|
Author
|
Topic: Is ID Scientific? (was "Abusive Assumptions")
|
CK
Member (Idle past 4149 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: 07-04-2004
|
|
Message 2 of 292 (194116)
03-24-2005 4:30 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by commike37
03-24-2005 4:25 PM
|
|
It is frustrating to try to post on this forum and yet have my side victimized by such negative stereotypes, and many times my posts have to spend a disproportionately large amount of time refuting these stereotypes or exposing simple logical fallacies within these stereotypes. Why don't you post some actual evidence for ID and then we can actually discuss it. I've asked you a couple of time but it seems you'd just perfer to whine that actually present your case. So how about it? Pop in to one of the MULTIPLE current threads and let's see what the current state of play is with ID research.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by commike37, posted 03-24-2005 4:25 PM | | commike37 has not replied |
|
CK
Member (Idle past 4149 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: 07-04-2004
|
|
|
Message 4 of 292 (194124)
03-24-2005 4:39 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by commike37
03-24-2005 4:25 PM
|
|
And it occurs to me -
quote:
Actions like this put the board one step closer to becoming like TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy, a site that claims to explore the controversy but is inherently biased towards evolution.
Since the FRONTPAGE of Talk origins says: The Talk.Origins Archive is a collection of articles and essays, most of which have appeared in talk.origins at one time or another. The primary reason for this archive's existence is to provide mainstream scientific responses to the many frequently asked questions (FAQs) that appear in the talk.origins newsgroup and the frequently rebutted assertions of those advocating intelligent design or other creationist pseudosciences. Talk origins has NEVER offered equal time to creationism - the position has always been that is rubbish. So that's a strawman.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by commike37, posted 03-24-2005 4:25 PM | | commike37 has not replied |
|
CK
Member (Idle past 4149 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: 07-04-2004
|
|
|
Message 8 of 292 (194146)
03-24-2005 5:18 PM
|
Reply to: Message 7 by commike37
03-24-2005 5:05 PM
|
|
"peer-reviewed book" - that's a new one on me? anyone?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 7 by commike37, posted 03-24-2005 5:05 PM | | commike37 has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 9 by Ooook!, posted 03-24-2005 5:21 PM | | CK has not replied | | | Message 12 by PaulK, posted 03-24-2005 5:37 PM | | CK has not replied |
|
CK
Member (Idle past 4149 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: 07-04-2004
|
|
|
Message 14 of 292 (194164)
03-24-2005 5:45 PM
|
Reply to: Message 13 by commike37
03-24-2005 5:41 PM
|
|
but you have provided any evidence at all. You've provided some claims from some people who claim that they have some evidence . I'm starting to think that you don't actually understand what evidence actually is.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 13 by commike37, posted 03-24-2005 5:41 PM | | commike37 has replied |
|
CK
Member (Idle past 4149 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: 07-04-2004
|
|
|
Message 17 of 292 (194171)
03-24-2005 5:54 PM
|
Reply to: Message 15 by commike37
03-24-2005 5:48 PM
|
|
Re: Let's get back to abuse
quote:
Once again, while I wouldn't mind getting into an evidence war over specific tenets of ID, it is simply unacceptable withing the context of this forum to argue that ID and creation as a whole are unscientific. Also, no one has dealt with the negative stereotypes problem that I raised in the second post of my argument.
Because you are fulfilling it? as the "we've got the evidence but I just don't want to present it and OH LOOK SOME KITTENS!" creationist. why don't you stop your dodging and get over to one of the science forums and present it? This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 24-Mar-2005 05:59 PM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 15 by commike37, posted 03-24-2005 5:48 PM | | commike37 has not replied |
|
CK
Member (Idle past 4149 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: 07-04-2004
|
|
|
Message 31 of 292 (194211)
03-24-2005 6:57 PM
|
Reply to: Message 30 by commike37
03-24-2005 6:42 PM
|
|
Are you Ever going to head towards the science forums and present any of this evidence? Or do you just plan to whine all night? Are you like to present any evidence in the science forums within 200 posts or so?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 30 by commike37, posted 03-24-2005 6:42 PM | | commike37 has not replied |
|
CK
Member (Idle past 4149 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: 07-04-2004
|
|
|
Message 63 of 292 (194993)
03-28-2005 2:09 PM
|
Reply to: Message 62 by Silent H
03-28-2005 1:26 PM
|
|
I perfer to use the term "drive-by bullshit artist".
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 62 by Silent H, posted 03-28-2005 1:26 PM | | Silent H has replied |
|
CK
Member (Idle past 4149 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: 07-04-2004
|
|
|
Message 65 of 292 (195023)
03-28-2005 6:22 PM
|
Reply to: Message 64 by Silent H
03-28-2005 4:38 PM
|
|
Is there a decent ID forum? I'm still waiting for someone to post to your thread and tell us what the current state of the field is. Anyone? good ID forum?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 64 by Silent H, posted 03-28-2005 4:38 PM | | Silent H has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 66 by JonF, posted 03-28-2005 8:37 PM | | CK has not replied | | | Message 67 by RAZD, posted 03-28-2005 8:49 PM | | CK has not replied |
|
CK
Member (Idle past 4149 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: 07-04-2004
|
|
|
Message 110 of 292 (229646)
08-04-2005 10:02 AM
|
Reply to: Message 109 by Evopeach
08-04-2005 9:56 AM
|
|
Watch your tone - quick way to be booted
quote:
Now that's my consulting and pedagogical task for you today, a po;lite thank you would be appreciated.
actually you've misused "pedagogical" as it would apply in this context. It is related to the art, strategies, techniques, and approaches of teaching rather than the actual teaching (althought some web sites don't seem to grasp this). In any case, it's would more specifically be referred to as andragogical. A polite thank you would be appreciated (because if you want to take that tone, you are sure to get plenty back). This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 04-Aug-2005 10:05 AM This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 04-Aug-2005 10:08 AM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 109 by Evopeach, posted 08-04-2005 9:56 AM | | Evopeach has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 112 by Evopeach, posted 08-04-2005 10:09 AM | | CK has not replied |
|
CK
Member (Idle past 4149 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: 07-04-2004
|
Re: Argument by Very Big Words
boot camp is still active?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 125 by AdminAsgara, posted 08-04-2005 12:23 PM | | AdminAsgara has not replied |
|
CK
Member (Idle past 4149 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: 07-04-2004
|
|
|
Message 137 of 292 (229817)
08-04-2005 4:52 PM
|
Reply to: Message 136 by Evopeach
08-04-2005 4:44 PM
|
|
Sweety? A prediction from the future
I wish to join my Brother WK in trying to view the future...
quote:
Lo.. when the sun is in the sign of Leo and before it reaches the sign of Virgo, a pom[unclear from translation] ass will be cast out
Something about a donkey's maybe? This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 04-Aug-2005 04:54 PM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 136 by Evopeach, posted 08-04-2005 4:44 PM | | Evopeach has not replied |
|
CK
Member (Idle past 4149 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: 07-04-2004
|
|
|
Message 145 of 292 (229860)
08-04-2005 6:33 PM
|
Reply to: Message 144 by Evopeach
08-04-2005 6:28 PM
|
|
Re: Yet another convoluted condescending rant
Exons Entrons and Talking Genes Maybe he means - "Exons, Introns, and Talking Genes: The Science Behind the Human Genome Project". INtrons not entrons. I notice you got it wrong previously quote:
Please refer your criticisms to Chris Wills Professor of Biology at UC San Diego and the roughtly 100 scientists who reviewed, edited and otherwise contributed to his work in "Exons Entrons and Talking Genes" from which the above material references were taken.
No need to thank me for correcting you - "well let's say back to the spelling books. This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 04-Aug-2005 06:36 PM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 144 by Evopeach, posted 08-04-2005 6:28 PM | | Evopeach has replied |
|
CK
Member (Idle past 4149 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: 07-04-2004
|
|
|
Message 173 of 292 (230407)
08-06-2005 10:41 AM
|
Reply to: Message 172 by Evopeach
08-06-2005 10:24 AM
|
|
Re: Fundamental lack of understanding of molecular biology
Actually the 8080 was from @1974, the 8086 is what you might be thinking of. No need to thank me for the correction. I think the problem is that you are using lots and lots of long words but nobody is convinced that you are actual know what you are on about. Maybe if you demonstrate that you know something about the basics?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 172 by Evopeach, posted 08-06-2005 10:24 AM | | Evopeach has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 176 by Evopeach, posted 08-06-2005 11:05 AM | | CK has not replied |
|
CK
Member (Idle past 4149 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: 07-04-2004
|
Charles speechless for a second time this week
Is it ok for me to look shocked and amazed? THE Robert T.Bakker? Oh and my niece wants to say (as she's here with me today): I really liked your Dinosaurs book, when I am older I will be a dinosaur person This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 09-Aug-2005 09:45 AM
|
™ Version 4.2