Why evolution should not be a religious issue

[Radrook]

Do you think you have evidence for ID? BTW "Well it looks designed" is not enough.

Not enough? And there we go! Let's just agree to disagree.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Not enough? And there we go! Let's just agree to disagree.

Well, No! You have to be able to demonstrate the designer - you can't just assert it. Otherwise, I could just assert anything I'd like & call it science, ID is not even a hypothesis given Meyer & company are yet to lay any testable foundation behind their hot air about design...

 

[Radrook]

Here is the time-wasting reason why certain debates should be avoided like the Bubonic Plague:
Invincible ignorance fallacy - Wikipedia

 

[Radrook]

Well, No! You have to be able to demonstrate the designer - you can't just assert it. Otherwise, I could just assert anything I'd like & call it science, ID is not even a hypothesis given Meyer & company are yet to lay any testable foundation behind their hot air about design...

Well, your response provides ample reason to avoid any further time-wasting discussion.
Invincible ignorance fallacy - Wikipedia

 

[Armoured]

Well, your response provides ample reason to avoid any further time-wasting discussion.
Invincible ignorance fallacy - Wikipedia

So what is Meyer et als testable prediction, then?

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Well, your response provides ample reason to avoid any further time-wasting discussion.
Invincible ignorance fallacy - Wikipedia

From your own Link:

The invincible ignorance fallacy[1] is a deductive fallacy of circularity where the person in question simply pig-headedly refuses to believe the argument, ignoring any evidence given. It is not so much a fallacious tactic in argument as it is a refusal to argue in the proper sense of the word, the method instead being to either make assertions with no consideration of objections or to simply dismiss objections by calling them excuses, conjecture, etc. or saying that they don't prove anything; all without actually demonstrating how the objection fit these terms (see ad lapidem fallacy).
​

What evidence or "argument" have we ignored?? None of the ID conjecture put forward by any of the Intelligent Design crowd has any testable component to it! All talk about "...Looks Designed...!" literally has no scientific foundation to it & can't be tested!

Your conversation here on the other hand fits the Invincible Ignorance fallacy definition to a Tee!

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Can anyone explain where this misconception about the scientific community treating the ToE as dogma? Why does that accusation only seem to be around the Theory of Evolution. Science is all about trying to falsify ideas and following the evidence to logical conclusions. Surely a scientist have way more to gain from falsifying the ToE than dogmatically supporting it.

Well this is coming from a peer-reviewed paper in Nature.

 

[Radrook]

From your own Link:

The invincible ignorance fallacy[1] is a deductive fallacy of circularity where the person in question simply pig-headedly refuses to believe the argument, ignoring any evidence given. It is not so much a fallacious tactic in argument as it is a refusal to argue in the proper sense of the word, the method instead being to either make assertions with no consideration of objections or to simply dismiss objections by calling them excuses, conjecture, etc. or saying that they don't prove anything; all without actually demonstrating how the objection fit these terms (see ad lapidem fallacy).
​

What evidence or "argument" have we ignored?? None of the ID conjecture put forward by any of the Intelligent Design crowd has any testable component to it! All talk about "...Looks Designed...!" literally has no scientific foundation to it & can't be tested!

BTW
I have come across your objections before hundreds of times so it isn't that I don't know how to respond to them in a logically devastating manner which proves them totally ineffecrtual. I just don't feel like wasting my time again at this particular juncture.

Your conversation here on the other hand fits the Invincible Ignorance fallacy definition to a Tee!

Well, if you declare that everything that can be shown to you is going to be considered bogus then you are inviting a discussion which involves an exercise in futility. It is similar to saying: "PULL!" so you can shoot down the dummy ducks as target practice.

 

[Jimmy D]

Well, if you declare that everything that can be shown to you is going to be considered bogus then you are inviting a discussion which involves an exercise in futility. It is similar to saying: "PULL!" so you can shoot down the dummy ducks as target practice.

I aopogise if I've missed it, but you know you have to present some evidence before you can cry about it being rejected?

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Well, if you declare that everything that can be shown to you is going to be considered bogus then you are inviting a discussion which involves an exercise in futility. It is similar to saying: "PULL!" so you can shoot down the dummy ducks as target practice.

Seriously, in all the links and posts you've left here so far, what testable scientific evidence or testable process have you given us for ID? On the other hand, you've been able to talk to actual scientists working in the field, specifically using evolutionary principles and who are also Christians even... so you can actually converse with people who write up research findings on specific aspects of the Theory of Evolution right here on these boards!

 

[Radrook]

Seriously, in all the links and posts you've left here so far, what testable scientific evidence or testable process have you given us for ID? On the other hand, you've been able to talk to actual scientists working in the field, specifically using evolutionary principles and who are also Christians even... so you can actually converse with people who write up research findings on specific aspects of the Theory of Evolution right here on these boards!

The scientific method doesn't involve discarding cogent reasoning when deemed convenient. Doing so places the methodology outside the realm of science and into to dubious region called quackery.

BTW
I have found that once a debaters declare themselves beyond the confines of cogent reasoning, as atheists always choose to do when discussing the ID concept, then, in order to avoid equivocation, straw man, inconsistency of policy and a host of other inanities offered up as if they were valid counterarguments, it is best to leave such a debaters to their own devices in order to avoid a totally unnecessary waste of precious time.

 

[Jimmy D]

The scientific method doesn't involve discarding cogent reasoning when deemed convenient. Doing so places the methodology outside the realm of science and into to dubious region called quackery.

Wait a minute, I thought you were arguing for ID?

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

The scientific method doesn't involve discarding cogent reasoning when deemed convenient. Doing so places the methodology outside the realm of science and into to dubious region called quackery.

Great then, what cogent reasoning? Again, all the ID propositions we've heard of have already been explained scientifically. Since these are already known processes, the ID 'idea' will need to provide some awful solid 'reasoning to be considered - but sure, let's hear it!

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

BTW
I have found that once a debaters declare themselves beyond the confines of cogent reasoning, as atheists always choose to do when discussing the ID concept, then, in order to avoid equivocation, straw man, inconsistency of policy and a host of other inanities offered up as if they were valid counterarguments, it is best to leave such a debaters to their own devices in order to avoid a totally unnecessary waste of precious time.

....so you're not going to give us your 'cogent reasoning'??

 

[Armoured]

Well, if you declare that everything that can be shown to you is going to be considered bogus then you are inviting a discussion which involves an exercise in futility. It is similar to saying: "PULL!" so you can shoot down the dummy ducks as target practice.

You need to present evidence before claiming it is rejected without due consideration.

 

[Armoured]

The scientific method doesn't involve discarding cogent reasoning when deemed convenient. Doing so places the methodology outside the realm of science and into to dubious region called quackery.

BTW
I have found that once a debaters declare themselves beyond the confines of cogent reasoning, as atheists always choose to do when discussing the ID concept, then, in order to avoid equivocation, straw man, inconsistency of policy and a host of other inanities offered up as if they were valid counterarguments, it is best to leave such a debaters to their own devices in order to avoid a totally unnecessary waste of precious time.

So show us the cogent reasoning already

 

[Speedwell]

The scientific method doesn't involve discarding cogent reasoning when deemed convenient. Doing so places the methodology outside the realm of science and into to dubious region called quackery.

Cogent reasoning? You argued that point pretty thoroughly here a few months ago, and your "cogent reasoning" turned out to be nothing but painfully obvious sophistical reasoning, an attempt to conflate two different meanings of the word "design" which fooled no one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Can anyone explain where this misconception about the scientific community treating the ToE as dogma? Why does that accusation only seem to be around the Theory of Evolution. Science is all about trying to falsify ideas and following the evidence to logical conclusions. Surely a scientist have way more to gain from falsifying the ToE than dogmatically supporting it.

I have seen that quite often creationists will tend to project their sins upon others. They follow dogma so they accuse others of doing the same.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Do you believe the Earth revolves around the sun or vice-versa?

Neither, not with 100% certainty anyway.

 

[HitchSlap]

The scientific method doesn't involve discarding cogent reasoning when deemed convenient. Doing so places the methodology outside the realm of science and into to dubious region called quackery.

BTW
I have found that once a debaters declare themselves beyond the confines of cogent reasoning, as atheists always choose to do when discussing the ID concept, then, in order to avoid equivocation, straw man, inconsistency of policy and a host of other inanities offered up as if they were valid counterarguments, it is best to leave such a debaters to their own devices in order to avoid a totally unnecessary waste of precious time.

Since when does "goddidit" pass for "cogent reasoning?"

lol