Joe G
Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007
|
Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 31 2018,14:58) | Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 31 2018,10:05) | Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 31 2018,11:25) | Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 31 2018,08:24) | Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 30 2018,22:41) | Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 30 2018,19:02) | Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 30 2018,20:34) | Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 30 2018,17:55) | Quote | (shrug) I guess we can't Joe.
ID is up to bat.
What's the play? |
ID isn't up to bat, though. If it were everything I listed would be happening, just for a start. That you are too stupid to understand that isn't my fault. |
Come on, now, Joe, either there are bright academics working in the ID paradigm, or there aren't. Which is it? |
Umm, you are moving the goalposts, loser. The ID people are working on getting ID accepted. Duh.
And again, by your "logic" your position is staffed by total losers. |
(shrug) Okay, you got us. Methodological naturalism just ain't working. Hasn't convinced anyone. We lose, you win.
So, who's championing the cause of Intelligent Design these days, in the scientific arena?
I see a lot of politics, but maybe you can point me to the current leading lights of ID science?
I mean, even if they're just re-interpreting the work of the metho-nats (see what I did there?), there must be somebody who's pointing out the strengths and advantages of the Intelligent Design paradigm. |
OK asshole- how did vision systems evolve? How did ATP synthase evolve? Remember it has to be via blind and mindless processes.
The problem is no one is working on such a thing. There isn't any blind watchmaker research. It is a useless heuristic. So who is championing the blind watchmaker in the scientific arena? Why can't you assholes lead by example? |
I don't know. See how easy that is?
Why are you getting so bent out of shape and tossing insults? I'm just asking where to look for the current state and progress of ID science. |
It isn't about "ID science". It's about conducting science and being allowed to come to a design inference if the evidence warrants it. Right now there is plenty of existing scientific evidence that warrants such an inference but for whatever reason- seems to be personal bias- it isn't allowed. And to top it off the people who won't allow it don't have anything to account for the existence of that evidence.
So that is the state of ID. It is purposefully being repressed by the dogma of materialism. |
"Isn't allowed"??
Whose work, specifically, is being repressed?
Seriously: where, recently, has *any* design proponent interpreted any work, by anyone, and been repressed for it? |
OK why aren't the students being taught that ATP synthase has all of the hallmarks of being intelligently designed and there isn't any evidence that natural selection, drift or any other blind and mindless process could have produced it?
Why did the plaintiffs have to lie and bluff their way through the Dover trial to repress a simple factual statement from being read before science class?
-------------- "Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth
"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton
Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code- Acartia bogart, TARD
YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism
|