"ID Giants Wipe The Floor With Evolutionist Panel"

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,664
51,417
Guam
✟4,896,395.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
On the contrary.

They charm, then they kill.

Pretty much sums it up.
They don't interact with anyone else?

Ted Bundy was rude to everyone but his victims, was he?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
Why I absolutely love this photo is that you don't know if
- it is photo shopped
- staged
- or completely faked.

Clearly it is not a kitchen picture.
The kid may be laughing because the staged photographer
just pushed the kids face into a cake....and the kid is
just now wiping it off. We can guess, but we can't
measure the event or even recreate the event.

What is the temperature of the mailbox outside your house
60 seconds ago?
Go measure it's temperature 60 seconds ago.

At the heart of your argument is the wrongheaded view that we need to directly observe the hypothesis. That is clearly wrong. Anyone who thinks we need to observe the hypothesis doesn't understand how science works.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DogmaHunter
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
However, though the imaginary process you outline admirably describes how irreducible complexity might theoretically come about for a single system,

That's all we need to show. The IC argument states that there are no possible evolutionary pathways for these IC systems. Demonstrating that they are possible completely destroys the IC argument.

I am interested to know how these routes can be seen? The route you describe above has been imagined not seen.

Why do ID/Creationists never apply that same requirement to their own conclusions?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
So what? The ID people know you aren't going to buy their research or faith in God/the Bible as support for their position, but that doesn't mean they have no right to slap Darwin's junk around.

Rosa Parks actually got on the bus. ID wants to claim discrimination without ever stepping a foot on the bus. They claim beforehand that no one will accept their research, without ever producing the research. Do you understand why this is wrong?

It's really a pretty level playing field, they think ours is Junk just as we do theirs, I don't buy your evidence and you don't buy the Bible. What is new here?

Nothing new. You have just admitted that you ignore the evidence while those who accept evolution are following the evidence but only discount a myth written in a book.
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟143,395.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
My source is flawless and has not been disputed, only ignored.
It remains the same, of course.

First of all, one cannot observe the past. Items in the past may be remembered by some, but they cannot be seen, smelled, heard, tasted, or sensed in any way. Observation is an activity in the present that requires the use of the senses.

Secondly, one cannot predict the past. Prediction is an activity in the present that looks to the future, not the past. An attempt to use the scientific method to determine what happened in the past would be “retrodiction.” “Retrodiction” is a neologism for good reason: science cannot “retrodict.” This will be explained subsequently.

Thirdly, one cannot design experiments or controlled observations to determine what happened in the past. Experiments or controlled observations might help one see if a situation is possible or not possible under a set of defined circumstances, but one cannot design an experiment that will replicate the complex variety of conditions that existed in the past — conditions that are often not known in full detail. An experiment or set of controlled observations also cannot provide information about the order and timing of past events.


upload_2016-8-8_17-31-32.png


Someone walked there and a vehicle drove there.

True or false?
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟143,395.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
After watching my first youtube debate with Bill Nye and Ken Ham and a few since, Nye fanboys were claiming Nye "owned" Ham, but I saw something completely different. It all depends on what side one represents, and if the people have enough sense to be objective.

Talking about objectivity concerning that particular debate.... both sides can be summed up quite nicely by picking a single question from the Q&A that followed after the "debate". It was a question addressed to both speakers and it read "what would make you change your mind?"


Bill Nye's answer: "evidence".
Ken Ham's answer: "nothing".

There you have your "objectivity" - not to mention intellectual honesty and integrity.

So I wouldn't read a lot into that title, you can almost bet it's prejudiced and only represents one of the sides way of looking at things.

One side looks at the evidence with intellectual honesty.
The other clinges desperatly and dogmatically to a particular interpretation of a bronze-aged book.

I've led you to the water. Upto you now, to drink.
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟143,395.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Lose? we shall see. :)

We've already seen.... more then a century ago.

Besides, who the losers are is just one sides point of view.

No. It's a matter of science and supportive evidence.

Sure you are arrogant enough to assume that covers it....period, but that doesn't make it so.

The case of evolution has been pretty much settled more then a century ago.
You might want to update your scientific knowledge to a 21st century standard...
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟143,395.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Sure it is, I mean what else can we call something that is based on people treating others well and doing good. I mean that HAS to be a terrible thing...how vane is all that? What in the world was wrong with me in thinking Christianity is a good thing? :)

What are you talking about?

The question about origins of species, the natural sciences of biology, has nothing whatsoever to do with how we should treat one another in a societal setting.
 
Upvote 0