RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (13) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Southstar's thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2011,12:00   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 25 2011,11:29)
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 25 2011,11:01)
   
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 25 2011,10:26)
   
Quote
Okay now i understand why they keep throwing papers by this Lonning chap


It's always amusing to ask them why they believe this paper, that happens (presumably) to support their point of view, is right yet all the others (many many more) that don't support their point of view are wrong.

Obviously you can prove anything by cherry picking but it's always amusing to watch them squirm as they try to justify their why one beats 1000, despite them having only read the one.

Hmm i'm not sure that would work cause they could always say: well even darwin was alone to uphold evolution, so this fine author is just the begining of a new wave of enlightment. There's always got to be a first...

While that is true it's also true that ID has been going a long time now and it's just not going anywhere.

   
Quote
The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.


Darwin's idea caught on because it had explanatory power. It could explain observed facts in a way that no other idea could.

The question to ask those who claim a new enlightenment is coming is "What does your idea explain better that current ideas do not?"

If nothing, on what basis do they hold to it or claim it is better then existing ideas?

Another point to raise is that there is a difference between positive evidence for ID and simply picking holes in evolution.

Picking holes in our current understanding is fine, but what do they propose to replace it with?

For example, they have a paper that shows that gene X is impossible to evolve using current known mechanisms of evolution. That does not support ID in any way, shape or form. What ID needs to support ID is positive evidence for ID, not "negative" evidence for evolution.

Until they can actually produce such positive evidence then they've got nothing.  

So, again, this new wave of enlightenment proposes to do what? Replace the idea of evolution with an idea that better explains observed evidence?

Just ask them what it explains and how....

"It was designed" is the typical answer. Which is always good for a laugh.

It's also amusing that in no peer reviewed paper from the usual gang (Dembski, Behe etc) the "Intelligent Designer" has ever been mentioned. They allude to it, but never actually use the phrase. So again it's just a case of picking holes in our (admittedly) incomplete understanding of evolution, not actually generating support for their idea, whatever that idea actually is!

Ask them when they predict evolution will be debunked.

When they answer give them this link: http://chem.tufts.edu/Answers....se.html

I get the feeling that they are looking for something you can't answer which sooner or later comes up then they say:

(Here's a mock argument)

Southstar: Well we can't really explain x yet, but science is working on it besides just because we can't explain it yet doesn't mean the designer™ did it.

TARD1: Well see, you have faith in the science... even though you don't have an answer you have faith, so science is a faith.

TARD 2: Ah and not to mention that it's a sect, see they all have faith in each others work, nobody even bothers to check if something is wrong they just assume it's right cause another scientist said so. Just look at a research paper full of assumptions of other scientists your just building a house of cards on nothing. on faith. Since when does a biologist check to see if an astronmers conclusions are right they just believe they are right.

So if you have faith in science, it's misplaced, cause we hold all the faith cookies.

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
  366 replies since Nov. 08 2011,06:46 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (13) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]