Uyi Iredia:

Wrong ! You failed to show how it isn't science and how it is a religious idea.

I can show it is not science and from its history, we know that it is a religious idea. Its proponents generally admit this when they think they're speaking in private.

Uyi Iredia:
You fail to note what I'd theorists have reiterated, that I'd notes some things are designed and brings design detection to the question of life's origins.

What example do you have in mind?

Uyi Iredia:
If it is a religious idea it should deal with the supernatural, God, rites etc things which have NEVER been associated with it.

Again, its proponents admit when they think they're speaking in secret that the designer they're talking about is a supernatural God.

Uyi Iredia:
You are simply spewing out the nonsense die-hard evolutionists have told you which you have FAILED to critically analyse especially by taking the ID theorists rebutalls into consideration.

Their rebuttals fail. In fact, as you can see from this citation, one of the effects of Intelligent Design Creationism is that astrology would be considered as science. Do you think astrology is considered as science?

So take the time to think critically before you voice your ignorance.

thehomer:

I can show it is not science and from its history, we know that it is a religious idea. Its proponents generally admit this when they think they're speaking in private.

It should be a religious idea given the general understanding of religion as bordering on things on the supernatural, morals and rites. Things which, I repeat have nothing to do with ID.

thehomer:
What example do you have in mind?

Design detection in arson or murder cases.

thehomer: Again, its proponents admit when they think they're speaking in secret that the designer they're talking about is a supernatural God.

That's to be expected from the theists. And more importantly, that' idea is not presented in any of their arguments.

thehomer:
Their rebuttals fail. In fact, as you can see from this citation, one of the effects of Intelligent Design Creationism is that astrology would be considered as science. Do you think astrology is considered as science?

So take the time to think critically before you voice your ignorance.

I did not read the citation. Instead quote relevant parts here. You FAILED to show how their rebuttals fail.

thehomer:

I can show it is not science and from its history, we know that it is a religious idea. Its proponents generally admit this when they think they're speaking in private.

It should be a religious idea given the general understanding of religion as bordering on things on the supernatural, morals and rites. Things which, I repeat have nothing to do with ID.

thehomer:
What example do you have in mind?

Design detection in arson or murder cases.

thehomer: Again, its proponents admit when they think they're speaking in secret that the designer they're talking about is a supernatural God.

That's to be expected from the theists. And more importantly, that' idea is not presented in any of their arguments.

thehomer:
Their rebuttals fail. In fact, as you can see from this citation, one of the effects of Intelligent Design Creationism is that astrology would be considered as science. Do you think astrology is considered as science?

So take the time to think critically before you voice your ignorance.

I did not read the citation. Instead quote relevant parts here. You FAILED to show how their rebuttals fail.

Uyi Iredia:

It should be a religious idea given the general understanding of religion as bordering on things on the supernatural, morals and rites. Things which, I repeat have nothing to do with ID.

If it is a religious idea, then why do you expect it to be considered as science? Religion also tries to talk about events in the real world. e.g the creation story tries to provide a factual account of how humans came to be on earth.

Uyi Iredia:
Design detection in arson or murder cases.

Murder automatically implies that the perpetrator was human. Or do you think you can accuse a malfunctioned car of being a murderer?

Uyi Iredia:
That's to be expected from the theists. And more importantly, that' idea is not presented in any of their arguments.

Their arguments are incomplete without it.

Uyi Iredia:
I did not read the citation. Instead quote relevant parts here. You FAILED to show how their rebuttals fail.

Well you really should read the citation. Everything written there is relevant. It shows the religious roots and its unscientific implications.

thehomer:

If it is a religious idea, then why do you expect it to be considered as science? Religion also tries to talk about events in the real world. e.g the creation story tries to provide a factual account of how humans came to be on earth.

Which is why I said religious ideas have nothing to do with the ID theory.

thehomer:
Murder automatically implies that the perpetrator was human. Or do you think you can accuse a malfunctioned car of being a murderer?

The 'murderer' could e a wild beast or a harmful object.

thehomer:
Their arguments are incomplete without it.

It isn't.

thehomer:
Well you really should read the citation. Everything written there is relevant. It shows the religious roots and its unscientific implications.

Quote the relevant parts. Otherwise, I'm not reading it.

Uyi Iredia:

Which is why I said religious ideas have nothing to do with the ID theory.




The 'murderer' could e a wild beast or a harmful object.





It isn't.



Quote the relevant parts. Otherwise, I'm not reading it.

You're obviously not ready to do the work required in understanding the problems with intelligent design creationism.

Good luck.

thehomer:

You're obviously not ready to do the work required in understanding the problems with intelligent design creationism.

Good luck.

And you are impervious to reason on this subject, evidenced by how your wrongly lump ID with creationism.