EvC Forum: What does ID theory say?

Email This Thread

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Author

Topic: What does ID theory say?

Huntard

Member (Idle past 2324 days)

Posts: 2870

From: Limburg, The Netherlands

Joined: 09-02-2008

Normal Thread Display

Message 19 of 67 (488567)
11-13-2008 2:42 AM

Reply to: Message 17 by Cold Foreign Object
11-12-2008 10:18 PM

Re: Design theory

Cold Foreign Object writes:

This comment defines ID to not be science.

It isn't.

Your belief is explained by your pro-evolution bias.

I'm NOT "pro-evolution".

We believe the same in reverse: evolution is not science and our belief is based on our bias.

This is true. Though it is not the same as me saying ID isn't science. Since there is evidence for evolution, and NO evidence for ID, I think my statements are more in accordance with reality.

We, of course, disagree.

Yes, quite clearly. So, we should look at the evidence and see what that leads us too.

No, only one in fact, the other doesn't suit the evidence, unless you want to claim the "intelligent designer" creates all and every living things on this planet all the time, and does this so as to make it looked it evolved, down to the genetic level.

I have objectively admitted as much and I have said that since the evolution interpretation is false, having no correspondence to scientific reality, we have the right to say your science is not science.

But, since this isn't true, you DON'T have the right to say it.

You do the same but not quite as objectively as I do it.

No, I do it more objectively, since there is actually evidence for my standpoint.

I admit both views are paradigms attempting to explain the evidence.

NO. Only one is, the other is trying to sneak into the classroom under the guise of science, so they can indoctrinate kids.

Then I say the ID view is true and the evolution view false.

To which I will ask you for the evidence that supports this.

This renders ID to be science and evolution to be pseudoscience.

Oopsy! You made a small error there. This sentence should read: "This renders ID to be pseudoscience and evolution to be science.". Oh, and you're welcome, I'm happy to point out slight mistakes.

P.s.: Oh, and one more thing. From Message 11

According to a wide spectrum of polling data, half of all adults in the U.S. are antievolutionists; therefore it is evolutionists who have failed to convince the majority that their "science" is science.

I think you may remember what's coming next. Popularity has NOTHING to do with something being true.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
	Message 17 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-12-2008 10:18 PM		Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 23 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-13-2008 1:38 PM		Huntard has replied

Huntard

Member (Idle past 2324 days)

Posts: 2870

From: Limburg, The Netherlands

Joined: 09-02-2008

Normal Thread Display

Message 26 of 67 (488611)
11-13-2008 3:19 PM

Reply to: Message 23 by Cold Foreign Object
11-13-2008 1:38 PM

Re: Design theory

Cold Foreign Object writes:

You agree that the comment defines your opponent to not be science----that was the context.

Yes, but ID still isn't science, while evolution is demonstrably so.

Self-evidently absurd.

No it isn't, I argue for EVIDENCE, NOT for a particular idea. I used to argue for Atlantis, I even used to believe in all that 9/11 conspiracy crap, I was uninformed, I didn't know better. Then I studied the evidence, and came to the conclusion my beliefs were wrong, so I adapted them to suit what the evidence showed. So, if there is ever any evidence that shows evolution is false, and another thing is true I will immediately change my stance, that's what rational people do, they follow the evidence where ever it leads.

You argue for evolution tooth and nail----that it is a scientific fact.

That's because it IS. No matter how many times you say there isn't, there is so much evidence for evolution it's just not funny anymore. The fact you don't except it from a religious point of view doesn't matter to the evidence. If the evidence would show anything else then evolution, I would go with that. It doesn't however.

Comments like these should be met with a 24 hour suspension.

Saying something that can be demonstrated to be true should get someone suspended? I'm SO glad you're not an admin here.

I completely agree.

Yet you don't follow the evidence where ever it leads to. Every time it comes into conflict with your religious beliefs, you claim they, and not the evidence, are correct.

We don't see any evolution on any level.

Yes we do.

We see nature reflecting design on every level.

No we don't.

Design corresponds to invisible Designer or Divine causation operating in reality, and not unguided material.

If there were design, this would be true, yet there isn't.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
	Message 23 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-13-2008 1:38 PM		Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Huntard

Member (Idle past 2324 days)

Posts: 2870

From: Limburg, The Netherlands

Joined: 09-02-2008

Normal Thread Display

Message 46 of 67 (488695)
11-14-2008 10:35 PM

Reply to: Message 35 by Cold Foreign Object
11-14-2008 6:54 PM

Re: Design theory

Cold Foreign Object writes:

Pope Benedict (IIRC) said the universe is an Intelligent project.

And if he follows the line of the popes that came before him, he'll say evolution's true.

Which doesn't matter anyway, since it's an argument form authority.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
	Message 35 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-14-2008 6:54 PM		Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Date format: mm-dd-yyyy

Timezone: ET (US)

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Do Nothing Button

2 online now:	Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Tangle
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0