OgreMkV
Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009
|
| Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 20 2011,06:29) | | Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 20 2011,05:37) | | Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 19 2011,13:54) | | ...they merely feel that ID overall supports the evidence better than Darwinian evolution does. |
Presumably you agree.
Then as the "evidence" encompasses literally millions of data points please give, say, 10 examples of ID "supporting the evidence better than Darwinian evolution does".
I mean, if ID overall is better supported then I could ask for a million and they would be available.
If. |
Given that IDC looks just peachy to a certain class of people when not much is known about the ontogeny of a feature, you're likely to be given a recitation of such "evidence". I like to refer to Behe's approach as seeking the God of the crevices, since he has identified biochemistry as the last and finest-grained level where features relevant to living organisms get constructed. The gaps thus bottom out and must be crevices.
Back in 2001, I pointed out to Bill Dembski that he'd do better to examine systems where we know a lot about their ontogeny, at least if he was interested in actually putting his framework to the test. He hasn't taken that advice. I wonder why... |
Because I suspect that Dembski, definitely Behe, and probably Meyer DO know the truth, but they've also got this evangelical streak that prevents them from admitting it.
Besides, all the royalties are good for the pocket book (well, there's).
And who cares if they are lying to poor ignorant people like FtK. It's not like they have to show up for court or return the money that they took as incentive to show up at court. Of course, every time they do show up in court, they look like idiots.
FtK, you may be an intelligent person. 6 years ago, ID was given a perfect, public opportunity to convince everyone that it was a science. The leaders of ID could have presented the reams of evidence that you claim exists.
So why didn't they? Why, when presented with piles (literally) of evidence that shows they were wrong about a variety of things did they have to admit that they had never read it?
I loathe the Bible and the religions that spawned from it, yet I have read it four time, in three different translations. All the better to understand it and where Christians are coming from. Why couldn't a BIOCHEMIST be bothered to read material that actually talks about what he is trying to talk about?
Because he simply doesn't care about being honest. Just like all the other ID proponents.
You can't present evidence for ID, because it doesn't exist. It's that simple. The fact that you think evidence exists only shows how pitiful the standard US science education standards are.
Now, run along before you are forced to answer more questions that totally destroy your worldview.
BTW: Remind me which version of the Bible you use and why and why you haven't read the others... thanks.
--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.
http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat
|
