sensitive that type of thing is.
I point out when you fail to do that because it is further evidence that you have lost the argument, and your only hope is that I do not notice you posting, and so you get the last word.

It is kind of pathetic, but at this point, what hope do you have? You are citing papers you clearly never read. You are making arguments that end up supporting my position. You are obliged to routinely ignore 80% to 100% of my posts because you just have no come back.

And you still cannot answer this simple question:

And what of yourself, Martin? Do YOU think the designer is actually the Christian God?
 

Martin23233

Active member

Statistics​


Last time around I pointed out that Martin quoted less than 15% of my posts to him, ignoring 85%. Previously he skipped my entire post, and before that quoted 6% of my posts, and ignored 94% of it.

My last post had 5335 characters in it (excluding quotes). Martin's last post replying to that had 981 characters quoted from my post. That means he is ignoring 82% of my post, so pretty similar to last time.
How sad it must be to be playing the Pixie's self proclaimed Phd stance? Funny how the Pix just ignores the facts and data and then tries her best to spin things as me ignoring her questions. Too funny . Let's all watch how badly the Pix lacks the logic to carry on a real discussion (typical atheist ploy when they have nothing)

I usually respond to the Pix in chunks and take my time .. not hers... she is constantly whining about not getting addressed properly or not being answered how she wants (or understands) ... sadly.

Most Christians Reject ID​


Right.

So we agree most most Christians reject ID. Fact is, most Christians accept evolution. Of the hundreds of thousands of scientists working right now in biology and who accept evolution, a large fraction of them will be Christians.

So what exactly is your point Martin?

Are you saying ID has some validity because your fellow Christians reject it? Want to talk me through your thinking there?
Wrong once again Pix - No... you make simplistic and grand assumptions " So we agree most most Christians reject ID"
So wrong kiddo - fact is that most Christians don't know what ID is. Like you. The Pixie has a very misguided and agenda driven view of what ID is - I have exposed this several times. It is enjoyable to keep her on track but, like rounding up blind cats.... it takes time. lets review once again where we have actual Christians not accepting ID:

and no Pix...sorry you did not grasp my point but it is not because many Christians reject it... it is just pointing out your false/incorrect/wrong/misguided claims and attempts to marry ID with religion. you can't ...sorry...not sorry.
Did not think so.
you have that partially right .. the "not think" part.
Wait - you are concluding I am all bluster from the fact that most Christians agree with me that evolution is true?

I am curious. Do you every actually think before you post? You might want to consider doing so.
Again - such a sad example of someone claiming to be a PhD... you don't cite any data on this claim so I am clearly not going along with your silly attempts. Saying so don't make it so Pixie

A Paper By Koons and Gage​


It is interesting that Martin cannot present the argument in his own words. I can only speculate, but I am guess he does not actually understand it. For those who want to read it, you can find it here without having to sign in to anything.

So what is the paper about? From the abstract:

In recent years, a number of Catholic philosophers, theologians, and scientists have expressed opposition to ID. Some of these critics claim that there is a conflict between the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas and that of the ID movement, and even an affinity between Aquinas’s ideas and theistic Darwinism. We consider six such criticisms and find each wanting

So this is a paper that is trying to reconcile ID with Catholicism. That is, Koons and Gage are trying to persuade their fellow Christians that ID is true. And Martin wants us to think this paper is someway supports his increasingly-laughable claim that ID is not about religion?

Again, I am guess Martin does not understand the paper. Did he even read it?
Nice try at spinning .. you would make a great politician. I guess you are really not adept enough at reading for comprehension yet so I'll quote what you also quoted but I'll straighten out your 'spiny spin' ; "In recent years, a number of Catholic philosophers, theologians, and scientists have expressed opposition to ID. Some of these critics claim that there is a conflict between the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas and that of the ID movement, and even an affinity between Aquinas’s ideas and theistic Darwinism. We consider six such criticisms and find each wanting" - YES this article openly points out the Catholic opposition and it is trying to counter that - if you missed that ..you really need to take a break and go stare at your PhD certificate and ponder why all the wasted time?

Two Faces Of ID​


As I proved before, the Discovery Institute has two faces. One face maintains the façade, and tries to looks all sciency. The other face, they let the façade slip, and we see the faith that it is built on.

Martin seems to think that quoting from the former face will distract us, so we do not see the latter face.

Here is a great example of the all sciency façade of the Discovery Institute

Sounds great.
The Pixie gets lost once again. Had the Pix actually grasped what ID is the she would not make such blunders - embarrassing blunders
ID does not purport to know who, what , where the Designer is. It only points out through science that there is intelligence behind certain detected design that is not natural randomness. But intelligence.
Now why is it that the Pix can't understand that basic core point of ID? Maybe it is because it destroys most of what the Pixie tries to spin. Good thing I'm here to point out the Pix's failure to comprehend ID. This is why the Pix keeps claiming clearly odd and incongruent comments about ID.
Let's point it out to the Pix again waht ID does openly states:
https://intelligentdesign.org/whatisid/
No. The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the “apparent design” in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.

Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he “agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement.” Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are “the easiest way to discredit intelligent design.” In other words, the charge that intelligent design is “creationism” is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case.



Some of what you posted (and will claim that I did not address) was already addressed and ignored by the Pix) but I'll address it out of courtesy - but it will do you good Pix to grasp ID and quit making false claims about it... otherwise I can't really address your questions until you some some level of competency of ID(like I stated previously and you felt you can just ignore)... we'll press you a bit harder to 'man' up and show you understand what you are discussing soon enough.. this will be fun.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member

Statistics​

So my last post was 4960 characters, ignoring quotes. Of that, Martin quoted 2183 characters. That is 44%, which is actually pretty god for Martin.

I mean, he is still ignoring over half of what I post, but still quite an improvement on the 80% to 100% he was ignoring previously. I strongly suspect he will be back to normal in his next post.

How sad it must be to be playing the Pixie's self proclaimed Phd stance? Funny how the Pix just ignores the facts and data and then tries her best to spin things as me ignoring her questions. Too funny . Let's all watch how badly the Pix lacks the logic to carry on a real discussion (typical atheist ploy when they have nothing)
The fact is that Martin has ignored over half of what I posted. The fact is that in his previous four responses he was ignoring 80% to 100% of what I posted.

There is no spinning here. Anyone can look back and confirm my figures.

Even Martin could. Obviously he will not, because he knows what the facts are. He is not disputing these facts. He cannot - he knows he previously just ignored 80% to 100% of my posts.

So he pretends. He pretends that him ignoring 80% to 100% of my posts is not proof that he ignores my questions, when clearly it is. He pretends I cannot "carry on a real discussion", when the reality is that the discussions stop when Martin just ignores that part of my post. I cannot carry on a real discussion because my opponent keeps ignoring what I post!

I usually respond to the Pix in chunks and take my time .. not hers... she is constantly whining about not getting addressed properly or not being answered how she wants (or understands) ... sadly.
How Martin responds is not the issue.

The fact is that he ignores most of what I post. And I do emphasise that that is a FACT, and furthermore a fact Martin is unable to refute.

What he characterises as whining is me pointing out a reality he would prefer to hide. He lacks the ability to address my posts, so wants to quietly sweep them under the carpet, and then gets bent all out of shape when I lift up the carpet and expose what he has been up to.

It is sad and, to be frank, not a little deceitful on his part.


Most Christians Reject ID​

In an earlier post Martin said:
Fact there are many Christians that do not believe in ID.. Many Catholics don't, most all Thomasts(mostly Catholics) do not, No Jehovah Witnesses that I have debated does.... list goes on
Wrong once again Pix - No... you make simplistic and grand assumptions " So we agree most most Christians reject ID"
So wrong kiddo - fact is that most Christians don't know what ID is.
See how Martin twists and turns. Reality is a harsh mistress when you spin deceit.

Previously he was telling us about all the Christians who do not believe in ID. Now he has changed his story, and they merely do not understand it.

Here are some figures for the US.

Even in the US, where creationism (even in it ID disguise) is strongest, most Christians believe in evolution.


ID Is About Religion​

Like you. The Pixie has a very misguided and agenda driven view of what ID is - I have exposed this several times. It is enjoyable to keep her on track but, like rounding up blind cats.... it takes time.
The simple fact is that Martin cannot answer this question:

And what of yourself, Martin? Do YOU think the designer is actually the Christian God?

I asked that in six posts - #2464, #2469, #2480, #2494, #2500 and #2508 - sometimes multiple times in one post, usually in bold and italic and purple so Martin cannot miss it. But every time he dodges the question.

Why?

Because if he did answer it, he would give the game away. ID is creationism where you keep the identity of the designer secret so it can be sneaked into schools. This was proved in a court of law. The fact that Martin cannot answer confirms that ID is creationism in disguise.

lets review once again where we have actual Christians not accepting ID:
Why is Martin again citing an article that is trying to persuade Catholics that ID is true?

Why would an ID article targeting a religious group make anyone thing ID is not religious?

and no Pix...sorry you did not grasp my point but it is not because many Christians reject it... it is just pointing out your false/incorrect/wrong/misguided claims and attempts to marry ID with religion. you can't ...sorry...not sorry.
So his point is what? He originally said "Fact there are many Christians that do not believe in ID." Is that supposed to be evidence ID is not about religion? Many Christians reject Catholicism, but Catholicism is still a religion!

and no Pix...sorry you did not grasp my point but it is not because many Christians reject it... it is just pointing out your false/incorrect/wrong/misguided claims and attempts to marry ID with religion. you can't ...sorry...not sorry.
As far as I can see, all Martin is saying here is that I am not allowed to "marry ID with religion" and his reasoning is that, after consulting a thesaurus, he labels doing so "false", "incorrect", "wrong" and "misguided".

Where is the evidence? Where is the reasoning? He has none.

Again - such a sad example of someone claiming to be a PhD... you don't cite any data on this claim so I am clearly not going along with your silly attempts. Saying so don't make it so Pixie
The irony, of course, is that "saying so" is the only argument Martin has.

Meanwhile I can point to the fact that the Discovery Institute maintains two web sites, one that is all sciency and keeps up the facade; one that admits to his religious foundation.

Meanwhile I can point to the fact that a court of law determined the ID is creationism in disguise.

Meanwhile I can point to the fact that a court of law determined the ID is creationism in disguise.

And what of yourself, Martin? Do YOU think the designer is actually the Christian God?

These are facts that Martin time and time again ignores.


A Paper By Koons and Gage​

The challenge here is trying to work out what Martin's point actually is. He introduced this paper thus:

Fact there are many Christians that do not believe in ID.. Many Catholics don't, most all Thomasts(mostly Catholics) do not, No Jehovah Witnesses that I have debated does.... list goes on so clearly The Pix is just all bluster. here is just one proof of proving The Pixie's claims are just Pixie dust:

So the paper By Koons and Gage is "just one proof of proving The Pixie's claims are just Pixie dust", but what claim is he talking about?

Bear in mind that half the time poor Martin is battling straw men, this is not necessarily a claim I ever made, so it could be anything. Let us see what he says this time around, but first a bit of the text he was responding to:

I earlier said:
So this is a paper that is trying to reconcile ID with Catholicism. That is, Koons and Gage are trying to persuade their fellow Christians that ID is true. And Martin wants us to think this paper is someway supports his increasingly-laughable claim that ID is not about religion?
Nice try at spinning .. you would make a great politician. I guess you are really not adept enough at reading for comprehension yet so I'll quote what you also quoted but I'll straighten out your 'spiny spin' ; "In recent years, a number of Catholic philosophers, theologians, and scientists have expressed opposition to ID. Some of these critics claim that there is a conflict between the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas and that of the ID movement, and even an affinity between Aquinas’s ideas and theistic Darwinism. We consider six such criticisms and find each wanting" - YES this article openly points out the Catholic opposition and it is trying to counter that - if you missed that ..you really need to take a break and go stare at your PhD certificate and ponder why all the wasted time?
So I pointed out that this paper points out the Catholic opposition to ID and is trying to counter that, and Martin responds by saying: "openly points out the Catholic opposition and it is trying to counter that". Just to be clear, Martin, I did not miss that. I pointed it out to you.

So great. We agree the paper is targeting Catholics, trying to convince them ID is true. Now, what is Martin's point again? Anyone got a clue?

I am pretty sure Martin does not, so I am sure he would be grateful if you could tell him.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member

Two Faces Of ID​

The Pixie gets lost once again. Had the Pix actually grasped what ID is the she would not make such blunders - embarrassing blunders
Martin makes accusations like this time and time again. But what are these supposed blunders? So often they are just claims I make that are supported by science, but disagree with Martin's uniformed opinions. Or are just made up, just straw men.

ID does not purport to know who, what , where the Designer is. It only points out through science that there is intelligence behind certain detected design that is not natural randomness. But intelligence.
Is this supposed to be my blunder?

Of course ID does not purport to know who, what, where the Designer is. That is what makes it ID, and not creationism - you keep the identity of the designer secret so you can sneak ID into schools.

This is why Martin cannot answer this question:

And what of yourself, Martin? Do YOU think the designer is actually the Christian God?

He is an IDists, so has to keep the identity of the designer secret.

Now why is it that the Pix can't understand that basic core point of ID? Maybe it is because it destroys most of what the Pixie tries to spin. Good thing I'm here to point out the Pix's failure to comprehend ID. This is why the Pix keeps claiming clearly odd and incongruent comments about ID.
Martin has this exactly wrong. The basic core of ID - purporting not to know who, what, where the Designer is - is foundational to my argument!

Let's point it out to the Pix again waht ID does openly states:
https://intelligentdesign.org/whatisid/
There is what ID openly states, and then there is the secret it tries to hide.

Remember, the core of ID is purporting not to know who, what, where the Designer is. This is why Martin cannot answer this question:

And what of yourself, Martin? Do YOU think the designer is actually the Christian God?

Is anyone in any doubt what the answer is? Of course not! We all know he thinks the designer is actually the Christian God. But he is an IDists, and the core of ID is purporting not to know who, what, where the Designer is. So time and time again, Martin ignores this question.

Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism....
The difference between ID and creationism is that ID purports not to know who, what, where the Designer is.

Far from being a blunder on my part, this is what I have been pointing out for weeks!


Jam Tomorrow...​

Some of what you posted (and will claim that I did not address) was already addressed and ignored by the Pix) but I'll address it out of courtesy - but it will do you good Pix to grasp ID and quit making false claims about it... otherwise I can't really address your questions until you some some level of competency of ID(like I stated previously and you felt you can just ignore)... we'll press you a bit harder to 'man' up and show you understand what you are discussing soon enough.. this will be fun.
But we agree! We both agree that the basic core of ID is purporting not to know who, what, where the Designer is.

So now you can get to addressing all things you have failed to address over our discussion, for example:
  • the probability calculations for ID (post #2480)
  • how the DI skipped predictions from the scientific method (post #2479)
  • your false accusation that I quote-mined Dembski's book (post #2382)
  • plant galls (post #2085)
  • what your definition of species is (so many posts)
You say "this will be fun". Are you really looking forward to discussing these topics? We all know you ignored them originally because you have no answer. Do you honestly think anyone is falling for your bluster and bravado?

Let us be realistic here, we all know you will continue to ignore them - there is no chance you will address any of these.
 

Komodo

Well-known member
So great. We agree the paper is targeting Catholics, trying to convince them ID is true. Now, what is Martin's point again? Anyone got a clue?
My best guess is that the claim is, "if many religious people are opposed to ID, ID cannot be intrinsically religious." As you noted, this is absurd, because it would equally well prove "if many religious people are opposed to Catholicism, Catholicism cannot be intrinsically religious." For that matter, it would equally well prove "if many fans of baseball teams hate the New York Yankees, the New York Yankees cannot be a baseball team."

As long as I'm here.... I'd make a distinction between ID in the abstract and the ID movement as it exists in the U.S. In the abstract, or theoretically, the proposition that life was designed is not necessarily religious; in practice, the movement is certainly religious in motivation.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
As long as I'm here.... I'd make a distinction between ID in the abstract and the ID movement as it exists in the U.S. In the abstract, or theoretically, the proposition that life was designed is not necessarily religious; in practice, the movement is certainly religious in motivation.
That is a fair point. ID could be real science. After all, archaeology and forensic science detect design on a routine basis. Though in both cases it is debatable if it is science, it is close enough to show the huge gulf between real science and what ID actually is.

At the end of the day, people believe ID because of their religious beliefs. The only difference to creationists is that IDists pretend that that is not the case.
 

Martin23233

Active member
That is a fair point. ID could be real science. After all, archaeology and forensic science detect design on a routine basis. Though in both cases it is debatable if it is science, it is close enough to show the huge gulf between real science and what ID actually is.

At the end of the day, people believe ID because of their religious beliefs. The only difference to creationists is that IDists pretend that that is not the case.
It is sad that you hold such a low opinion there Pix. But of course it is just your opinion. It gets harder and harder to believe in what you pretend you know....... " people believe ID because of their religious beliefs" That certainly might be so in some cases... many cases or few cases...but you raise a good theory.... just as an atheist claims they believe there is no God.... neither can prove either.....nor can they disprove. All ID does is show scientific evidence of a higher intelligence.... You can claim it is not 'a science' but what you can't claim is that it does not use science.
just like SETI.... you personally keep saying that the scientific research for life...regardless of all the science it uses and all the scientists that use the scientific tools ..that SETI is just not 'a science' - sadly most all scientists researching SETI would disagree with you and your narrow view of 'a science'.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member

Statistics​

So my last post was 8023 characters, ignoring quotes. Of that, Martin quoted just 433 characters. That is not even 6%, which is poor even for Martin!

He typically ignores 80% to 100%, but last time had that down to not much over half. This was, however, entirely predictable, and last time I even said: "I strongly suspect he will be back to normal in his next post."

I think we can say that last time's figure of 56% ignored was just a statistical blip.


ID Is About Religion​

It is sad that you hold such a low opinion there Pix. But of course it is just your opinion.
That is right, Martin, it is just my opinion.

Is it your opinion that ID is not about religion? Or is that a deceit you spin? Why is it you cannot answer this simple question:

And what of yourself, Martin? Do YOU think the designer is actually the Christian God?

I think it is because your opinion is that ID is about religion too, but you are pretending otherwise. I can see no other reason why you steadfastly refuse to answer the simple question.

It gets harder and harder to believe in what you pretend you know.......
Is that a confession, Martin?

If you honestly think ID is not about religion, answer this question:

And what of yourself, Martin? Do YOU think the designer is actually the Christian God?

" people believe ID because of their religious beliefs" That certainly might be so in some cases... many cases or few cases...but you raise a good theory.... just as an atheist claims they believe there is no God.... neither can prove either.....nor can they disprove.
Like any hypothesis in science, it cannot be proved. This has been pointed out many times.

But it does follow the scientific method.

Observation
I have made observations such as all IDists are creationists and the evidence is so flawed, plus IDists claim ID is real science and not creationism.​
Hypothesis
I suggest that ID is creationism masquerading as science; that is creationism where its advocates pretend the designer is not God.​
Prediction
A necessary consequence of that hypothesis is that IDists think the designer is the Abrahamic God, but can never admit to that. Therefore, I can predict that an IDist will be unable to answer the question: Do you think the designer is God?
Experiment
In this thread, I have conducted the experiment to confirm the hypothesis. The result was exactly as predicted​

See, Martin, this is how science works. My hypothesis is falsifiable - if you had answered the question the hypothesis would be shown to be false. It makes predictions, and those predictions are bold and are confirmed experimentally.

All ID does is show scientific evidence of a higher intelligence.... You can claim it is not 'a science' but what you can't claim is that it does not use science.
ID is not a science. That has been well established. Further, I think we have pretty much established you do not know what science is, given, for example, your ignorance of falsification.

You claim scientific evidence, but what makes the evidence scientific? It is only scientific if it supports or refutes science. There is nothing special about the evidence itself. And as ID is not science, its evidence is not scientific.

You have this the exact wrong way round. You think if the evidence is scientific then the hypothesis magically becomes science. That is not the case. The hypothesis makes the evidence scientific, if it is science, not the evidence making the hypothesis science.

As to whether it uses science, well so what? We are using science to debate on CARM. That does not make it science!


That SETI Obsession​

just like SETI.... you personally keep saying that the scientific research for life...regardless of all the science it uses and all the scientists that use the scientific tools ..that SETI is just not 'a science'
I keep saying it is not science because you keep bringing up. Does your daddy work there or something? You seem very insistence that it is science.

It is not.

Employing scientists does not make magically something science.

Using science does not make magically something science.

- sadly most all scientists researching SETI would disagree with you and your narrow view of 'a science'.
Can you support that claim?

Spoiler alert: No.


ID Compared To Astrology​

It is worth contrasting my narrow view of science with ID's rather wider view... which would famously include astrology.

These are the words of IDist Michael Behe, under oath in a courtroom (to be clear, his words are the answers, marked "A", the questions, marked "Q", were the words of the lawyer cross examining him).

Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?
A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.
...​
Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?
A Yes, that's correct....

Turns out ID is science in the same way astrology is.
 
Top