|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Spotting Beretta's "designer" {Now only 1 summation message per member} | |||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
To repeat, ad nauseam it would seem, you're arguing against evolution again. Evolution is not the topic of this thread. Everyone would be more than happy to address your concerns about the evidence for evolution, as we do all the time in threads where that is the topic. But this thread is in the [forum=-10] forum, not the [forum=-5] forum. Very few are responding to your attempts to change the subject to evolution. It would seem that most are content waiting to see if you'll ever offer any evidence in support of the intelligent designer premise.
You do say one thing that is sort of on topic:
Beretta writes: How about we go for intelligent indecision about what actually happened and teach the controversy in the meantime? There's no scientific controversy, because IDists don't actually do any science. This is why, as this thread that is 5/6 done winds down, you're unable to offer any positive evidence for the designer. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
You have only 47 messages left to address the topic.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
In your last two replies you used various forms of the word evolution five times and the word ID none. This is typical of your messages in this thread.
This thread is about the evidence for the intelligent designer, not evolution. This forum is called [forum=-10], because that's what the topics in this forum are about. If you'd like to discuss the evidence for evolution then you should go to a thread where that is the topic. Another alternative would be to propose a new topic over at [forum=-25]. There is no shortage of people willing to discuss evolution with you, but the place to do that is in threads in the [forum=-5] forum. Unless you have something to say about the evidence for an intelligent designer, you really shouldn't be posting in this thread. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Hi Beretta,
Here's a brief summary of the three arguments contained in your message:
These are arguments against the perspectives and methods currently employed by science. They'd be a great start for a thread in the [forum=-11] forum, but as far as this thread goes, once again you've failed to mention any evidence for ID. Only about 25 messages left. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Well, at least you're consistent, Buz. 500 years ago you'd be the guy running around yelling, "Get your heads out of the sand and look at the evidence, people, the earth does not move!"
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Beretta writes: onifre writes: but where is your evidence against 'no-design'? Where is your evidence against design? You've taken this out of context. In Message 272 you stated, "ID is simply the scientific challenge to the 'no design' hypothesis of Darwinism." Onifre was only asking about the evidence you claimed to have. Of course, the evidence for or against evolution is off-topic in this thread, but it's still worth pointing out that evolutionists aren't trying to find evidence against design, just like they're not trying to find evidence against pink unicorns on Alpha Centauri. Design as conceived by ID is not a scientific concept, and in the absence of any specific evidence based claims or predictions (just a vague "the designer did it") it cannot be falsified.
My evidence for design is biological complexity and the genetic code. So IDists interpret biological complexity and the genetic code as indicative of intelligent design. This seems a wrong interpretation to most biologists, but what have IDists done to prove themselves right? Where have IDists been abel to use this inference to extrapolate scientific predictions that were later validated? The one thing we can say for certain about the designer (other than an inordinate fondness for beetles) is that he's gone to an incredible amount of trouble to design and create in a way that precisely resembles evolution. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Beretta writes: You can't really believe that everything came from absolutely nothing? Still arguing from personal incredulity, I see. It isn't a matter of what we believe or don't believe. It's a matter of accepting that which we have evidence for, and of saying, "We don't yet know," or maybe, "We have some ideas, but we don't really know yet," about the rest. Science does not make claims about things for which there is insufficient evidence. And if you've made anything abundantly clear in this thread, there is no evidence for the designer. Through most of your messages in this thread you never mention the designer. Many requested repeatedly that you provide evidence of the designer, and for the most part all you did was criticize evolution. One would think that a rational person would at this point say, "Okay, okay, I'll go off and find some evidence." You remind me of salesmen. Only a small subset of the salesmen in any industry can work for the companies that have the top products. All the rest have to push the product they have, no matter how bad it is. That's what you're doing with ID, but obviously, no one is buying. You offer the familiar ID argument that science is wrong in not considering the supernatural, but if there are so many advantages to including mechanisms with no evidence then IDists should simply take this approach and produce better results than traditional science. Once they produce advances unachievable by traditional science then scientists will beat a path to their door and the supernatural will become a part of science. It is pathetically obvious, despite continual protests to the contrary, that ID is religious apologetics. If ID were really science then there would be IDists out there actually producing real science. Instead, the main product of ID is arguments for why ID should be included in school curriculums. Exacerbating this problem is that most grass roots ID proponents like yourself can't seem to keep God and ID separate. As much as the Discovery Institute argues that ID is not religion, they seem to have very little influence over supporters who can't get into ID discussions without mentioning God. It is the wishful thinking of creationists everywhere that their religion in its current form is the one, right and true religion, and as a big bonus that it is valid science, too. But all the world's religions can't be correct, and science has this little requirement about accurately describing the real world. When IDists become sincere about being science then presumably they will actually begin doing science. But as long as all their energies are focused on school boards, textbook publishers, websites and discussion boards instead of on science the conclusion that ID is religion is inescapable. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Beretta writes: For your sake it's a pity some of those yawning fossil gaps don't close a bit. Could you stop just making stuff up and at least pretend to address the topic? You've got just four messages left to offer some scientific evidence for ID. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
What an odd thread, but it highlights just why the creation/evolution debate, or the ID/evolution debate for those who insist on maintaining the charade, just won't go away. People everywhere, not just creationists, almost always refuse to follow the evidence when it goes against what they know is true.
Even so, creationism is a rather extreme example of this behavior. Not only do creationists not follow the evidence where it leads, they don't even recognize the established system for investigating nature, the scientific method. They formulate a hypothesis (the intelligent designer) based upon the appearance of design, then insist that the evidence is sufficient to claim status as theory, skipping all the other steps of the scientific method, like designing experiments to verify the hypothesis, and replication. They prefer a system which includes mechanisms (the supernatural) before they've ever been verified through the scientific method. What creationists have going for them is the ability to keep the debate alive in the minds of the public, and then turning the debate into a battle for the minds of children. At the heart of this battle is a religion which holds itself up as the one, right and true religion (as do so many), and they justify their efforts as a battle for souls. Their incredible persistance is explained when it is understood that they regard this as a religious crusade where the stakes are salvation itself. Those who would reach a hopeful conclusion from the utter thrashing ID has taken here where it was revealed the ID emperor is scientifically naked must understand that this battle will never end as long as fundamentalist religion believes its tenets are contradicted by scientific theories. With all eternity at stake the minds of fundamentalists can convince themselves of anything. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Typo.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024