The Importance of Potentially Disconfirming Evidence

quote:

---

John Paul: Just for information- there are IDists and there are Creationists. The two are similar is some respects but by no means is there any group called "The Intelligent Design creationists". This is a blatant misrepresentation by those trying to discredit one or both groups in support of their own agenda- ie naturalism.

---

Nonsense. I have run into several true creationists who can spout the entire ID line. You will have to deal with them, someday, JP.

quote:

---

They think that by directly linking Creationists to IDists they have won the war. Perhaps if they had compelling evidence for their own theory that would be enough.

---

The evidence is available in thousands of papers on the subject. Just because you choose to reject the evidence does not mean that it does not exist.

quote:

---

Disconfirming evidence? First try presenting some confirming evidence.

---

Dodge noted.

quote:

---

John Paul: I have explained this to you before several times and I will do it again here. ID is a set. Creation is a subset of ID. IOW you can be an IDist without being a Creationist. Creation is a specific subset. I know all about ID yet consider myself to be a Creationist. All one has to do is read AiG or the Discivery Institute to realize the difference. Ignorance is one thing, willful ignorance is a shame.

---

I never said anything to disagree here. I am only saying that there are YECs who adhere to ID as a saving theory. Those are the ones referred to. You can deny them all you want but you will have to deal with them someday.

quote:

---

John Paul: That is pretty much a lie. Please point out ONE paper that shows mutations culled by NS can lead to the scope of changes required if the ToE is indicative of reality.

---

The evidence for evolution. You have redefined evolution to suit your own agenda. I have indicated evolution according to the way most people view it. So, no, I did not lie.

quote:

---

Translation: There isn't any object evidence that would be considered as confirming the ToE. Please stop pointing that out.

---

Translation: I will continue to dodge the earlier question.

quote:

---

ohn Paul:
Yes and this evidence is neither compelling or exclusive. The fossil record: it does not support gradualism and that is why paleos have submitted punk eek.

---

Ummmm, which is STILL evolution, AFAIK. I can understand why you would want to redefine terms to your advantage, though.

quote:

---

Stasis followed by (geologically) rapid changes are what we see in the FR.

---

And the problem is?

quote:

---

Genetic similarities- explained very well on AiG as evidence for a common Creator. The fact that life exists, exhibits IC and SC AND the fact that all of our current knowledge says that IC and SC = intentional (intelligent) design.

---

Okay, then, who is the designer? If your scenario is scientific, you should have a mechanism. What is it? What is your evidence, other than personal incredulity?

quote:

---

John Paul:
That is NOT what I have claimed. There is evidence for evolution however there isn't any evidence for the claims made by evolutionists pertaining to the grand sweep of the ToE.

---

Well, if you dismiss the fossil record with a hand wave, I suppose so. Unfortunately, most of us cannot ignore the evidence.

quote:

---

John Paul:
... IOW all you can show us is variations.

---

Nope. You are ignoring evidence again.

quote:

---

Even when evidence such as irreducible complexity is put before your eyes all you can do is cry "it isn't so", wah, wah, wah.

---

You have evidence? Please present it.

quote:

---

John Paul:
How many times do I have to post this? To falsify ID just show that information-rich systems or specified complexity can arise via purely natural processes. IOW show us life can arise from non-life via purely natural processes and there is no need to infer a designer was necessary.

---

And to SUPPORT ID, it would be good for you to give us some kind of mechanism. Perhaps it would be good to describe the designer and show us how the designing happened. And when. And where. Do you have any idea how much credibility this would give your arguments?YOu expect evolutionists to give a blow by blow account of the mechanism of evolution, but never, EVER, take a chance of doing so for ID. In the meantime you simply reject every line of evidence for evolution because you, personally, did not see the act happening and do not understand some of the basic geological concepts involved (i.e.: 'billions of animals died and were buried'.) REAL heavy stuff, JP.

quote:

---

John Paul:
Design IS the mechanism.

---

Very convenient. ID is the process. How does it happen?

quote:

---

edge:
Perhaps it would be good to describe the designer and show us how the designing happened.

​

John Paul:
It is not necessary to know anything abbout the design to determine or understand the design. It is not even necessary to understand how it was designed to determine and understand the design.

---

Nonsense. What use is this theory then? We don't know anything substantial about it. We don't know what the design is for. We don't know when the designer designed. We don't know who the designer is. We don't understand the design. The only thing that is clear is that you have redefined 'design' to be whatever you want.

quote:

---

edge:
Do you have any idea how much credibility this would give your arguments?

​

John Paul:
Seeing those things are irrelevant I can't see they would do anything.

---

This is a major part of your problem. You cannot support your viewpoint with any kind of independent evidence. That's what Wegener thought too.

quote:

---

edge:
YOu expect evolutionists to give a blow by blow account of the mechanism of evolution, but never, EVER, take a chance of doing so for ID.

​

John Paul:
First you can't even come close to a blow by blow account, ...

---

Irrelevant to the discussion. However, we can connect a lot more dots than you seem to even care about.

quote:

---

... not even close.

---

Thank you for your opinion. Can you address the point now?

quote:

---

Second, if things are equal then we should have to produce the same level as you do. However we go one better.

---

Nonsense. Where have you done this? You simply dismiss requests for supporting evidence as 'irrelevant', while demanding ever more detail from us. You have no explanation for the fossil record, for instance.

quote:

---

edge:
In the meantime you simply reject every line of evidence for evolution because you, personally, did not see the act happening and do not understand some of the basic geological concepts involved (i.e.: 'billions of animals died and were buried'.) REAL heavy stuff, JP.

​

John Paul:
I reject the evidence for the ToE because it isn't compelling.

---

Perhaps if you understood it better...

quote:

---

It IS very subjective. Geology is NOT biology. IOW I don't have to know what a rock is in order to understand the workings of a cell.

---

Yeah, that explains everything!

quote:

---

The ToE is a biological theory (I have emailed several paleontologists who disagree with you on you know what).

---

That's fine by me. Evolution is a biological theory that explains the fossil record; what is your explanation: 'billions of animals died and were buried!'). Geological evidence supports the theory of evolution, what independent science supports ID?

quote:

---

NN:
Where did Darwin steal NS from?

​

John Paul:
Ed Blythe wrote about NS while darwin was on his voyage.

---

So, does this mean that it was 'stolen?'Tell us, why does it gripe you so much that Darwin received credit for the ToE? If it was someone else, would you be just as vehement? And just what difference does it make? Is the problem that you know you don't have a valid argument and have to attack someone's 19th century integrity?

quote:

---

It has also been told to me that NS was written about before that.

---

Oh! Well, that changes everything. You have been told! I think that clinches it.