Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

"Duane Bozarth"
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
"Duane Bozarth"
Steve Peterson wrote:

...
... the real debate here
is if ID was applied to the universe we see and study today, when did that
happen. If ID is only the initiator ... [then] since everything we observe came after, ... the designer is ... out of the
realm of science. ... if the
designer keeps being involved, ...

That's the crux of the argument I've been carrying on w/ Fletis who
continues to refuse to see the question and dancing around the request
to explain the role of the "I" in ID...


I'm not much of a dancer but your asking for creeds and
dogma when there isn't any leads me to believe that you
don't see the answers.

No, you still haven't answered the fundamental question I asked--does
this "I" in the ID still keep intervening in physical processes we
observe or doesn't it?

Hint--it's a "yes" or "no" question...

No, it's like asking if you've stopped beating your mom yet.
You're question presupposes a false premise.

Which false premise is that? The question is simply that if one
presupposes there were an IDer either the design was complete prior to
beginning construction or not--I'm merely trying to find out which is
the hypothesis.

Intelligent Design doesn't specify when or how something was designed, just
*if* it had been.

How, precisely, can that be determined?