Everything in ID requires that some piece of objective science be ignored or dismissed .
All the arguments (like Irreduciblecomplexity) have been debunked over and over.
Yes, and the ID/Creationist crowd wishes to have these pseudoscience/anti-science beliefs taught is schools without having done the rigorous work of demonstrating principles and subjecting them to peer-review until the principle has been accepted as established. Instead, they use political means to try and cut to the front of the line.
although, theyve been sorta quiet for a few yers. I wonder whats up with that?
I get the NCSE newsletter and it still some of the same flyover states that are still trying to get their stuff taught in schools.
I might say that this past September (2015), the great state of West Virginia struck down their law that declared it was "Illegal to teach Evolution in State public schools"
Yes, and the ID/Creationist crowd wishes to have these pseudoscience/anti-science beliefs taught is schools without having done the rigorous work of demonstrating principles and subjecting them to peer-review until the principle has been accepted as established.
I'm not sure you understand what I and serious advocates of ID define it as. The fact that you associate it with what is popularly known as 'Creationism' (6000 year old earth,et al...) makes me think you don't. Teaching ID is tantamount to teaching cellular biology that is not disputed by anyone along with pointing out where it potentially conflicts with the existing natural explainations for it's origins and evolution. It in no way calles for ignoring any legitimate science nor does it call for banning the teaching of evolution. The 'Creationists' are as embarassing (and funny) to ID advocates like me as they are to you.
Jesus wept, Bubba--you don't have any science going for you.
0 Replies
Setanta
1
Mon 19 Oct, 2015 07:04 am
@Leadfoot,
Don't know what et al means, huh? Mr. Intelligent Design is not the only one who should be embarrassed. What legitimate science do you allege ID employs that deserves to stand beside normal science curricula in schools?
0 Replies
parados
2
Mon 19 Oct, 2015 11:02 am
@MrIntelligentDesign,
Quote:
Thus, when you talk intelligence without relying/using my new discovery of the real intelligence, you are talking a natural phenomenon and not the actual intelligence, thus, you are surely wrong scientifically.
So, you simply defined natural processes as designed by an intelligence and then used that to prove that everything was designed?
0 Replies
parados
3
Mon 19 Oct, 2015 11:09 am
@MrIntelligentDesign,
Quote:
OK, why it is naturen? If we based our Probability Calculation and its limit (0 < P < 1), we can see that any event to occur has always a probability of 1. Which mean, any natural event or natural phenomenon or natural process will always have the ratio of 1. Both reality and probability agreed that all natural event or natural phenomenon or natural processes have always a ratio of 1.
When you make simple mistakes like this, we start to see the failings of your hypothesis.
Problem -
Roll me a 6 on your first roll of a die.
Solution -
You roll a dice and it comes up with a number from 1 to 6. All have the same probability of appearing.
Does it make you stupid when you don't roll the 6 on the first roll? Does it make you intelligent if you do roll a 6? Is the probability of completing the task really 1 out of 1?
0 Replies
Frank Apisa
1
Mon 19 Oct, 2015 11:32 am
Nobody here knows if there has been any "intelligent design" involved in anything that has occurred on planet Earth...
...or any of the other planets that probably exist throughout what we humans call "the universe."
Anyone saying that there has been intelligent design is simply saying, "At least one god exists." It is a blind guess about the REALTY.
Anyone saying that there has been no intelligent design is simply saying, "There are no gods, so there can be no intelligent design." IT is a blind guess about the REALITY.
You managed to get two words out before "racist". What definition you using this time?
0 Replies
Frank Apisa
0
Mon 19 Oct, 2015 12:23 pm
@timur,
timur wrote:
Just saying a lot of crap, as usual.
You leave aside any other possibility, like those who are not Manichean enough to care about the existence of gods.
You are like any other theist or strong atheist, you firmly believe you own the truth.
What a load of bollocks!
Tsk, tsk, Timur...you never were good at this sort of thing...
...and you are getting worse.
But you are hilarious because of that face you use as an avatar. It looks as though you have a lemon in your mouth...and that someone has sprayed your butt with Tabasco Sauce.
0 Replies
timur
1
Mon 19 Oct, 2015 01:08 pm
Well, you are good but only at showing your stupidity.
