Replies

truthfinder9 - "...it is obvious you haven't studied the subject."

If you are referring to evolution, you are sorely mistaken, I have developed single-handed stochastic computer models based on pikaia (google for the website) to minimize functions based on evolutionary models. They work better than deterministic models, which is an amazing mathematical feat.

If perhaps you were referring to ID, then you are correct, I do know nothing about the specifics, because there are no specifics. It makes no positive assertions, only eliminative assertions targetting gaps in evolution such as irreducible complexity. Perhaps there is not enough evidence currently within evolution to convince everyone that reducible complexity is possible, but to suggest that scientific advancement is going to somehow stop now and we'll never know, is just plain stupid. Furthermore, to argue that not only will progress stop, but the answer must be magic(ie, a higher power), is even dumber.

truthfinder9 - "you porbably have no porblems with naturlists who say "yeah, the fossil record is against us, but someday it will prove us right because we are right." "

You will have to help me out on this one. What are you talking about, the fossil record is very consistent with evolutionary theory. Just because a couple people with Phd's who don't do any actual research say it's not consistent does not make it so. When discussing science, we must concede authority to scientists, in this case archaeologists. Archaeologists have no problem with the fossil record.

JFK_Lib - ID does not at all address who/what gave nature its design as that is in other realms of knowlege, and not for scientific investigation. But your dismissive equation of God with mere magic is simply more evidence of your closed minded bigotry and irrationalism.

Alacarte - Oh please, ID is just creationism 2.0. What do you mean by 'mere magic?' If it wasn't magic, then there would be a natural explanation and ID could expound on how exactly it was done. Or is it the semantics you object to?

JFK_Lib - You label something without addressing its claims and then dismiss your opposition because they are what you label them as.

ID makes no claims of its own! It has NO body of research, it makes NO predictions, and it is not falsifiable.

JFK_Lib - LOL, they are not making an argument based on gaps in knowlege but on the nature of design and how random mutation simply cannot account for an increase in the order, information and organization found in various biological systems. Read Behe.

Alacarte - There you go! You just said ID argues that evolution cannot explain blah blah. How on earth does proving one hypothesis wrong (evolutionary diversity) somehow prove another (ID)? Of course it does not, which is why ID is nothing more than an attack on evolution and an impediment to progress. If ID actually had an hypothesis for how all this diversity, which wasn't 'magic,' then we could take it seriously. Until then there is nothing to test. Also, attacking evolution's ability to account for diversity IS exploiting a gap in the theory. 80 years ago christians were arguing against ALL of evolution. It's funny how not they only have a problem with the few parts that we are still a little fuzzy on. Evolution will conclusively fill all these gaps (and make new ones), including diversity eventually, same as any field of research. I am not going to read Behe, there are too many real science books waiting on my list.

The bottom line is that without evolution's science to attack, there is absolutely nothing scientific about ID. Google for what the National Academy of Sciences (the authority on science) thinks of ID. If scientists say it is not science (which the NAS does), then it is not science!

Alacarte - I do know nothing about the specifics, because there are no specifics. It makes no positive assertions, only eliminative assertions targetting gaps in evolution such as irreducible complexity.

JFK_Lib - Eliminative assertions are specifics. To assert that A cannot do B is assertive, good greif. You're just slinging the polemic around like rich fertilizer, no?

Alacarte - Oh please, ID is just creationism 2.0.

JFK_Lib - No, it is not or else evolutionists would not find it compatible. It is compatible with evolution, but not materialism as expressed in Darwinistic evolution. Again, Darwinism <> evolution.

Alacarte - What do you mean by 'mere magic?' If it wasn't magic, then there would be a natural explanation and ID could expound on how exactly it was done. Or is it the semantics you object to?

JFK_Lib - Not everything that goes beyond the natural is 'magic'. And you deliberately use a pejorative phrase in order to further muddy the subject and lower the level of calm consideration. It is this type of hyperbole that makes it plain that you really do suspect that you are in the wrong, or else you would not engage in such obstructive semantics.

Alacarte - ID makes no claims of its own! It has NO body of research, it makes NO predictions, and it is not falsifiable.

JFK_Lib - Hahahah, yeah, right. You admit that you have not read up on the issue, so why dont you either educate yourself on the issue or just shut up and get out of the way of progress?

Alacarte - You just said ID argues that evolution cannot explain blah blah.

JFK_Lib - *Random mutation* does not account for EVERYTHING. And that is not synonymous with asserting that evolution does not account for 'blah, blah.'

Alacarte - If ID actually had an hypothesis for how all this diversity, which wasn't 'magic,' then we could take it seriously. Until then there is nothing to test.

JFK_Lib - So you again imply that without a completely natural, materialistic explanation, there can be nothing 'taken seriously'. You admit to such bias and then try to pose as though you are open minded on the subject!

Your paradigm is coming to an end, and I look forward to it. The Twentieth century was dominated by deterministic, materialism and it nearly destroyed mankind. Thank God that point of view is being eclipsed by new scientific Truth.

Alacarte - The bottom line is that without evolution's science to attack, there is absolutely nothing scientific about ID.

JFK_Lib - The bottom line is that you still dont have a clue about what ID is about as you continue to confuse it with Creationism, which it isnt. Your view of 'science' is loaded, prejudicial, irrational with presumption, and obsolete.

"It makes no positive assertions"

Wrong. Some ID scientists have formulated a testable model. The NAS obviously isn't advertising that fact.

"Perhaps there is not enough evidence currently within evolution to convince everyone that reducible complexity is possible"

Logical fallacy: "It's not true now, but hopefully it will be someday"

"to argue that not only will progress stop"

Logical fallacy.

"What are you talking about, the fossil record is very consistent with evolutionary theory."

Really? Is that why evolutionists came up with punctuated equilibrium to explain it away?

"Archaeologists have no problem with the fossil record."

Archaeologists don't study fossils. Paleontologists do.

"National Academy of Sciences (the authority on science) thinks of ID. If scientists say it is"

Logical fallacy/appeal to authority. Who gave the NAS the last say on reality? When did this come about?