The Other Intelligent Design Theories

Skeptic Online ^ | May 2006 | David Brin

[taxesareforever]

Please provide the scientific evidence that "backs up" the Biblical account of creation.

I am really sorry that your memory is so bad. I have provided scientific evidence from the Institute of Creation Research and, of course, you continuously deny this as "best explanation". However, your "best explanation" needs no factual evidence to be declared truth.

By the way, "one nation under GOD" establishes creation as truth. You, on the other hand, only have theory and no Creator.

[Dimensio]

I am really sorry that your memory is so bad. I have provided scientific evidence from the Institute of Creation Research and, of course, you continuously deny this as "best explanation".

I am familiar with claims made by ICR, and thus far I have not encountered claims from them that appear factual. If you would like to present any specific one, however, I will examine it and, if it is logically consistent, acknowledge that you have provided evidence for a claim. I note, however, referencing past references of ICR material does not, in any way, demonstrate that your claim that evolution is "a lie" is factual.

By the way, "one nation under GOD" establishes creation as truth.

You are incorrect. The statement "one nation under GOD" does not validate any claims.

You, on the other hand, only have theory

All scientific explanations are "only theory". You have no claims that rise to the standard of evidence required for a theory. That is to say, nothing that you have claimed is as good as or better than any scientific theory.

and no Creator.

The theory of evolution says nothing whatsoever regarding the existence or lack thereof of a Creator.

[taxesareforever]

I am familiar with claims made by ICR, and thus far I have not encountered claims from them that appear factual. If you would like to present any specific one, however, I will examine it and, if it is logically consistent, acknowledge that you have provided evidence for a claim.

Exactly what I have been saying. Nothing in ICR "appears" factural to you. Therefore it is considered bad science. You have not even tested what they claim so why should I present a "specific" one for you to examine. You will look at it from the basis that it is wrong and you will make your stand from that premise. And you call yourself an open scientist. The theory of evolution says nothing whatsoever regarding the existence or lack thereof of a Creator.

That's right, and that is the fallacy of evolution. It has no beginning therefore it only surmises what has happened in the past. Talk about "best" explanation, this is in the book of "worst" explanations.

[word_warrior_bob]

I stated my opinion, I wasn't rude, and my inner imbecile can kick your inner imbeciles a$$.

You're just a jerk.

[Dimensio]

Exactly what I have been saying. Nothing in ICR "appears" factural to you. Therefore it is considered bad science. You have not even tested what they claim so why should I present a "specific" one for you to examine.

It is a convenient excuse for you to justify not providing evidence by claiming that I will not accept it, however it in no way strengthens your case.

That's right, and that is the fallacy of evolution. It has no beginning therefore it only surmises what has happened in the past.

Evolution "begins" at the existence of the first reproducing life forms. This is not a "fallacy", and I do not see how it can rationally be termed as such.

[balrog666]

Hey, thanks for "outing" yourself!

[taxesareforever]

Evolution "begins" at the existence of the first reproducing life forms. This is not a "fallacy", and I do not see how it can rationally be termed as such.

How do you know? What was the "first" reproducing life form? How do you know this? Where did it come from? Just some elementary questions. You shouldn't have a hard time providing answers to such simple questions. Right?

[Dimensio]

How do you know?

Because the process of evolution cannot occur prior to the existence of imperfect replicators, as evolution requires such imperfect replicators to occur.

What was the "first" reproducing life form?

I do not know.

How do you know this?

I cannot explain the source of information that I do not have.

Where did it come from?

I do not know.

Just some elementary questions.

Your questions are not relevant to the theory of evolution, nor do they demonstrate your claim that evolution is a "lie".

You shouldn't have a hard time providing answers to such simple questions. Right?>

Your questions do not relate to the theory of evolution. You are speaking of abioenesis, which is a far less developed field of study in biology.

[word_warrior_bob]

What planet are you on?

Yes, I've outed myself as a conservative who doesn't believe in God, I'm not alone.

Your replies to me are disjointed, too much time with Balrog and LOTR fantasies?

[taxesareforever]

I cannot explain the source of information that I do not have.

Why not? Others who believe in evolution don't have a problem explaining it. Just wait a few days, there will be another "best" explanation. Choose the one that best fits your scope of acceptability.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/17/AR2006051702158.html

[balrog666]

Then what was your objection to my post?

[word_warrior_bob]

You must have a problem with reading comprehension or just gloss over things and react.

Read my initial post, why the rude reply from you? I don't get it.

[balrog666]

That was my point, as in "why did you think it was rude" and such? Or did you think it was directed at you?

[Dimensio]

Why not?

How would I go about explaining how I came to know a fact that I do not know? It is analagous to explaining where I purchased a Mercedes that I do not own.

Others who believe in evolution don't have a problem explaining it.

Perhaps, then, you should ask those who do profess such knowledge.

Just wait a few days, there will be another "best" explanation.

What is the factual basis for your claim?

Choose the one that best fits your scope of acceptability.

What, exactly, are my options and what do you believe is the criteria for "acceptability"?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/17/AR2006051702158.html

How, exactly, does this recent study relate to the current discussion? How does this demonstrate that your claim that evolution is "a lie" is true?

[word_warrior_bob]

It seemed like you were directing your anger at me for interrupting and not adding anything meaningful to the conversation and stating my opinion, perhaps I'm wrong, you're statement could be interpreted as agreeing with me OR believing that I was an ID supporter, etc.

[balrog666]

Actually it was a warning about trying to engage people who doen't use reason to make decisions and don't understand what it is to make an actual argument, like Running Dog and taxesareforever. :P

I guess I should have worded it better. Sorry if I offended you. ;^)

[taxesareforever]

Criteria for acceptability to an evolutionist is anything he wants it to be. How, exactly, does this recent study relate to the current discussion?

Funny you need to ask. Different day new opinion. Typical of the evolutionist's "best explanation".

[Dimensio]

Criteria for acceptability to an evolutionist is anything he wants it to be.

This is incorrect. There are specific standards for investigating scientific claims.

Funny you need to ask.

The study had no relevance to your original claim that evolution is "a lie".

Different day new opinion. Typical of the evolutionist's "best explanation".

Please explain what you mean by this statement. The article references the conclusion of a single study regarding events occuring shortly after humans and chimpanzees began branching from ape lineage. I do not see how this amounts to "Different day new opinion".

[taxesareforever]

Please explain what you mean by this statement. The article references the conclusion of a single study regarding events occuring shortly after humans and chimpanzees began branching from ape lineage. I do not see how this amounts to "Different day new opinion".

That's because you view it with selective reasoning. The study had no relevance to your original claim that evolution is "a lie".

It is Satan's lie and you, and all evolutionists, have fallen for it. Just like Adam and Eve fell for Satan's lie in the Garden of Eden. God has the answer to why it is Satan's lie. Try asking Him why evolution is Satan's lie. You would be surprised by His answer.

[Dimensio]

That's because you view it with selective reasoning.

Perhaps, rather than asserting that I am using "selective reasoning", you can explain how the article demonstrates your claim.

It is Satan's lie and you, and all evolutionists, have fallen for it.

Please show that the theory of evolution is false.