Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So using evidence is absurd but torturing logic is rational?
Your rephrasing is not accurate and you know it. I said no such thing about using evidence. Distorting what the evidence actually reveals, as YOU do, IS torturing and corrupting logic and reasoning.
For the first one I gave a different place that was not bias either way about ID so no I did not dismiss it.
For the second point the judge was a glory hound who wanted to turn the trial into a movie and hoped tom hanks would play him. and for perspective on the issue he was going to watch inherit the wind, LMAO
Yup that is YOUR unbiased judge,
I think you told me before. But I forget.
was you version of ID as god creating us like we create a "cell phone" or was it more like how a mother and father create a child?
Your rephrasing is not accurate and you know it. I said no such thing about using evidence. Distorting what the evidence actually reveals, as YOU do, IS torturing and corrupting logic and reasoning.
distort, shun, bann the actual claim is the only way they feel they can stop religion in the united states. Its about triggering irrational people more than solving an issue for them.
Your rephrasing is not accurate and you know it. I said no such thing about using evidence. Distorting what the evidence actually reveals, as YOU do, IS torturing and corrupting logic and reasoning.
No, knowing HOW life functions does tell you WHAT it is, this is not absurd; whereas you DO beg the question while shunning the fact that we do not have one single intelligent, conscious entity without a brain.
was you version of ID as god creating us like we create a "cell phone" or was it more like how a mother and father create a child?
My view on this is a little different then what most people believe arach. I believe humankind is nothing more then an animal who is BEING created in the image and likeness of God. Thus you could say we are still evolving because we are not there yet.
If you read the Genesis account carefully God says let us make humankind in our image and likeness. Now I don't know about others but to me that is saying humankind was ALREADY in existence and God is going to take biological humanity and makes them in his image and likeness.
Paul explains it like this in 1Co.15
The first man Adam was made a living soul, sown in corruption, sown a natural body,sown in dishouner, sown in weakness of the earth earthy and we right now bear this image.
But Paul goes on to say that humanity will be raised in incorruption, raised in glory, raised in power and SHALL bear the image of the heavenly.
This portion of scripture is speaking of the way humanity was sown and what humanity will become in the resurrection. Thus we are not yet in the image and likeness of God but are in the process of being made or created in the image and likeness of God.
the whole thing is a bias misleading of what ID is actually about.
The link was not for the intended purpose to explain what ID is. The links intended purpose was to show that ID cannot be inferred from empirical evidence which is what scientific theories are built upon.
The link then provided a checklist (Science Checklist) to see how Intelligent Design differs from science.
Thank you but I am well aware what ID is. ID is not based on science and is basically creationism.
The science department where Michael Behe works has a position statement on their website. Lehigh University exhibits a disclaimer on its website stating that the University does not endorse Behe's views on evolution.
Quote:
Department Position on Evolution and "Intelligent Design"
The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others.
The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of “intelligent design.” While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.
am I or are you? I know according to you I am always the one in denial but then again you believe you are always correct so I am not surprised by that.
No one I have read from ID supports a literal YE genesis account which again shows your ignorance on ID.
as for Behe he did not fail, the arguments his proponents used to say he was in error have been proven wrong and behe has been shown to be correct. Would you like a video showing this? it might help you see just how ignorant you are of ID and what took place at dover.
The link was not for the intended purpose to explain what ID is. The links intended purpose was to show that ID cannot be inferred from empirical evidence which is what scientific theories are built upon.
The link then provided a checklist (Science Checklist) to see how Intelligent Design differs from science.
Thank you but I am well aware what ID is. ID is not based on science and is basically creationism.
The science department where Michael Behe works has a position statement on their website. Lehigh University exhibits a disclaimer on its website stating that the University does not endorse Behe's views on evolution.
And the checklist is bias and thus is wrong headed and who cares if the university were behe works disagrees with his view or not. Take a look at the video I just posted.
Sorry, not good enough. Just skipping through I saw him pushing irreducible complexity - 'you cannot evolve a new feature, because it renders the organism unviable'. It was demonstrated that this is not the case. Since you say this puts his view of what happened at Dover, he is reiterating what has already been refuted and not being honest about what happened - that's if it is anything like your dishonest claim that Judge Jones was an evolutionist shill put in to find for Evolution whatever happened.
am I or are you? I know according to you I am always the one in denial but then again you believe you are always correct so I am not surprised by that.
No one I have read from ID supports a literal YE genesis account which again shows your ignorance on ID.
as for Behe he did not fail, the arguments his proponents used to say he was in error have been proven wrong and behe has been shown to be correct. Would you like a video showing this? it might help you see just how ignorant you are of ID and what took place at dover.
You are. And when you make a valid point, I take it on board. I have done so in the past. But overall your arguments fail and that is when you go into denial and finger -pointing, pretty much as you do here. And you mean 'opponents' not proponents.
The video is wrong. It has been shown that a feature having one purpose can evolve to do something else without the organism failing.
Now I have seen I/D being just one effort to debunk evolution with not only the Bible account waiting to be pushed but Jesus on top on it, so you can't fool me, even if now the ID bods are trying to pretend it's nothing to do with religion and is science.
Even if it was, it is still not a correct scientific theory - Behe's I/C was the best attempt to validate a god being involved ( what else did you think it was about, Pneuma? Because evolution couldn't work without a miracle), and it is scientifically invalid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
For the first one I gave a different place that was not bias either way about ID so no I did not dismiss it.
For the second point the judge was a glory hound who wanted to turn the trial into a movie and hoped tom hanks would play him. and for perspective on the issue he was going to watch inherit the wind, LMAO
Yup that is YOUR unbiased judge,
Really? I shall have to look into that. But then if that was such a poor judgement, wouldn't you expect an appeal to be made? They have the money for it. In fact I think I've asked you that before.
(from Wiki) "Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial is a documentary on the case of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District—which concentrated on the question of whether or not intelligent design could be viewed as science and taught in school science class. It first aired on PBS stations nationwide, on November 13, 2007, with many reruns, and features interviews with the judge, witnesses, and lawyers as well as re-enacted scenes using the official transcript of the trial.[1]
Judgment Day was produced by WGBH's NOVA and Vulcan Productions in association with the Big Table Film Company. The senior executive producer was Paula S. Apsell, the executive producer was Richard Hutton, and the producers were Joseph McMaster, Gary Johnstone, and Vanessa Tovell. The senior producer was Susanne Simpson. Johnstone and McMaster served as directors, and McMaster was the writer.[2]
In April 2008 the documentary won a Peabody Award.[3] It won the 2008 Science Journalism Award presented by the American Association for the Advancement of Science to honor excellence in science reporting."
Is that what you were talking about? It hardly resembles it.
Of course it is the use of Creationist text -books in school that was on trial, but it was ID that was put on the stand in the end, eater than science (as a remark has it at the start of the trailer).
There was an I/D podcast about it but they hadn't actually seen it at the time, so that is obviously of limited use.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 10-01-2020 at 11:20 AM..
Reason: have to be careful, sometimes, placing parentheses
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
^Mystic is irrational?
what else did you think it was about, Pneuma? Because evolution couldn't work without a miracle), and it is scientifically invalid.