The stumbling block for atheists.

[Subduction Zone]

That deal was for the particular discussion at hand and not as a declaration that I would always treat the subject from a religiously neutral perspective. It depends on the thread. It also depends on how atheists respond. If they respond as if I am taking a religious perspective then I will begin react in harmony with that feedback if deemed necessary. For example, if the atheist brings in biblical issues then he will force me to deal with his objections from religious angle.

It does not appear that you treat the subject neutrally. If that were the case you would support your claims with proper evidence.

 

[Radrook]

It does not appear that you treat the subject neutrally. If that were the case you would support your claims with proper evidence.

All evidence which supports an ID is improper from an atheist perspective.

 

[Subduction Zone]

All evidence which supports an ID is improper from an atheist perspective.

Wrong again, It is improper from a scientific perspective. You try to claim that your beliefs are based upon science and then when it comes to evidence you avoid scientific evidence. Scientists (not 'atheistic scientists') developed the definition so that it would be neutral. Scientists are not perfect and are liable to deny evidence at times. By using a specific definition one can show that one has evidence. Your so called "evidence" does not meet this relativley low standard.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why not, that's the whole emphasis of the "Wedge Document."

Yes.

Theologians attempted to give you guys a wedgie and got busted.

They got what they deserved IMO.

 

[HitchSlap]

All evidence which supports an ID is improper from an atheist perspective.

That's just it though, Rad, arguments from incredulity isn't evidence.

 

[Kylie]

AV, what do you think "gnostic" means?

 

[AV1611VET]

AV, what do you think "gnostic" means?

Mystical science.

 

[Radrook]

Wrong again, It is improper from a scientific perspective. You try to claim that your beliefs are based upon science and then when it comes to evidence you avoid scientific evidence. Scientists (not 'atheistic scientists') developed the definition so that it would be neutral. Scientists are not perfect and are liable to deny evidence at times. By using a specific definition one can show that one has evidence. Your so called "evidence" does not meet this relativley low standard.

Your modus operandi isn't scientific.

 

[HitchSlap]

Yes.

Theologians attempted to give you guys a wedgie and got busted.

They got what they deserved IMO.

Well, there you go, theists got caught with their pants down.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your modus operandi isn't scientific.

You should not act like a child. I politely explained to you why you have no evidence.

 

[quatona]

When I argue from an ID standpoint I don't bring in God, a god, goddesses or deities of any kind. I just argue from the standpoint of what nature indicates.

Yes, you do it all the time.

 

[Radrook]

Yes, you do it all the time.

Thanks for agreeing with me.

 

[Kylie]

Mystical science.

And you would be wrong.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That deal was for the particular discussion at hand and not as a declaration that I would always treat the subject from a religiously neutral perspective. It depends on the thread.

Indeed, it depends on the thread. Which kind of exposes the dishonesty burried in the model.

Actual scientific theories are what they are: scientific theories. It doesn't depend on "context" what the foundation of those theories is, nore what their intended goals are.

For example, if the atheist brings in biblical issues then he will force me to deal with his objections from religious angle. So whether or not the subject remains neutral isn't completely up to me.

Funny, isn't it, how the bible will never come up when discussing things like germ theory, gravitation theory, theory of relativity, plate tectonics, etc.

That's another tell, for you.

In fact, some atheists cannot discuss an ID without immediately brining in religion and God.

Because most atheists understand the dishonesty of the ID model and what the "D" really stands for.

And your continued and consistent refusal to present this ID nonsense in an actual scientific manner (ie: with a proper definition of "design" and an objective testable method on how to detect it), only confirms that line of thinking.

If you wish to insist that it is not a religious model, but rather a scientific model, then all you need to do is show how it is a scientific model.

And you do that by defining the terminology and explaining the method by which unnatural design can be detected and tested. So, why don't you?

They seem too prefer to assume that is what is really being discussed..

We don't need to assume. The many court cases and cdesign proponentsists made sure of that.


But hey.... prove all of us wrong. Just explain how it is a scientific model. Define your terms. Explain the method. Share the supportive evidence. Explain how it can be falsified / tested.

That's all you need to do. If it is a valid scientific model, you should be able to do that.

 

[Radrook]

You should not act like a child. I politely explained to you why you have no evidence.

I politely responded that the modus operandi of selective blindness and inconsistency of policy is unscientific.

BTW
It is childish to constantly tag people as ignorant when they don't agree with your personal viewpoint.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I politely responded that the modus operandi of selective blindness and inconsistency of policy is unscientific.

Actually... you are just making bare assertions of this supposed "selective blindness". Because you see, in order to justify those assertions, you'ld actually have to explain by which criteria one can detect unnatural design, and then demonstrate how "them' atheists" selectively not apply those criteria to life.

But you haven't done that. Not even once. You haven't even tried.

 

[Speedwell]

Actually... you are just making bare assertions of this supposed "selective blindness". Because you see, in order to justify those assertions, you'ld actually have to explain by which criteria one can detect unnatural design, and then demonstrate how "them' atheists" selectively not apply those criteria to life.

But you haven't done that. Not even once. You haven't even tried.

I don't think it matters any more. Radrook is pretty much "out" as a biblical creationist and like the Discovery Institute whose ideas about ID he was pitching, may not regard ID as anything more than a Trojan Horse for biblical creationism.

 

[bhsmte]

All evidence which supports an ID is improper from an atheist perspective.

All evidence which supports an ID is improper from an atheist perspective.

Claims have a tendancy to stand on their own merit/evidence. Could be why dr. Behe, got destroyed under oath while questioned on ID. If his claim had merit, that wouldnt have happened. His own attorneys couldnt even save him.

 

[Radrook]

I don't think it matters any more. Radrook is pretty much "out" as a biblical creationist and like the Discovery Institute whose ideas about ID he was pitching, may not regard ID as anything more than a Trojan Horse for biblical creationism.

Really? I am not familiar with what the Discovery Institute teaches in that creationist area. So how am pitching for them? Also, as an Anglican-exactly what is it that you are pitching by lending support to atheists while attempting to discredit a believer?

 

[Radrook]

Actually... you are just making bare assertions of this supposed "selective blindness". Because you see, in order to justify those assertions, you'ld actually have to explain by which criteria one can detect unnatural design, and then demonstrate how "them' atheists" selectively not apply those criteria to life.

But you haven't done that. Not even once. You haven't even tried.

What for-so you can smugly drone that you can't see?