An intelligent design, requires an intelligent designer, it should be obvious...?

[Radrook]

The problem is Rad the evidence is just not convincing.

The problem is the impermeability to evidence.

 

[Jimmy D]

The problem is the impermeability to evidence.

You know what I would say next Rad ..... what evidence?

I think we'd better leave it though, life's too short!

 

[Radrook]

You know what would say next Rad ..... what evidence?

I think we'd better leave it though, life's too short!

Being irrational isn't going to extend it.

 

[Jimmy D]

Being irrational isn't going to extend it.

Neither is wishful thinking.

But science might!

 

[Radrook]

Neither is wishful thinking.

But science might!

But quackery masquerading as science fails miserably.

 

[Jimmy D]

But quackery masquerading as science fails miserably.

That's ID for you.

 

[Radrook]

That's ID for you.

Not by a long shot.

 

[Radrook]

Natural processes are limited. That's why scientists looking for intelligence are looking for simple things. A straight line, a series of numbers or other repeating pattern. Kind of like you find in DNA.

Unfortunately, searching or looking with selective vision is tantamount to putting blindfolds on.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

That's an invitation to an exercise in futility since all evidence is automatically disqualified as evidence or else the claim of inability to reason properly is deployed.

You made an assertion that something is illogical. I asked you to support that assertion - and you deploy the usual tactic of "there's no point because you wouldn't accept the evidence I provide." If you can't present any evidence the assumption must be that there is none. If you present some form of evidence and we reject it without explaining why you may have a case for claiming we reject it out of hand.

I claim you have no evidence. The support for that claim is your refusal to present any evidence. Feel free to show that my claim is unfounded.

 

[pshun2404]

• The Deck Stackers

First they insist that only scientists with a specific view are allowed to be considered valid.

Then, only "modern" ones (whatever that means, to some only the last 50 yearsunless inconvenient which then becomes the last 20 years, with others only the last 10 is okay, and finally with others only right now within a year of two)...and who gets to determine the acceptable "modern"? Only they do of course! But the objective among us should note that when convenient or supportive of their position they will not hesitate to reach back insisting on alleged relevance.

Next, any scientific insights except from specifically insisted on fields are rejected, regardless of how relevant these insights may be.

Then getting more and more Stacked, one is told to only appeal to articleswritten in peer reviewed journals, yet rejecting scientific commentary in other publications, which in some cases might be fine, but...

Then finally they narrow it to only peer reviewed journals that they will accept, and of course these will only be those that share the same view as the perpetrator who Stacks the Deck. All others are ignored, rejected, or explained away.

How come I never encounter this among discussions with physicists and chemists?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

• The Deck Stackers

First they insist that only scientists with a specific view are allowed to be considered valid.

Then, only "modern" ones (whatever that means, to some only the last 50 yearsunless inconvenient which then becomes the last 20 years, with others only the last 10 is okay, and finally with others only right now within a year of two)...and who gets to determine the acceptable "modern"? Only they do of course! But the objective among us should note that when convenient or supportive of their position they will not hesitate to reach back insisting on alleged relevance.

Next, any scientific insights except from specifically insisted on fields are rejected, regardless of how relevant these insights may be.

Then getting more and more Stacked, one is told to only appeal to articleswritten in peer reviewed journals, yet rejecting scientific commentary in other publications, which in some cases might be fine, but...

Then finally they narrow it to only peer reviewed journals that they will accept, and of course these will only be those that share the same view as the perpetrator who Stacks the Deck. All others are ignored, rejected, or explained away.

How come I never encounter this among discussions with physicists and chemists?

Can you link to an example of this behaviour?

 

[Speedwell]

Can you link to an example of this behaviour?

creation.com

 

[Jimmy D]

• The Deck Stackers

First they insist that only scientists with a specific view are allowed to be considered valid.

Then, only "modern" ones (whatever that means, to some only the last 50 yearsunless inconvenient which then becomes the last 20 years, with others only the last 10 is okay, and finally with others only right now within a year of two)...and who gets to determine the acceptable "modern"? Only they do of course! But the objective among us should note that when convenient or supportive of their position they will not hesitate to reach back insisting on alleged relevance.

Next, any scientific insights except from specifically insisted on fields are rejected, regardless of how relevant these insights may be.

Then getting more and more Stacked, one is told to only appeal to articleswritten in peer reviewed journals, yet rejecting scientific commentary in other publications, which in some cases might be fine, but...

Then finally they narrow it to only peer reviewed journals that they will accept, and of course these will only be those that share the same view as the perpetrator who Stacks the Deck. All others are ignored, rejected, or explained away.

So stop crying into your keyboard and present some compelling evidence.

How come I never encounter this among discussions with physicists and chemists?

Because the laws of physics and chemistry don't threaten your religous beliefs?

I think it's most likely because there aren't a number of anti-physics or anti-chemistry propaganda organisations preying on folks ignorance of those subjects, if it wasn't for Creationist websites filling people's heads with their nonsense these threads would be a lot shorter.

That anyone would rather take Ken Ham's opinion on biology over a well qualified expert is mind boggling .

 

[Radrook]

• The Deck Stackers

First they insist that only scientists with a specific view are allowed to be considered valid.

Then, only "modern" ones (whatever that means, to some only the last 50 yearsunless inconvenient which then becomes the last 20 years, with others only the last 10 is okay, and finally with others only right now within a year of two)...and who gets to determine the acceptable "modern"? Only they do of course! But the objective among us should note that when convenient or supportive of their position they will not hesitate to reach back insisting on alleged relevance.

Next, any scientific insights except from specifically insisted on fields are rejected, regardless of how relevant these insights may be.

Then getting more and more Stacked, one is told to only appeal to articleswritten in peer reviewed journals, yet rejecting scientific commentary in other publications, which in some cases might be fine, but...

Then finally they narrow it to only peer reviewed journals that they will accept, and of course these will only be those that share the same view as the perpetrator who Stacks the Deck. All others are ignored, rejected, or explained away.

How come I never encounter this among discussions with physicists and chemists?

Which makes any debate against such a card stacking an exercise in futility. Excellent examples!

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Which makes any debate against such a card stacking an exercise in futility. Excellent examples!

Not sure what you're seeing that nobody else is. I asked for examples and received none except creation.com which, though a perfect example, is probably not supporting the side this claim is supposed to support. Perhaps you could link to other examples for us?

 

[Radrook]

Not sure what you're seeing that nobody else is. I asked for examples and received none except creation.com which, though a perfect example, is probably not supporting the side this claim is supposed to support. Perhaps you could link to other examples for us?

Other examples, regardless of source, will be tagged as none evidence as well.

 

[Speedwell]

Amazing.

CLAIM: Evidence against my beliefs are destroyed by an evil cabal set on crushing the truth!

Respondent: What proof is there that this has happened?

CLAIM: That there is none!

It is more satisfying to imagine oneself conspired against than merely dismissed as silly.

 

[Radrook]

TRANSLATION: Nope, I got nuthin'.

Not true.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Other examples, regardless of source, will be tagged as none evidence as well.

Round and round we go..... See my post #409 above

 

[bhsmte]

Not true.

Certainly appears true.