Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
sandor: Are you the poster who told me you have an undergraduate degree in Biology? So you know what science is, right?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
"These guys" have the highest academic credentials and would not write books and have them published that contain bunk: their reputation is on the line and they would not jeopardize their careers.
In addition, these are different "guys" who arrived at the same conclusion independently of each other, so the answer is a qualified no as I also read scientific papers published in peer-reviewed journals.
What do you have to support your case, besides your subjective, unsubstantiated opinion? Anybody can be an armchair critic, but I have still to read anything scientific from you that debunks ID. Remenber that the title of the thread is: Does DNA prove ID? Whether you agree or not, I provided proof. Where is yours?
Two points: 1) A lucrative career in generating ID propaganda does not require a solid reputation in the scientific community and is not dependent on academic credentials. Having a string of letters after your name helps your career, but only because the propaganda technique of "appeal to authority" is more effective when the "authority" is apparently qualified to offer an academic opinion of some kind. 2) Publishers publish books that they believe will be profitable. Whether or not the book contains nothing but bunk is irrelevant.
Wow! Two creationists arrived at the conclusion the universe is designed by God independently of one another! Not only that, but another creationist who sometimes reads random and unrelated articles in peer-reviewed journals also arrived at that conclusion. Well, that proves it. Case closed.
You didn't provide proof, you mentioned a book and said it's reliable because there's math in it.
But to answer your question, creationism is not falsifiable. The burden of proof is with the person making the extraordinary claim. (That's you). It is impossible to prove a negative, which in this case is "prove God didn't create the universe".
OMG!!! Davison? I debated him for a very short period on an MSN group but was quickly banned because I was putting ol' John on the spot. Even the rest of the creationists gave the manager of the group a hard time about it.
Davison is an outright nutball....borderline insane. The fact that you would cite him at all makes me wonder if you're not a troll. I mean, come on....the Shroud as your avatar, citing Of Pandas and People and John Davison....you're just having us on, aren't you?
sandor: Are you the poster who told me you have an undergraduate degree in Biology? So you know what science is, right?
As in nonexistent. As noted above, ID as science is every bit as laughable as is your preposterous avatar.
ID is science: It's supported by scientists with the highest academic credentials who use information from the natural sciences to write their papers and books. I don't know the number (who cares) but have provided the names of some scientists and their books.
Since you make the claim, please provide proof that the content of any of the books I mentioned is NOT science.
PROVE them so! This is my last post to you until you prove (with scientific evidence)that ID is laughable and the Shroud of Turin is preposterous.
PROVE them so! This is my last post to you until you prove (with scientific evidence)that ID is laughable and the Shroud of Turin is preposterous.
So then where is the experimental evidence?Yes, I do. Do you?
Nothing scientific can either debunk or support ID, because ID is not science; it's philosophy. That doesn't mean it can't be argued about, it's just not science.
doesn't make it science.ID was started by scientists with the highest academic credentials in different fields of the natural sciences
Pop-sci books are not scientific evidence.... Peer reviewed papers published in scientific journals are.who wrote books (I provided info on some) using scientific evidence to support their claim. You and others may not like the conclusion (which is very evident),
Incorrect... there has been no experimentation, no testing of any kind and no science papers published in any peer reviewed journals. Arm chair discussions in pop-sci books does not count... where is the hard research?but the process - the scientific method - was fully applied to arrive at that conclusion. So, intelligent design theory is every bit science as the Darwin's theory of evolution.
Are you suggesting that Behe could have offered a better defense of "irreducibly complex"? He hasn't even offered a consistent definition of the concept much less defended it.I followed the trial and I was particularly disappointed by Michael Behe's testimony who offered a weak defense of his "irreducuble complexity" theory in support of ID.
ID was started by scientists with the highest academic credentials in different fields of the natural sciences who wrote books (I provided info on some) using scientific evidence to support their claim. You and others may not like the conclusion (which is very evident), but the process - the scientific method - was fully applied to arrive at that conclusion. So, intelligent design theory is every bit science as the Darwin's theory of evolution.
I provided scientific evidence that supports ID, you only provided your personal opinion to deny it. This is my last post to you until you provide the scientific evidence that denies it.
You haven't given any evidence, you have just make assertions. Where is the science?
wa:do