Replies

Your belief in evolution based on a preponderence of the evidence is not a real strong arguement IMO. I could just as easily state that the complexity of man provides a preponderence of evidence that Intelligent Design is the only possible origin. I don't seek to make that case. Your side does seek to claim that your theory is the only possible origin based on the evidence. Well, I disagree.

It's certaily your perogitive to claim falsity and inanity.

I'm sorry, but I can't buy into your last statement.

"My concern is scientific progress and the education necessary to promote it. Otherwise, I have no problem with you believing whatever makes you happy."

Threads like this refute that perception. Some of you folks are willing to compare others and myself to the Taliban, just because we don't buy into your theories lock stock and barrel, and do not think exclusivity should be yours any more than ours.

If you were genuinely concerned about scientific progress, you'd be willing to take a look at the 'evidence', and see two possible conclusions based on the evidence that exists and the evidence that doesn't.

Your conclusions concerning the evidence, are all focused on accepting what you cannot prove. What bothers you is that I have also elected to accept something I cannot prove.

The holes in your evidence don't disuade me. The holes in my evidence should not disuade you. This leaves us both unable to categoricly prove the other wrong. None the less, your belief is teachable and my belief, both based on the uprovable, is not.

Down through the ages, there have been many people judged to be heritics. Today the scientific community is the one making that charge, all the while claiming the high moral ground.

"...I could just as easily state that the complexity of man provides a preponderence of evidence that Intelligent Design is the only possible origin..."

The complexity argument is actually weak. Let me illustrate with an example:

Suppose I looked at a sample of red balls and yellow balls. My first observation is that these red balls and yellow balls seem to appear without exception in groups of three. "That's odd," I might think, "It looks like SOMEONE grouped them all together in groups of three."

I look further and find that not only are they ALL grouped in triplets, without exception they are grouped as two reds and one yellow. NEVER two yellows and one red. "This clinches it!" I think. "These MUST have been arranged by SOMEONE. The order is TOO PERFECT. The arrangment TOO PRECISE. This cannot be random, SOME AGENT must have ordered this."

However, if I take the same example above, and substitute HYDROGEN ATOMS for "red balls" and OXYGEN ATOMS for "yellow balls", and allow them to "mix" in a sponteaneous reaction of uncontrolled combustion, I will get EXACTLY this result. Water will form as H₂0. Millions and millions of atoms, all sorted into threes, all of the same configuration.

Seemingly complex results can arise from a few simple rules, repeated over and over. The fact that the rules might not yet be understood does not necessiarily imply that an intelligent agent is at work.

Your belief in evolution based on a preponderence of the evidence is not a real strong arguement IMO.

That's OK. Your opinion isn't the arbiter of science.

I could just as easily state that the complexity of man provides a preponderence of evidence that Intelligent Design is the only possible origin.

You could, but the statement would simply be false. I've asked you several times now where on earth you got this idea that just because you say something means you have to be taken seriously. Honestly, it doesn't. You could just as easily state that the ubiquity of fecal matter provides a preponderance of evidence that you pulled the universe out your @$$. Who cares what it looks like to you? The only thing that matters is what it looks like. Period.

I don't seek to make that case.

Why not? If that's what the preponderance of the evidence shows, then make the case. I strongly encourage you to do so.

Your side does seek to claim that your theory is the only possible origin based on the evidence.

Based on the evidence, evolution is the only plausible explanatory model.

Well, I disagree.

Here's a cookie.

It's certainly your perogitive to claim falsity and inanity.

Yeah, but I don't rely on merely my say so.

I'm sorry, but I can't buy into your last statement.

That's OK.

Threads like this refute that perception. Some of you folks are willing to compare others and myself to the Taliban...

I wasn't talking about "us folks" but rather just about me. Nothing I've posted in this thread refutes my statement, which would be unlikely if for no other reason than that it's true.

...just because we don't buy into your theories lock stock and barrel, and do not think exclusivity should be yours any more than ours.

I am not a relativist, and never will be. If you want any claim to 'inclusivity' then support your position. Otherwise, you can spout whatever nonsense makes you happy, just don't expect to be taken seriously, at least not by me.

If you were genuinely concerned about scientific progress, you'd be willing to take a look at the 'evidence', and see two possible conclusions based on the evidence that exists and the evidence that doesn't.

I have taken a look at the evidence, and I even see multiple potential conclusions based upon it. Intelligent design isn't one of them.

Your conclusions concerning the evidence, are all focused on accepting what you cannot prove. What bothers you is that I have also elected to accept something I cannot prove.

That is false. What bothers me is that you have elected to equate fantasy with science.

The holes in your evidence don't dissuade me.

Gosh, I'd hope not. It's the evidence itself that's persuasive, not whatever holes might be in it.

The holes in my evidence should not disuade you.

You have no evidence at all. In fact, you explicitly stated above that you don't even seek to make the case.

This leaves us both unable to categoricly prove the other wrong.

Umm, no it doesn't. My position is that you have no evidence. If you disagree with that, then unless you come up with some you are categorically wrong.

None the less, your belief is teachable and my belief, both based on the uprovable, is not.

Your belief is definitely teachable as whatever it is, which isn't science.

Down through the ages, there have been many people judged to be heritics.

Yes, well, the most common reason for that is because they were.

Today the scientific community is the one making that charge, all the while claiming the high moral ground.

Science is not faith-based. What on earth makes you think that just because you represent it that way means anyone has to take you seriously?