Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is ID Scientific? (was "Abusive Assumptions")
Rand Al'Thor
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 292 (194290)
03-25-2005 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by commike37
03-24-2005 10:47 PM


A Simple Solution
commike37, all you really need to do is to go to the Science forums, open a topic named "Evidence For ID" and lay out your evidence and arguments. Why come here and complain when you can just go out and show that ID is scientific and supported by the evidence?
Now I could go on an on about these accomplishments, but I'll let it rest because that's not what I'm here for. I'm here to establish some respect for ID.
You don't seem to get it, the ONLY way for ID to get respect is through evidence. Only after you have shown that it is supported will respect come. If you sit here complaining your just strengthening the argument that ID is not science.
1: I find the idea of being of hoping to be as prestigious as TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy quite scary. The subtitle reads "Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy." However, this website presents a very biased, one-sided story.
They are one sided towards science, just like EvC is. I was under the impression that the whole goal of you being here is to show that ID/creationism is science. However, if you truly think that talkorigins is not telling the whole truth then why not support that statement?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by commike37, posted 03-24-2005 10:47 PM commike37 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by commike37, posted 03-25-2005 1:08 AM Rand Al'Thor has replied

Rand Al'Thor
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 292 (194320)
03-25-2005 1:34 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by commike37
03-25-2005 1:08 AM


Re: A Simple Solution
Even a cursory observation of the web site, for example, the post of the month section, would reveal that it is almost exclusively composed of pro-evolution or anti-creation science.
There is no such thing as "Pro-evolution" or "anti-creation" science. Science by definition does not become biased towards one theory or another.
I challeng you to find one piece of pro-creation or anti-evolution evidence from that website.
Once again I am confused. What do you mean by "pro-creation" evidence? Evidence is evidence; it does not have an affiliation. Evidence that shows men existed before fish is not pro or anti anything. A more legitimate challenge would be to find any false or made up evidence. So what don't you try that? Go look at Talkorigins find some false evidence and bring it to our attention.
I wonder Does the fact that flat earth theories do not show up on legitimate geological websites mean that they are unfairly biased?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by commike37, posted 03-25-2005 1:08 AM commike37 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by commike37, posted 03-25-2005 1:47 AM Rand Al'Thor has replied

Rand Al'Thor
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 292 (194343)
03-25-2005 2:48 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by commike37
03-25-2005 1:47 AM


Re: A Simple Solution
I think we can at least agree that ID has more evidence behind it than flat-earth theory.
Really? Both of these ideas need evidences that no one seems to come up with.
Find one piece evidence that supports intelligent design or refutes evolution.
Let's just go on a hypothetical situation here. Assuming that there is in reality no evidence for ID, is it still wrong for them not to have any evidence that supports creationism on their site?
You know how you hate arguments like the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Well I also hate extreme analogies like that.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics argument isn't wrong because it is a bad analogy, it is wrong because the Earth is not a closed system. Anyways, if you think the analogy is so completely wrong then why not do what we have suggested. Create a thread where you can show your evidence! Or if you think that it is a matter of interpretation then create a thread about that! Until you do so I stand by the analogy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by commike37, posted 03-25-2005 1:47 AM commike37 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by crashfrog, posted 03-25-2005 2:54 AM Rand Al'Thor has replied

Rand Al'Thor
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 292 (194350)
03-25-2005 3:00 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by crashfrog
03-25-2005 2:54 AM


To hell with closed systems. The thermodynamics argument is wrong because a change in allele frequencies in a population isn't a thermodynamic change. Evolution is not a negatively entropic process.
lol *bows down* I am not worthy I am not worthy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by crashfrog, posted 03-25-2005 2:54 AM crashfrog has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024