"ID Giants Wipe The Floor With Evolutionist Panel"

[Kenny'sID]

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?

Do you not understand those are just the facts, plain and simple, and they were smart enough to know from past experience exactly what would take place if they stated their case?

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.

Nope, I've listened to all the assumptions that you refer to as evidence, so please, stop lying, that's not going to help your case

 

[Kenny'sID]

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

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.

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.

I saw no desperation whatsoever with Ham. Perception man, all depends on what side you are on...pay attention to what I said, and *you* drink.

What was dishonest about Hams "nothing" reply. I actually thought you were talking about him when you stated:

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

See what I mean by, what we see depends on the side we take. Not sure what you are trying to make out of it, but that was the only point.

 

[Kenny'sID]

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

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

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...

So because your side has accepted it, it's pretty much accepted? Are you all that arrogant, and so entitled you feel yours is the only opinion that sets the bar because you decided it did? Laughable.

What are you talking about?

Once again, pay attention to what I said and you will easily see what I'm talking about. I just can't hold your hand every step of the way here.

 

[Loudmouth]

Do you not understand those are just the facts, plain and simple, and they were smart enough to know from past experience exactly what would take place if they stated their case?

We are smart enough to know that their case is not scientific. That's why they don't present it to scientists.

Nope, I've listened to all the assumptions that you refer to as evidence, so please, stop lying, that's not going to help your case

What evidence has been presented that is actually an assumption?

 

[Loudmouth]

I saw no desperation whatsoever with Ham. Perception man, all depends on what side you are on...pay attention to what I said, and *you* drink.

Ham admitted that no evidence would change his mind. Do you deny this?

What was dishonest about Hams "nothing" reply.

It is dishonest to have a scientific debate when no evidence will change your mind.

See what I mean by, what we see depends on the side we take. Not sure what you are trying to make out of it, but that was the only point.

Again, do you deny that Ken Ham stated that no evidence would change his mind?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Yes, yes, your favourite article. This discussion is about ID not how the scientific method should be applied to forensic science. Besides, as your article says...

Science is, or should be, about the truth. Truth in its abstract, spiritual or metaphysical forms is important, but science deals only with empirical truth. The scientific method has proven itself over time to be a reliable way to arrive at real, measurable, observable truth.

Science deals in observable facts. Truth is like a slippery bar of soap, hard to grasp. The things that evolutionary science cannot explain casts doubt on the things that they believe they can explain. If the things they can't explain are real, and related to the things they can explain, how did they come into being? The biggest unexplained phenomenon of course is just how something actually changes into something else. What we get is "Well, the critter needed legs..........so it grew legs. You got a problem with that, you ignoramus?"

 

[DogmaHunter]

I saw no desperation whatsoever with Ham. Perception man, all depends on what side you are on...pay attention to what I said, and *you* drink.

Dude...... when one side says that "nothing" will change his mind, while the other simply says "evidence", then there is no discussion. It's painfully obvious which side is the intellectual honest one...

What was dishonest about Hams "nothing" reply.

The fact that you need to ask, is quite telling.

I actually thought you were talking about him when you stated:
There you have your "objectivity" - not to mention intellectual honesty and integrity

 

[DogmaHunter]

So because your side has accepted it, it's pretty much accepted?

No. It's accepted because of the evidence.

Are you all that arrogant, and so entitled you feel yours is the only opinion that sets the bar because you decided it did? Laughable.

No. Evidence sets the bar.

Once again, pay attention to what I said and you will easily see what I'm talking about. I just can't hold your hand every step of the way here.

Perhaps read the next sentence. You know... the one you choose not to include in this quote.

 

[afishamongmany]

↑[/URL]
However, though the imaginary process you outline admirably describes how irreducible complexity might theoretically come about for a single system,
"Loudmouth, post: 69974008, member: 11790"]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?

Good day to you Loudmouth,
1- You haven't 'shown' or 'demonstrated' anything. In saying that I'm not playing semantics. Showing and demonstrating is what 'science' is supposed to be about. Sure one can start with imaginings and theories but until the tyre hits the asphalt ...
2- The conclusion that in the beginning God created all things according to their kind, requires the hearing, seeing and understanding that come with faith. Science has different 'requirement'. In truth neither sets of requirements are in contradiction or opposition to each other.
Go well
><>

 

[HitchSlap]

Good day to you Loudmouth,
1- You haven't 'shown' or 'demonstrated' anything. In saying that I'm not playing semantics. Showing and demonstrating is what 'science' is supposed to be about. Sure one can start with imaginings and theories but until the tyre hits the asphalt ...
2- The conclusion that in the beginning God created all things according to their kind, requires the hearing, seeing and understanding that come with faith. Science has different 'requirement'. In truth neither sets of requirements are in contradiction or opposition to each other.
Go well
><>

Are you familiar with what Mark Twain had to say about faith?

 

[AV1611VET]

Are you familiar with what Mark Twain had to say about faith?

Yes, and he owes an apology to the martyrs of our faith.

 

[HitchSlap]

Yes, and he owes an apology to the martyrs of our faith.

You got it a bit backwards, there, chief. Willing to die for a lie or false beliefs only proves they didn't have anything better to live for. Don't make it out to be a badge of courage.

 

[AV1611VET]

You got it a bit backwards, there, chief. Willing to die for a lie or false beliefs only proves they didn't have anything better to live for. Don't make it out to be a badge of courage.

You can apologize to them too, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[HitchSlap]

You can apologize to them too, as far as I'm concerned.

Do you have sundowner's syndrome? What makes you think I need to apologize to anybody?

 

[AV1611VET]

What makes you think I need to apologize to anybody?

Just a feeling.

 

[HitchSlap]

Just a feeling.

Probably gas.

 

[afishamongmany]

Just a feeling.

Hello there AV,
I get the feeling that the guy doesn't do apologises. But be encouraged at least 'gas' is way less offensive than 'vomit'.
Go well,
><>

 

[HitchSlap]

Hello there AV,
I get the feeling that the guy doesn't do apologises. But be encouraged at least 'gas' is way less offensive than 'vomit'.
Go well,
><>

Maybe you should apologize.

 

[Loudmouth]

Good day to you Loudmouth,
1- You haven't 'shown' or 'demonstrated' anything. In saying that I'm not playing semantics. Showing and demonstrating is what 'science' is supposed to be about. Sure one can start with imaginings and theories but until the tyre hits the asphalt ...

I have demonstrated that ID/creationism is not supported by positive evidence, only by logical fallacies (e.g. argument from incredulity, argument from ignorance).

2- The conclusion that in the beginning God created all things according to their kind, requires the hearing, seeing and understanding that come with faith.

Then it is a belief, not a scientific conclusion. Scientific conclusions don't require faith.

In truth neither sets of requirements are in contradiction or opposition to each other.

When one side says, "Evolution is false because the Bible says so," then you have an obvious contradiction, both in fact and in methodology.

If you throw away scientific conclusion because the conflict with faith based religious beliefs, you are doing more than rejecting the theory. You are rejecting science as a whole.

 

[afishamongmany]

1-I have demonstrated that ID/creationism is not supported by positive evidence, only by logical fallacies (e.g. argument from incredulity, argument from ignorance).

2-Then it is a belief, not a scientific conclusion. Scientific conclusions don't require faith.

3-When one side says, "Evolution is false because the Bible says so," then you have an obvious contradiction, both in fact and in methodology.

4-If you throw away scientific conclusion because the conflict with faith based religious beliefs, you are doing more than rejecting the theory. You are rejecting science as a whole.

Hi Lm,
Ok to your 4 responses,
1- My original comments were addressed to post#4 by Papias where he describes an imagined evolution of a lung in a fishpod. This description though interesting and a possible starting point for a scientific investigation is not a demonstration of anything. I'm sorry I have not read your 'demonstration' so I can't comment on it.
2- Agreed.
3- The Bible doesn't say evolution is false. It says nothing at all about evolution. But many of those who believe the theory of evolution say the Bible is false. Oh there is lots of conflict but it remains that there is no contradictions between what faith in The Living God is and what science is.
4-As far as Darwinism is concerned I throw away its conclusions because 'the science' doesn't join up, doesn't convince, doesn't demonstrate it's core premise. I rejected this theory long before reading the Bible and becoming a Christian. Darwinism is what I was taught at school and at home there was no counter narrative. I certainly don't reject science. It is a most useful way of increasing knowledge and understanding of the creation that we are and that we live in. Darwinism is essentially a barrow load of facts strung, hung and weaved together with several lorry loads of imagined assertions.
Go well
><>