Rejecting Intelligent Design as Possibly Science

I notice that you don't refer to the follow-up thread where your hypothesis was shown to have serious problems that you never actually managed to address.

Buz - message 59: There was an extensive 300+ message followup thread on that debate.What I failed to mention is that a number of prominent evos came on that thread, one after the other and debated me all the way through that long extensive thread also without any substantial rebuttal to my great debate op opener or to anything I posted in that great debate with jar regarding my ID hypothesis.

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

You know very well that I raised significant points with regard to both the First and Second law that you couldn't answer.So don't pretend you scored some great victory. All you showed was that you didn't have an adequate understanding of the subject.

1. Are you now ready to acknowledge that I did mention the followup rhread which you falsely accused me of ignoring?2. No I don't know very well that I failed to answer your alleged significant points. Would you like to open a thread in which I am allowed to participate, so as to apprise us all that you soundly refuted me as you're implying?

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

"Fiuirst you insist that the view that you are putting forward is dominant and then you attack the people who supposedly hold it as adhering to an outdated paradigm."Uh, wrong. Show please where I have done that. Didn't happen.Is this a dodge of the debate or something?

I find it ironic that since mankind first thought about these things we've always looked at the stars, the planets or basically the big things when looking for God.Now it seems that science may very well be on the verge of connecting the physical with the metaphysical at the level of things that are so small that they defy imagination.I don't profess any scientific background, but it does seem to me that at some point those with a scientific background will be able to make a connection between the free will of theology and the principle of entanglement of QM.I enjoyed reading through this thread.This message has been edited by GDR, 05-28-2005 06:36 PM

You certainly didn't mention your poor performance in the follow-up thread. And if you know what happened in the follow-up thread, then I don't see how you can not know that you left significant points unanswered. But if you don't remember what happened then you certainly can't use your thermodynamics arguments as a an example where you were subjected for moderator action just for arguing an unconventional view. Is that your idea of science ? Forgetting about problems with your hypotheses and then talking as if they didn't exist ?And I should I need to open another thread ? The facts are in. You never proved your point, you never even came close. You were just lucky that the Great Debate was against Jar, and not somebody with a better understanding of the issues. If you think you can answer my points now - and that's really answer them this time - then YOU can try to start a thread.

Eh ? YOu certianly insisted that the "consciousness-based" "model" was dominant. Then you launch what appears to be a general attack on science for following some unspeicifed ideas that are out of date. Am I wrong for thinking that the "consciousness based" "model" was the idea you flet that they should be following ? If the specifics behind your claim meant something else then why be so vague ?

PaulK, is not clear to you?Classical, Newtonian paradigms are incomplete.The criticism of ID not being reflective of the realm of science is false because it is largely based on false concepts of what consitutes "material."Clear as bell. Why can't you grasp it?The consciousness aspect of QM effects is only one aspect of QM, and the point stands on it's own regardless of the validity of consciousness-based interpretations.My point in raising the issue of consciousness interacting with matter is in part to illustrate that science is already breaking out of the box materialist evolutionists insist should not occur in their arguments to discredit ID without even a fair hearing, so to speak.

Greetings all,

quote:

---

Actually, there's quite a lot of evidence that Jesus of the Bible existed.

---

No there isn't.
Produce the evidence you claim exists.

quote:

---

The vast majority of serious academics acknowledge that. It's somewhat humorous to hear people claim there is no evidence when the evidence for Jesus is similar to and sometimes greater than the evidence for other historical figures such as Julius Ceaser.

---

Wrong again.
Anyone who investigates the evidence for Caesar will find a VAST body of interlocking contemporary evidence of many kinds.For Jesus - nothing contemporary at all.We have writings from Caesar himself -
None from Jesus.We have evidence of Roman laws created by Caesar.
Nothing like that for Jesus.We have evidence from foreign countrioes of Caesar's actions.
None for Jesus.We have contemporary writings describing Caesar.
None for Jesus.We have coins showing Caesar's likeness changing over his life.
Nothing for Jesus.We have statues (and mosaics IIRC) of Caesar.
Nothing for Jesus.We have archeological evidence of Caesar's actions.
None for Jesus.We have evidence of Caesar's family (parents, wives, children)
Nothing for Jesus.

quote:

---

Julius Ceaser

---

Hmmm - can't even get his name right.
You've never actually researched Caesar at all, have you?Iasion

Iasion, isn't that a different thread now, and didn't you just refuse to reply to my comments on that thread.What gives?I know the quotes from Paul referencing Jesus probably was diconcerting since it disproved what your source said, but you quoted Paul's letters as genuine. If they are genuine, then they amply provide evidence that Jesus lived, died, was buried, and at least they claim he was resurrected.Are you claiming now that Paul's letters are not genuine?Irregardless, shouldn't this discussion take place on that thread, and not this one?

Off topic here, Paul. All I can say is that you need badly to go back and reread the thread. This's another example of your all too often bogus charges.

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

What on earth are you talking about ?ID doesn't make any special use of "newer" science as I pointed out. Even if it did it wouldn't change the fact that the reasons ID is rejected as science is that it doesn't have adequate evidence for its claims or seem interested in producing testable hypotheses. Instead we get an awful lot of spin and propaganda.What you seem to be talking about is not ID - rather it seems to be some sort of "New Age" idea that would be rejected out of hand by the majority of ID supporters - or worse.

I did go back and read the thread Buz. THere's nothing bogus in what I said. Did YOU go back and read the thread or are you just conveniently forgetting what happened ?

Thanks, that is, indeed off topic.