Prove it or remove it challenge

[Hoghead1]

By "shot down," I mean situations where individuals have blamed God for something that eventually was found to be caused by something in nature.

 

[Paterfamilia]

So why didn't the ID lawyers at Dover call him out on it?

The ID side made a lot of mistakes at Dover. In fact, the whole thing was a mistake in my opinion. Never should have happened.

However, the ten year anniversary just passed on 20 December, and it's essentially a different world today.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

I think the count is up to around 90 published papers. I have no idea how many citations. Another evolutionist fallacy bites the dust.

You claim there are 90 published research papers in peer reviewed journals about intelligent design yet you fail to link any of them. Probably because they don't exist.

What is the fallacy?

Perhaps you should come forward a bit from Dover and find out where the state of the science is. I hope you're open to some reading.

This is the second time you've stated this yet fail to cite any sources.

I don't know what standardized scientific tests have been offered or run to determine if sometHing is a specified complex coded information system.

Because there aren't any. It's an unfalsifiable claim, meaning it has no explanatory power. It's pseudoscience.

As I said earlier, I think the more appropriate venue for teaching ID would be the philosophy or religion department.

I agree. Keep it in a world religion class with all the other creation myths. It has nothing to do with science. It has no explanatory power in biology and cant predict anything about the natural world. It's nonsense.

Wait for Darwinism to utterly collapse ha ha before it goes into the science class, a bit more matured as well. Ha ha

Good luck with that. 150 years of evidence piling up mountains high through several independent lines of study and no evidence that contradicts it.

Creation science is not the same thing as ID.

Except that it is. As I cited earlier, Barbara Forest demonstrated this in her testimony.
http://ncse.com/creationism/legal/forrests-testimony-creationism-id

 

[Paterfamilia]

By "shot down," I mean situations where individuals have blamed God for something that eventually was found to be caused by something in nature.

Okay, I am still not perfectly clear on how this applies. Sorry for being so dense, but nobody is "blaming" God for anything.

 

[Paterfamilia]

You claim there are 90 published research papers in peer reviewed journals about intelligent design yet you fail to link any of them. Probably because they don't exist.

What is the fallacy?



This is the second time you've stated this yet fail to cite any sources.



Because there aren't any. It's an unfalsifiable claim, meaning it has no explanatory power. It's pseudoscience.



I agree. Keep it in a world religion class with all the other creation myths. It has nothing to do with science. It has no explanatory power in biology and cant predict anything about the natural world. It's nonsense.



Good luck with that. 150 years of evidence piling up mountains high through several independent lines of study and no evidence that contradicts it.



Except that it is. As I cited earlier, Barbara Forest demonstrated this in her testimony.
http://ncse.com/creationism/legal/forrests-testimony-creationism-id

Yeah as I said, I am on my iPad and not in a good position to do a lot of citations.

When I do, will you read them?

And when you see that I am right, will you acknowledge that?

You repeatedly suggest that I am lying - an honest man would admit that he was wrong when he finds out he is wrong. Are you an honest man?

Oh, and the fallacy is that there are no peer reviewed published articles (et al) on ID. It's up around 90 as I said.

 

[Subduction Zone]

One last thing, and this is a good point (it's a shame I have to wade through so much vitriol to find a relevant nugget), I have not, nor have I attempted to show "that DNA as we see it had to come from an intelligence."

Not there yet.

I tell you what then, quit playing silly games. Just tell us what you believe and why.

 

[Paterfamilia]

I tell you what then, quit playing silly games. Just tell us what you believe and why.

Ha ha at the risk of being accused of silly games, you just got back to the discussion as I was checking out again.

Keep reading, and I will be back later.

On second thought, tomorrow starts with an early morning and a busy week. I gotta wind down and prepare.

Thanks for the discussion. I will list some sites tomorrow but my participation will be regrettably spotty.

Thanks to all.

 

[TLK Valentine]

The ID side made a lot of mistakes at Dover.

Are you saying that they let an opposition witness commit perjury, did nothing about it, and all you can call it is a "mistake"?

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

When I do, will you read them?

Yes. However, I doubt you're going to cite any scientific research that has been peer reviewed and published in a reputable journal that has anything to do with intelligent design in the context of biology.

And when you see that I am right, will you acknowledge that?

What exactly are you saying you're right about? Quit stalling and cite this research you say exists. Include a quotation out of the paper that supports your position.

Oh, and the fallacy is that there are no peer reviewed published articles (et al) on ID. It's up around 90 as I said.

Which you have failed to cite. Here, i'll make it easy for you. What is the title of the peer reviewed research paper on ID, what journal was it published in and the date it was published. You are so confident this research exists, you should know at least one example off the top of your head.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This was in regard to my saying that Ken Miller is an ideologue huckster.

I do (with reservations) withdraw and apologize for that characterization. I will address his arguments when it seems appropriate and timely.

In review of what he says in a variety of sources, he seems like a good man and a good scientist, with a couple of glaring (and inexplicable) exceptions.

I doubt that. You can state opinions about people that are not members here. It is when you attack other members that you will get in trouble.

 

[bhsmte]

Ha ha ha you sir, don't know what you are talking about. Would you mind sharing your understanding of the theory?

What theory?

Do you know what a scientific theory is?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ha ha at the risk of being accused of silly games, you just got back to the discussion as I was checking out again.

Keep reading, and I will be back later.

On second thought, tomorrow starts with an early morning and a busy week. I gotta wind down and prepare.

Thanks for the discussion. I will list some sites tomorrow but my participation will be regrettably spotty.

Thanks to all.

It was a busy day for me too. Tomorrow too. I will try to keep apprised.

 

[bhsmte]

ID theory?

Anyone?

You guys confidently assert that it's been debunked. Please tell us what it was that got debunked.

It's honestly not a trick question.

There is nothing to even debunk, because it isn't a scientific theory.

It is up to the ID crew, to support their faith belief.

 

[HitchSlap]

No, he didn't hit right on the money. Creation science is not the same thing as ID. I think I have represented the differences pretty thoroughly. If you still disagree, well just have to leave it at that.

Minus the cheap tuxedo, ID is nothing more than creationism.

 

[Paterfamilia]

Yes. However, I doubt you're going to cite any scientific research that has been peer reviewed and published in a reputable journal that has anything to do with intelligent design in the context of biology.



What exactly are you saying you're right about? Quit stalling and cite this research you say exists. Include a quotation out of the paper that supports your position.



Which you have failed to cite. Here, i'll make it easy for you. What is the title of the peer reviewed research paper on ID, what journal was it published in and the date it was published. You are so confident this research exists, you should know at least one example off the top of your head.

Here you go. Have fun!

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=10141

 

[bhsmte]

Hilarious thread, highly entertaining!

Ha ha ha!!!!

 

[Paterfamilia]

↑hitchslap said:

"Minus the cheap tuxedo, ID is nothing more than creationism."


Ha ha ha ha! Oh BOY!! You got us on that one! Ha ha can't stop laughing, but of course laughing at myself... I shoulda seen that ha ha cheap tuxedo. You nailed us on that one.

I'll tell the rest of the ID guys, we've been hitchslapped. No recovery from that...

 

[Paterfamilia]

Hilarious thread, highly entertaining!

Ha ha ha!!!!

Ha ha ha take off hoser! Ha ha!

 

[bhsmte]

Ha ha ha take off hoser! Ha ha!

Ha ha ha.

Folks like you, are why this site, can be so entertaining.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here you go. Have fun!

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=10141

The Discovery Toot? Are you kidding me? They are not much better than ICR or Answers in Genesis. Both of those sites require their workers not to use the scientific method. At least the Discovery Toot does not do that, but they were caught being extremely dishonest in the Dover Trial, that resulted in the statement that ID is nothing more than creationism in a cheap suit.