The Other Intelligent Design Theories

Skeptic Online ^ | May 2006 | David Brin

[taxesareforever]

Yep. Evolutionists have obtained a result and everything they discover is devised to fit that result. Kind of like a jigsaw puzzle that was intermixed with 100 other puzzles. They find a piece and make it fit.

[Dimensio]

And your claims are supported by what? Hearsay and speculation and theory.

Actually, they are supported by physical evidence. Your use of the word "theory" suggests that you are unfamiliar with the meaning of the word in a scientific context.

All you have is theories.

A scientific explanation must accumulate a great deal of evidence and gain widespread confidence before it is termed "theory". I have a theory. You, however, do not have any explanation that rises ot the level of theory.

Funny how you want me to look into the minds of people who are dead and state what they were thinking and what they based their ideas on, when you can't even do that.

You made a claim that the theory of evolution is a "lie". This suggests that you are aware of a specific motive to deceive in its creation. I am only asking that you demonstrate the very claim that you made. I do not understand why you are upset with me for requesting that you demonstrate that your claims are factual.

Gobbeldygook does not pass for science. Sorry to say however, it does however fool many many people and you can vouch for that.

Indeed. It appears that you have heard a great deal of "gobbeldygook", but have not in any way studied actual science.

[Dimensio]

Evolutionists have obtained a result and everything they discover is devised to fit that result.

Please show that this claim is true.

[taxesareforever]

You made a claim that the theory of evolution is a "lie". This suggests that you are aware of a specific motive to deceive in its creation. I am only asking that you demonstrate the very claim that you made. I do not understand why you are upset with me for requesting that you demonstrate that your claims are factual.

Let me explain this to you reeeeeaaaalllll slow. You nor anyone else can or ever has demonstrated evolution. Therefore, to say it is true is a lie. Get it?

[taxesareforever]

Evolutionists have obtained a result and everything they discover is devised to fit that result. Please show that this claim is true.

Post# 237 has already done that.

[Dimensio]

Post# 237 has already done that.

One example of an individual falsifying data does not demonstrate that all who accept evolution do the same. That would be analagous to claiming that all creationists engage in deception because Kent Hovind does so.

[Dimensio]

Post# 237 has already done that.

I mistakenly thought that you had referenced the text of post #241. Post #237 does not, in any way, demonstrate that "Evolutionists have obtained a result and everything they discover is devised to fit that result." In post #237 you attempt to make an excuse for refusing to support a claim with evidence, and then offer a rather meaningless poem for reasons that I cannot fathom.

Thus far you have claimed that evolution is a lie, but you have not supported the claim. You have claimed that I will reject any evidence that you present, but you have not supported that claim, nor have you even presented any evidence at all. You have also claimed that "Evolutionists have obtained a result and everything they discover is devised to fit that result." and, like your previous claims, you have offered no evidence to support the statement.

[taxesareforever]

Thus far you have claimed that evolution is a lie, but you have not supported the claim. You have claimed that I will reject any evidence that you present, but you have not supported that claim, nor have you even presented any evidence at all. You have also claimed that "Evolutionists have obtained a result and everything they discover is devised to fit that result." and, like your previous claims, you have offered no evidence to support the statement.

I am impressed. You have actually been reading my posts. And here all along I thought you were just reciting from a cheat sheet.

[Dimensio]

I am impressed. You have actually been reading my posts

Indeed I have. That is how I know that you have made a number of claims about evolution, but have given no reason to believe that any of them are true.

[taxesareforever]

That is how I know that you have made a number of claims about evolution, but have given no reason to believe that any of them are true.

And you have given exactly zero facts that support evolution that can be proven.

[Dimensio]

And you have given exactly zero facts that support evolution that can be proven.

No theory in science is ever proven. I cannot show that the theory behind gravity can be proven, or that atomic theory can be proven. Your objection is meaningless; I have never claimed that any scientific theory can be proven, thus I do not need to show evidence for a claim that I have not made. You, however, have made a number of claims and have provided evidence for none of them.

[RunningWolf]

Then your claims (albeit indirect and by inference) that there is no contradiction of the theory of evolution and reality are without genuine facts are unsupportable in a true sense, and therefore baseless.

You have yet to offer any evidence your claims are remotely true, forget about the feints as to whether a particular theory can be proven. Yet you continue to relentlessly (and with an obsession bordering over the edge of bizarre) attempt to make this belief of yours a reality in the minds of others, why?

BTW, I will put this slowly and gently to you as not to disrupt that fragile brittle locked into a tight circle of a mind there, reality is not decided by vote, even a vote of evo cultists.

Wolf

[taxesareforever]

No theory in science is ever proven.

Now there is a statement that I can agree to. So, for me to say a certain theory in science is a lie, is no different than those who say it is the truth. It is from each one's personal perspective.

[Dimensio]

So, for me to say a certain theory in science is a lie, is no different than those who say it is the truth.

You have set up a false analogy. Theories are not established as absolute "truth". They are merely the best explanation to explain events given observations and evidence. You, however, have claimed that the theory of evolution is a claim known to be false by the people who present it as an explanation. You have provided no evidence to support your libel against the individuals who present evolution as the best explanation for species diversity.

[taxesareforever]

You have set up a false analogy. Theories are not established as absolute "truth". They are merely the best explanation to explain events given observations and evidence.

If it is not "truth" then for me to say it is a lie put forward as truth is correct. Selling best science or best explanation as truth is a lie. Face this fact and you will be the better for it.

[Dimensio]

If it is not "truth" then for me to say it is a lie put forward as truth is correct. Selling best science or best explanation as truth is a lie.

For it to be a lie, the people making the claims must know that their claims are false. You have yet to demonstrate this, nor have you even demonstrated that the claims are false.

[taxesareforever]

For it to be a lie, the people making the claims must know that their claims are false. You have yet to demonstrate this, nor have you even demonstrated that the claims are false.

And for you to say their claims are true you must demonstrate this. However, you have already stated that it can't be demonstrated. So what do you call believing something that hasn't been proven? And, why should it be allowed to be taught as truth?

[Dimensio]

And for you to say their claims are true you must demonstrate this.

I say that their claims are, thus far, the best explanation for given observations. You are attempting to hold me to claims that I have not made.

However, you have already stated that it can't be demonstrated.

I have stated that the claims cannot be proven, like all claims in science. However, there is substantial evidence supporting the claims.

So what do you call believing something that hasn't been proven?

That depends on the "something" in question, and the evidence presented for it.

And, why should it be allowed to be taught as truth?

How do you believe that it should be taught?

[taxesareforever]

I say that their claims are, thus far, the best explanation for given observations.

I wonder how many people would be in prison if "best explanation" was the deciding data used to convict someone. I have stated that the claims cannot be proven, like all claims in science.

I disagree with you. There are some claims in science which can be proven. How about a fossil? Science says it is a remnant from the past. That can be proven. Science says that the planets orbit the earth. That can be proven. How do you believe that it should be taught?

I believe it shouldn't be taught. I thought education was about teaching truths. If it isn't, then many claims could be pushed as "best explanation" and taught as if truth. Why are those who believe in the Biblical account of creation and the science that backs it up as "best explanation" considered wackos and their science considered flawed? You know why and so do I. Wouldn't want Satan's lie to be trampled on.

[Dimensio]

I wonder how many people would be in prison if "best explanation" was the deciding data used to convict someone.

Criminal justice is more than determining how an event happened, but also exactly who caused it happen. Thus, there is more information used to determine a verdict -- which, as you must know, is not always correct.

I disagree with you. There are some claims in science which can be proven. How about a fossil? Science says it is a remnant from the past. That can be proven.

Actually, that would be a definition rather than an explanation.

Science says that the planets orbit the earth. That can be proven.

I was unaware that it can be proven that planets orbit the Earth. In fact, I was under the impression that current astrophysics says that this does not occur.

I believe it shouldn't be taught.

Why?

I thought education was about teaching truths.

Science education is about teaching established science.

If it isn't, then many claims could be pushed as "best explanation" and taught as if truth.

So you are suggesting that nothing be explained in science?

Why are those who believe in the Biblical account of creation and the science that backs it up as "best explanation" considered wackos and their science considered flawed?

Please provide the scientific evidence that "backs up" the Biblical account of creation. Thus far, that explanation is excluded because there is no evidence that "backs it up" as science.

You know why and so do I. Wouldn't want Satan's lie to be trampled on.

On the contrary, I do not "know" this. Please explain "Satan's lie", and demonstrate that it actually is a lie from an individual known as "Satan".