'Bill Nye the Science Guy' to Take On Creationist in Evolution Debate (Al Gore, drugs)

[suzy_q2010]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

Because...

"certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process"

...tells you that exactly how?

Because "intelligent design" is a term coined by creationists to get creationism into public schools.

[suzy_q2010]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

His, perhaps. Everyone's? No. Which is why ID specifically refrains from labeling who the intelligent designer is/was.

Clear example: human (intelligent design) interference in the evolutionary process of dogs, cats, farm animals, food crops,...

Hey, you quoted Sir Isaac in support of your argument that "intelligent design" is not creationism.

Quote mining has its hazards.

Repeating a fallacious argument does not give it validity. It just gets silly after a while.

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by suzy_q2010

Because "intelligent design" is a term coined by creationists to get creationism into public schools.

Conspiracy theory? Really? That's the best you can do to answer the question?

"certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process"

It neither claims that ALL of the universe and EVERY living thing was created by "God," nor does it name/identify the intelligent designer of those features that were not the result of undirected natural selection.

[winkosmosis]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

Conspiracy theory? Really? That's the best you can do to answer the question?

"certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process"

It neither claims that ALL of the universe and EVERY living thing was created by "God," nor does it name/identify the intelligent designer of those features that were not the result of undirected natural selection.

Then who's the intelligent designer? Aliens?

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by winkosmosis

Then who's the intelligent designer? Aliens?

In the case of the intervention in the evolution of dogs, cats, farm animals, food crops, etc.,... humans. As to any others... has not yet been named, BY DEFINITION.

[suzy_q2010]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

In the case of the intervention in the evolution of dogs, cats, farm animals, food crops, etc.,... humans. As to any others... has not yet been named, BY DEFINITION.

Nope, humans did not set evolution in motion. Still no help for your argument that there is an "intelligent designer" that did so.

[Snowball7]

Originally Posted by suzy_q2010

Nope, humans did not set evolution in motion. Still no help for your argument that there is an "intelligent designer" that did so.

There is no proof that "evolution" was ever set in motion at all.

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by suzy_q2010

Nope, humans did not set evolution in motion.

That wasn't the assertion. This is clearly over your head.

[suzy_q2010]

Originally Posted by Snowball7

There is no proof that "evolution" was ever set in motion at all.

You might want to read the entire thread.

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

That wasn't the assertion. This is clearly over your head.

Your "assertion" is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution.

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by suzy_q2010

Your "assertion" is irrelevant.

Only in the sense that you have to ignore what is plainly stated to try to make your point. IOW... You're deluding yourself.