I'm still waiting to see 13 threads (including this 1, 12 otherwise) to be moved to a more appropriate forum category. ;-)

Cheers.

This thread is about science. The opening post, and Skil's just before yours, verify this.

I'm still waiting to see 13 threads (including this 1, 12 otherwise) to be moved to a more appropriate forum category. ;-)

Cheers.

This thread is about science. The opening post, and Skil's just before yours, verify this.

I'm sorry, but I'll have to disagree with you there on this point, as this is more a debate on what the definition of science is, not science itself.

But please do notice my remark in brackets as I'm your side as well. ;-)

Cheers.

I'm still waiting to see 13 threads (including this 1, 12 otherwise) to be moved to a more appropriate forum category. ;-)

Cheers.

This thread is about science. The opening post, and Skil's just before yours, verify this.

I'm sorry, but I'll have to disagree with you there on this point, as this is more a debate on what the definition of science is, not science itself.

But please do notice my remark in brackets as I'm your side as well. ;-)

Cheers.

I do realize you are. However, there is nothing political about what science is.
If the "history of math" was not math, it would be taught in history or political science departments. So, why is taught in a math department? Because it is about math.

My logic is sound. The arguments against it are circular. And each and every argument used is a fallacy. Repeatedly I have asked for such fallacies to be put aside.

Your hate for me personally is the only thing showing here.

I take issue with one part of Darwinism that cannot be proven. No one here can prove the point of one species changing into another. This point is the underpinning of Neo-Darwinism! This is indeed taught in our schools. You cannot prove it yet it is taught in our schools!

If anything is circular reasoning that would be the people who have a faith in Darwinism! You have a faith, it's called Neo-Darwinism, you believe it is true but you cannot prove it. This is a faith as defined in Webster!

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

The previous post is in error.

1) The poster does not provide his own logic, but the arguments of others.
2) It shows a deep misunderstanding of what circular reasoning is.
3) The poster is now on a campaign of "you hate ME, so you ruin my threads". I'm so glad you posted this, because I was strongly thinking of posting the following.

It is you, sir, that have ostracized yourself. You (and Guy) were (both) offered friendship (such as it can be online only) by me, publicly and in private messages. Because I, and others, do not agree with you 100% ... well, maybe a lower percent, because clearly your other ally, with a new name each month or so, does not believe in everything you do ... you insult us and call us enemies. (See Guy's posts regarding Salinsky's rules. He uses the term enemy.

4) This thread is not about evolution. If you wish to discuss evolution and your dislike of it, put it one of your threads.
5) Therefore, your point about people having "faith" in evolution similarly cannot be discussed here.
6) Think hard about what circular reasoning is. Realize that the term "irreducible complexity" assumes the conclusion, and thus, I.D. (as it currently stands) cannot be employing the scientific method.
7) If you cannot discuss #6, "stand silent" until you can.

My logic is sound. The arguments against it are circular. And each and every argument used is a fallacy. Repeatedly I have asked for such fallacies to be put aside.

Your hate for me personally is the only thing showing here.

I take issue with one part of Darwinism that cannot be proven. No one here can prove the point of one species changing into another. This point is the underpinning of Neo-Darwinism! This is indeed taught in our schools. You cannot prove it yet it is taught in our schools!

If anything is circular reasoning that would be the people who have a faith in Darwinism! You have a faith, it's called Neo-Darwinism, you believe it is true but you cannot prove it. This is a faith as defined in Webster!

My post stands as your circular reasoning. Frankly it is...

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

Frankly it is...

in error? Your previous post? Thank you for your admission and good day. :)

Frankly it is...

in error? Your previous post? Thank you for your admission and good day. :)

circular reasoning....

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

Pssst. THAT is over <=== here.

Pssst. and is over <=== here.

Pssst. and is over <=== here.

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

Barrel scraping tonight?

ID, you are successfully demonstrating that your argument is circular by using the same flawed sources in an attempt to "prove" two ideas that need to be handled in very different ways.

Others might say you are "spamming" these boards by repeating the same links in such a short period of time, so be aware of this please.

---

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

Barrel scraping tonight?

ID, you are successfully demonstrating that your argument is circular by using the same flawed sources in an attempt to "prove" two ideas that need to be handled in very different ways.

Others might say you are "spamming" these boards by repeating the same links in such a short period of time, so be aware of this please.

Not might. I do. He put the very same links in his thread and them spammed mine.

Intelligent design does not provide any information on the "intelligent" force driving ID theory. We can reconcile ID and evolution by simply proposing that the "intelligent" forces driving ID are, in fact evolutionary forces...

---

Intelligent design does not provide any information on the "intelligent" force driving ID theory. We can reconcile ID and evolution by simply proposing that the "intelligent" forces driving ID are, in fact evolutionary forces...

or that evolution is actually inteligently designed itself.

The one thing I've noticed is that Creationism has done a great deal of evolving in the last 30 years or so. Seems their theory evolves more and faster than most bacteria they claim are irreducible

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

Intelligent design. Not the poster.

---

Intelligent design. Not the poster.

Personally I don't think that there is very much difference between either Lynn.

They both seem to want to incite friction amongst more enlightened population whenever they can IMHO without wanting to back their side of the argument up with provable evidence/facts. :-(

Cheers.

Intelligent design. Not the poster.

Personally I don't think that there is very much difference between either Lynn.

They both seem to want to incite friction amongst more enlightened population whenever they can IMHO without wanting to back their side of the argument up with provable evidence/facts. :-(

Cheers.

Thanks Wiggo!

---

An interesting stance on ID and science:

http://www.frame-poythress.org/is-intelligent-design-science/

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

An interesting stance on ID and science:

Rather than an "interesting stance", I would call it "a steaming pile" containing such gems as:

Johnson is not, but as a lawyer he has considerable skill at criticizing arguments, and he has used that skill impressively in debunking Darwinist claims.

Johnson and the rest of them have only "debunked" evolutionary biology (as soon as someone uses the term "Darwinist" this is a clue that they are either a non-scientist or are talking down to their audience) to the same degree that Jenny McCarthy has "debunked" virology and immunology. They write a bunch of nonsense to swindle non-scientists (such as the author of the article) and nothing more. They are "bunking", if the verb can be used in a positive tense.

If they have any valid points or ideas, they should publish them in peer-reviewed, legitimate scientific journals or present them before scientific panels. But they can't and won't, not because of some tinfoil-hat conspiracy, but because they know well it's perfectly laughable grade-school-level pseudoscience (more like anti-science) about as likely to ever replace evolutionary theory in the scientific community as alchemy is to replace modern chemistry.

More gems:

Most neo-Darwinism today is explicitly anti-theistic.

Funny, I never saw any books or papers in evolutionary biology argue that there was no God. Deliberately misinterpreting neutrality as opposition is a favorite tactic of these cranks, just as they do with church-state separation.

So Darwinism, in some senses, is religious, and ID is scientific.

And there's the other tactic.

---

An interesting stance on ID and science:

http://www.frame-poythress.org/is-intelligent-design-science/

Thank you Julie for that mind expanding article. I'm sure there are others sitting in silence who appreciate you pointing this out also.

You're welcome Guy:)

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures