A Simple Request

[TeddyKGB]

I'm rather puzzled by juvenissun's approach in this thread. It's almost like he can't imagine what would support his own position - and then goes on to tell the others they ask stupid questions.

It's become obvious to me that ID-creationists have little interest in philosophical or empirical implications of design. They are fairly desperate to shove the whole thing off onto "intuition," which of course means their intuition that "X looks designed" is sufficient.

I guess it's why ID arguments begin by stating that X is obviously designed and it looks just like computer part Y and how could we possibly deny it?

 

[Cabal]

It's become obvious to me that ID-creationists have little interest in philosophical or empirical implications of design. They are fairly desperate to shove the whole thing off onto "intuition," which of course means their intuition that "X looks designed" is sufficient.

I guess it's why ID arguments begin by stating that X is obviously designed and it looks just like computer part Y and how could we possibly deny it?

What gets me most about this whole ID thing is - surely "design" is a subjective quantity? You "design" a room, not everyone is going to agree that it is well designed. The inherent problem with ID is, there's always going to be this subjective element that draws some people to it (because they're desperate to justify God and don't know science for poo) and sends real scientists' faces in palms / heads onto desks (because they know that intricacy != supernatural intervention).

If you wanted to artificially manufacture a controversy, they're definitely going the right way about it.

 

[juvenissun]

You are entitled to your opinion. but the difference between yours and mine is i can back mine up with evidence. you just assert and insist.

Can you? My point is exactly that you can not.
You can only do it to a certain step. Beyond that, you have to say: you don't know. And it is more likely that what you know now will become wrong in the future. That is the nature of your "backup".

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Can you? My point is exactly that you can not.
You can only do it to a certain step. Beyond that, you have to say: you don't know. And it is more likely that what you know now will become wrong in the future. That is the nature of your "backup".

I have genetic evidence, fossil evidence, ERV evidence, and so on and so forth. whats yours other than a book?

 

[juvenissun]

I have genetic evidence, fossil evidence, ERV evidence, and so on and so forth. whats yours other than a book?

In fact, you just have a pile of junks. All of them are on the way OUT and to be replaced by new junks. And, in these days, they are going FAST.

 

[Baggins]

In fact, you just have a pile of junks. All of them are on the way OUT and to be replaced by new junks. And, in these days, they are going FAST.

The old "evolution is on its last legs" argument.

Popular for 150 years

 

[EnemyPartyII]

He (washington) could not answer my question. So I am turning to you:

What format should a paper look like in order to "unmistakably favor intelligent design over evolution"?

Any peer reviewed journal article that contains the phrase "This evidence indicates that the organism(s) is(are) the result of inteligent design rather than any other origin" or similar, and explains what the evidence is, and how that evidence leads to this conclusion

 

[TeddyKGB]

In fact, you just have a pile of junks. All of them are on the way OUT and to be replaced by new junks. And, in these days, they are going FAST.

Why don't you go find something else to do for a while? Your heart is clearly not into this anymore.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

In fact, you just have a pile of junks. All of them are on the way OUT and to be replaced by new junks. And, in these days, they are going FAST.

i apreciate your out of hand disregard for physical evidence, especially measures of inheritance. So common among creationists. Please ask yourself why it's only ignorant lay people and not scientists pushing creationism. That should show you where the evidence lies.

 

[juvenissun]

i apreciate your out of hand disregard for physical evidence, especially measures of inheritance. So common among creationists. Please ask yourself why it's only ignorant lay people and not scientists pushing creationism. That should show you where the evidence lies.

Define "scientist".

All those ignorant lay people ARE scientists (Ph.D.s), include ME, who is much more scientific than you.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Define "scientist".

All those ignorant lay people ARE scientists (Ph.D.s), include ME, who is much more scientific than you.

You are not scientific at all, you claim to be a geologist, but this is obviously a lie to anyone with a modicum of geological education. Magical mysticism is your field and ignorance our doctrine.

If you have a PhD, what was your field of research ?

 

[LewisWildermuth]

You are not scientific at all, you claim to be a geologist, but this is obviously a lie to anyone with a modicum of geological education. Magical mysticism is your field and ignorance our doctrine.

If you have a PhD, what was your field of research ?

His master was in "Making Jesus weep." and his Piled Higher and Deeper is in "Lying for a God who likes honesty."

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Define "scientist".

All those ignorant lay people ARE scientists (Ph.D.s), include ME, who is much more scientific than you.

Anyone with PhDs in biology? Who wrote a journal article supporting creationism?

 

[juvenissun]

Anyone with PhDs in biology? Who wrote a journal article supporting creationism?

You may start to count how many Ph.D.s in AiG and in ICR.
Who are YOU to criticize their intelligence?

 

[juvenissun]

You are not scientific at all, you claim to be a geologist, but this is obviously a lie to anyone with a modicum of geological education. Magical mysticism is your field and ignorance our doctrine.

If you have a PhD, what was your field of research ?

With the premise, why do you still ask that st***d question?

 

[juvenissun]

Any peer reviewed journal article that contains the phrase "This evidence indicates that the organism(s) is(are) the result of inteligent design rather than any other origin" or similar, and explains what the evidence is, and how that evidence leads to this conclusion

No matter how good the article is, it won't pass the review with what you said above. It has nothing to do with the quality of the work.

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

Define "scientist".

All those ignorant lay people ARE scientists (Ph.D.s), include ME, who is much more scientific than you.

Well you need to doing for science for one... How many experiments and discoveries do creationist organizations produce? Having Ph.D does not make one a scientist.

 

[Washington]

Anyone with PhDs in biology? Who wrote a journal article supporting creationism?

You may start to count how many Ph.D.s in AiG and in ICR.

But obviously their work "supporting creationism" never rose to the level of a genuine scientific nature; work that merited peer review and publication in a professional journal. But if you have proof that it did, we'd all be interested in reading about it.

In any case, I find it telling---and amusing---that after five days, 57 posts, and a lot of irrelevant palaver, not a single example of scientific evidence that favors intelligent design.

The silence speaks volumes. Not only about the complete dearth of such science, but the deliberate misrepresentation that creationism is supported by it. Problem is, the sheep truly are as foolish as the creationist shepherds need them to be, and are willing to shell out good money to prove it.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

But obviously their work "supporting creationism" never rose to the level of a genuine scientific nature; work that merited peer review and publication in a professional journal. But if you have proof that it did, we'd all be interested in reading about it.

In any case, I find it telling---and amusing---that after five days, 57 posts, and a lot of irrelevant palaver, not a single example of scientific evidence that favors intelligent design.

The silence speaks volumes. Not only about the complete dearth of such science, but the deliberate misrepresentation that creationism is supported by it. Problem is, the sheep truly are as foolish as the creationist shepherds need them to be, and are willing to shell out good money to prove it.

And here I was foolishly waiting on the edge of my seat with baited breath for earth-shattering feats of science!

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

You may start to count how many Ph.D.s in AiG and in ICR.
Who are YOU to criticize their intelligence?

It's not their intelligence thats in question, its their science.You claim to have a PhD, fair enough. I do not posess a PhD but i do actively work within science for the USGS, so I will judge your science as a peer. Creationism, especially young earth, is anti-scientific. it never even attempts to support its own ideas, only to stubbornly deny evolution till blue in the face. It is textbook denialism and nothing more. Creationism gives us no insight into function and origin in biology, it just gives up and says goddidit. That is intellectually and scientifically lazy. Evolution gives us a mechanism. All of the basic components of evolution have been observed in the short term, both in the lab and in nature. these components are: novel beneficial mutation, natural selection, and speciation. The only thing that prevents those from producing larger scale change is time.