k.e..
Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007
|
| Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 05 2018,16:40) | | Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 04 2018,21:02) | | Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 05 2018,04:52) | | Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 04 2018,20:50) | | Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 05 2018,04:44) | | Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 04 2018,20:42) | | Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 05 2018,04:40) | Linnaean Taxonomy is an objective nested hierarchy and it doesn't have anything to do with branching evolutionary processes. Corporations can be placed in objective nested hierarchies and again they have nothing to do with branching evolutionary processes. The US Army is a nested hierarchy and it too has nothing to do with branching evolutionary processes.
Fact and it proves Theobald is wrong
TRANSITIONAL FORMs have combined characteristics of different nested groups, Dougy. And your position expects numerous transitional forms.
Another fact that even Darwin acknowledged. Denton goes over this in "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis"
Nested hierarchies require distinct and distinguished groups-
Fact
So only if facts and proving the opposition wrong are called special pleading could my post be considered special pleading. |
AND yet NOTHING on PubMed to support your special pleading. |
There isn't anything but your ignorance to suggest any sort of special pleading on my part. There isn't anything in PubMed that supports evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. |
Then why are there over 500,000 papers on PubMed that reference evolution?
Your SPECIAL PLEADING is duly noted. |
Intelligent Design is NOT anti-evolution. Your cowardly equivocation is duly noted. |
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/4:Whether ID Is Science;Creationism in a Cheap Tuxedo
| Quote | 4. Whether ID is Science[edit]
After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. As we will discuss in more detail below, it is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research. Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena. (9:19-22 (Haught); 5:25-29 (Pennock); 1:62 (Miller)). This
Page 65 of 139[edit]
revolution entailed the rejection of the appeal to authority, and by extension, revelation, in favor of empirical evidence. (5:28 (Pennock)). Since that time period, science has been a discipline in which testability, rather than any ecclesiastical authority or philosophical coherence, has been the measure of a scientific idea’s worth. (9:21-22 (Haught); 1:63 (Miller)). In deliberately omitting theological or “ultimate” explanations for the existence or characteristics of the natural world, science does not consider issues of “meaning” and “purpose” in the world. (9:21 (Haught); 1:64, 87 (Miller)). While supernatural explanations may be important and have merit, they are not part of science. (3:103 (Miller); 9:19-20 (Haught)). This self-imposed convention of science, which limits inquiry to testable, natural explanations about the natural world, is referred to by philosophers as “methodological naturalism” and is sometimes known as the scientific method. (5:23, 29-30 (Pennock)). Methodological naturalism is a “ground rule” of science today which requires scientists to seek explanations in the world around us based upon what we can observe, test, replicate, and verify. (1:59-64, 2:41-43 (Miller); 5:8, 23-30 (Pennock)).
As the National Academy of Sciences (hereinafter “NAS”) was recognized by experts for both parties as the “most prestigious” scientific association in this country, we will accordingly cite to its opinion where appropriate. (1:94, 160-61 |
|
LoL! An ignorant judge's decision is meaningless. That moron bought the lies of the plaintiffs and was fooled by a literature bluff.
Only cowardly morons thing that a judge can decide what is and isn't science. ID, unlike evolutionism, makes testable claims. |
John E. Jones III
Joe Tard
--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin
|
