24 Dec 05
Originally posted by telerionIt's all opinion.
As I wrote before, the ID gang lacks even a formal standard by which to determine whether something is designed or not. If ID is going to claim some things are designed, they need to, among other things, establish exactly how we can recognize design from non-design. As Behe and the whole ID crew have it now, ID in practice means looking at something and d ...[text shortened]... educibly complex." They lack any ex ante standard by which to make their determination.
Kelly
24 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayAbsolutely, there is just a 100,000 to 1 chance of being them [ID and creationism] being correct.
People die, Creation and ID will not die.
Kelly
Stats don't lie, only people do.
There is a saying - "it's easy to lie with stats, but it's impossible to tell the truth without them". Where are yours?
24 Dec 05
Originally posted by scottishinnzROFL, and you have the data points to justify 100,000 to 1 chance.
Absolutely, there is just a 100,000 to 1 chance of being them [ID and creationism] being correct.
Stats don't lie, only people do.
There is a saying - "it's easy to lie with stats, but it's impossible to tell the truth without them". Where are yours?
Have a happy life, you just gave me a good laugh.
Kelly
24 Dec 05
Originally posted by KellyJayID will not die? It was born out of a political need among US creationists and evengelicals. If the ripples of the Dover case speard across the rest of the US ID will be dead in the water.
People die, Creation and ID will not die.
Kelly
I respect creationists; they unashamedly say the have a belief in the unproovable and have no interest in prooving it, their faith is enough for them.
IDers are trying to cloak creationism in scientific respectability and to discredit conventional biology. They will fail on both counts.
24 Dec 05
Originally posted by KellyJayIn science the data do the talking. Where are the data that show design. There are constructs claiming complexity but the data behind the construct only demonstrates complexity. The conclusion that design lies behind complexity id wishful thinking unsupported by data.
The only thing I think ID does that is bad when it comes to science
is it reaches a conclusion. Most people I know who push science do
not allow for that, it is always, this is what we know, but it is subject
to change when or if we get more data. ID makes a statement, this
is simply to functionally complex to come without someone or some
thing guiding or protecting either process or whatever else ID says
could have or did happen.
Kelly
24 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzSadly, the IDiotic tendancy will dismiss all of this as 'micro evolution within a kind'; they will never define what they mean by kind and the more broadly you give examples the wider their definition of kind becomes. When you get round to quoting the example of the phylogenies of MADSbox genes they will:
Creationism and ID are dead.
Read the article, speciation explained....
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/310/5756/1878
Happy reading!
a: define all eukaryotes as a 'kind'
b: put it down to sheer chance
c: change the subject.
I have asked the question on this bored many times:
WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF A 'KIND'?
I have never been afforded the courtesy of an answer. Until a kind is defined, arguing with IDers will be like herding cats.
24 Dec 05
Originally posted by aardvarkhomeUntil a kind is defined, arguing with IDers will be like herding cats.
Sadly, the IDiotic tendancy will dismiss all of this as 'micro evolution within a kind'; they will never define what they mean by kind and the more broadly you give examples the wider their definition of kind becomes. When you get round to quoting the example of the phylogenies of MADSbox genes they will:
a: define all eukaryotes as a 'kind'
b: pu ...[text shortened]... he courtesy of an answer. Until a kind is defined, arguing with IDers will be like herding cats.
LOL, aardvark. I agree with you completely. At present I too haven't found a good (and viable) definition of "kind" - my search continues.
24 Dec 05
Originally posted by kirksey957Hmmm, this might sound blunt and heartless, but no one stood up for him 2000 years ago. Sad but true. If the 12 appostles couldn't find the time then, why should the school board find the time 2000 years late(r)?
How could it be seen as anything but a religious concept when one of the persons supporting it in the trail said, "A man died on a cross 2000 years ago. Is no one going to stand up for him?"
24 Dec 05
Originally posted by marinakatombI think most of the twelve disciples were martyred. It's a strange time we live in for Christianity in the US. We think persecution is worshipping in a church that was once a shopping mall and having the ACLU protest a nativity scene at the courthouse. We think hearing "Happy Holidays" is a conspiracy against the faith. It only gets worse. We think that taxes are a form of religious persecution because Mary and Joseph were forced to relocate because of being taxed.
Hmmm, this might sound blunt and heartless, but no one stood up for him 2000 years ago. Sad but true. If the 12 appostles couldn't find the time then, why should the school board find the time 2000 years late(r)?
Christians today are more interested in intelligent design being taught in the schools than they are figuring out the "intelligent design" of Dafur. Aint that a bitch?
24 Dec 05
1 edit
Did anyone else here also read the court transcripts? I read about half of them. From those that I did read, the judges accusations against the defendants are spot on.
It's so bad that federal prosecutors are looking into charging some of the defendents with perjury. The judge singled out Bonsell and Buckingham, although he used words that suggested others may have been lying too. I'd like to see them look at Jon Buell as well. Starting from around page 78 here (http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/fte/2005_0714_Kitzmiller_FTE_Buell_hearing.pdf), his testimony becomes awefully suspicious.
Plus it makes for a better alliteration.
25 Dec 05
Originally posted by aardvarkhomeNo, if that were true, than our facts wouldn't have anything to do
In science the data do the talking. Where are the data that show design. There are constructs claiming complexity but the data behind the construct only demonstrates complexity. The conclusion that design lies behind complexity id wishful thinking unsupported by data.
with human opinion. We look at the universe as we see it, and put
our spin on it, that is not data talking, but mankind. Wishful
thinking is anyone who attempts to think evolution is much more
than ID when it comes to people's opinion, it isn't.
Kelly
25 Dec 05
Originally posted by aardvarkhomeI do not believe you can even come up with a construct for
In science the data do the talking. Where are the data that show design. There are constructs claiming complexity but the data behind the construct only demonstrates complexity. The conclusion that design lies behind complexity id wishful thinking unsupported by data.
showing design, you either know it when you see it, or you
don't depending on what it is your looking at.
Kelly