Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

[Shad]

ID Giants Wipe The Floor With Evolutionist Panel In Front Of Packed Audience

Debates are not a good method of finding a truth. It is about convincing people in a short amount of time. The audience are not experts in any of the topics being discusses so their opinion is useless and fallacies. Now find a peer-reviewed study accepted by the greater scientific community as it would actually have merit.

If you link Meyers paper you should realize it has been rejected.

 

[Bunyip]

ID Giants Wipe The Floor With Evolutionist Panel In Front Of Packed Audience

How does titling the video as a victory equate to one? They failed, miserably to defend ID. You could have titled it 'ID fails to make a case'. That is not an argument.

 

[jonathan180iq]

ID Giants Wipe The Floor With Evolutionist Panel In Front Of Packed Audience

There are any number of videos on Youtube (titled by atheists) promoting Sam Harris' proposed "wiping of the floor" with William Lane Craig. Those titles mean very little. Even I'll admit that Sam Hairris was simply out of his league and handily lost that debate by a landslide.

Similarly, a Christian friend of mine sent me a video a few days ago titled "Atheist makes fool himself on TV". It was a debate between two gentlemen that I can't identify talking about Objective Morality. The Atheist's stance in this debate was more supported and more eloquently delivered. It was quite apparent to anyone who follows the rules of debate that the Theist had no rebuttal, but that didn't change the fact that my friend felt that this video accurately portrayed an "atheist making a fool of himself"

Again, titles mean nothing.

 

[JM2C]

How does titling the video as a victory equate to one? They failed, miserably to defend ID. You could have titled it 'ID fails to make a case'. That is not an argument.

There are any number of videos on Youtube (titled by atheists) promoting Sam Harris' proposed "wiping of the floor" with William Lane Craig. Those titles mean very little. Even I'll admit that Sam Hairris was simply out of his league and handily lost that debate by a landslide.


Similarly, a Christian friend of mine sent me a video a few days ago titled "Atheist makes fool himself on TV". It was a debate between two gentlemen that I can't identify talking about Objective Morality. The Atheist's stance in this debate was more supported and more eloquently delivered. It was quite apparent to anyone who follows the rules of debate that the Theist had no rebuttal, but that didn't change the fact that my friend felt that this video accurately portrayed an "atheist making a fool of himself"


Again, titles mean nothing.

Debates are not a good method of finding a truth. It is about convincing people in a short amount of time. The audience are not experts in any of the topics being discusses so their opinion is useless and fallacies. Now find a peer-reviewed study accepted by the greater scientific community as it would actually have merit.

If you link Meyers paper you should realize it has been rejected.

Meyer graduated with a B.S. degree in physics and earth science in 1981 from the Christian Whitworth College[4] and worked as a geophysicist for the Atlantic Richfield Company.[5] Shortly after, Meyer won a scholarship from the Rotary Club of Dallas to study at Cambridge University in the United Kingdom. Meyer earned his Ph.D. in history and philosophy of science in 1991 at the University of Cambridge.[6] His dissertation was entitled "Of clues and causes: A methodological interpretation of origin of life studies."[6] After gaining his Ph.D., Meyer taught philosophy at Whitworth,[7] then at the Christian Palm Beach Atlantic University.[6] Meyer later ceased teaching to devote his time to the intelligent design movement.[8]

-Wiki

How about you guys, you have anything you could say about yourselves at all? Ph.D. or anything at all… that’s what I thought.

 

[dust1n]

How about you guys, you have anything you could say about yourselves at all? Ph.D. or anything at all… that’s what I thought.

A guy with a Ph.D in Physics & Earth Science would be considered an authority in biology, why?

 

[philbo]

How about you guys, you have anything you could say about yourselves at all? Ph.D. or anything at all… that’s what I thought.

That's the fallacy known as "appeal to authority" - does this mean you'd accept the viewpoint of, say, someone with two Ph.D.s without question because they had not one but two doctorates?

 

[jonathan180iq]

Meyer graduated with a B.S. degree in physics and earth science in 1981 from the Christian Whitworth College[4] and worked as a geophysicist for the Atlantic Richfield Company.[5] Shortly after, Meyer won a scholarship from the Rotary Club of Dallas to study at Cambridge University in the United Kingdom. Meyer earned his Ph.D. in history and philosophy of science in 1991 at the University of Cambridge.[6] His dissertation was entitled "Of clues and causes: A methodological interpretation of origin of life studies."[6] After gaining his Ph.D., Meyer taught philosophy at Whitworth,[7] then at the Christian Palm Beach Atlantic University.[6] Meyer later ceased teaching to devote his time to the intelligent design movement.[8]

-Wiki

How about you guys, you have anything you could say about yourselves at all? Ph.D. or anything at all… that’s what I thought.

Wow... Would you like to wait for a response or go ahead and make assumptions about people you know nothing about?

There are some very accomplished people on this forum who prefer to let their arguments speak for themselves and don't have to spout off their credentials in order to validate their claims.

 

[David M]

Meyer graduated with a B.S. degree in physics and earth science in 1981 from the Christian Whitworth College[4] and worked as a geophysicist for the Atlantic Richfield Company.[5] Shortly after, Meyer won a scholarship from the Rotary Club of Dallas to study at Cambridge University in the United Kingdom. Meyer earned his Ph.D. in history and philosophy of science in 1991 at the University of Cambridge.[6] His dissertation was entitled "Of clues and causes: A methodological interpretation of origin of life studies."[6] After gaining his Ph.D., Meyer taught philosophy at Whitworth,[7] then at the Christian Palm Beach Atlantic University.[6] Meyer later ceased teaching to devote his time to the intelligent design movement.[8]

-Wiki

How about you guys, you have anything you could say about yourselves at all? Ph.D. or anything at all… that’s what I thought.

Just to continue the appeal to authority route here just 2 people who have debunked Meyers work:

Paul Myers (note that the qualifications are in relevant fields).

• Associate Professor

• Ph.D Biology., University of Oregon
• B.S. Zoology, University of Washington, Seattle

University of Minnesota, Morris | Academics | Biology | Faculty

or how about:

Jerry Coyne.
Coyne graduated with a B.S. in biology from the College of William & Mary in 1971. He started graduate work at Rockefeller University under Theodosius Dobzhansky before logistical complications (military conscription) forced a hiatus. He then earned a Ph.D. in biology at Harvard University in 1978, studying under Richard Lewontin, and went on to do a postdoctoral fellowship at the University of California, Davis with Timothy Prout. He was awarded the Guggenheim Fellowship in 1989, was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2007, and received the "Emperor Has No Clothes" award from the Freedom from Religion Foundation in 2011.

Coyne has served as President (2011) and Vice President (1996) of the Society for the Study of Evolution, and as Associate Editor of Evolution (1985–1988; 1994–2000) and The American Naturalist (1990–1993). He currently teaches evolutionary biology, speciation, genetic analysis, social issues and scientific knowledge, scientific speaking and writing.

Jerry Coyne - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you want make appeals to authority a yardstick then you will lose, because the overwhelming number of qualified scientists in the life sciences field all accept evolution.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

ID Giants Wipe The Floor With Evolutionist Panel In Front Of Packed Audience

So. His Christian-based philosophy, in any debate, is one that must ultimately rendered a belief in a being with no empirical evidence to support its existence and you are attaching to the universe in such a way as to allow for supernatural occurrences to happen.

How about you guys, you have anything you could say about yourselves at all? Ph.D. or anything at all… that’s what I thought.

A Ph.D. in the history and philosophy of science doesn't make him a scientist. He was either a history or a philosophy student.

A guy with a Ph.D in Physics & Earth Science would be considered an authority in biology, why?

He worked a geologist. He is a Ph.D., but not a scientist.

 

[jonathan180iq]

If you want make appeals to authority a yardstick then you will lose...

I was going to use a similar tactic and create a list of people with advanced degrees who were obviously insane, but your approach is better... Plus, I didn't want to waste my time.

 

[JM2C]

How does titling the video as a victory equate to one? They failed, miserably to defend ID. You could have titled it 'ID fails to make a case'. That is not an argument.

There are any number of videos on Youtube (titled by atheists) promoting Sam Harris' proposed "wiping of the floor" with William Lane Craig. Those titles mean very little. Even I'll admit that Sam Hairris was simply out of his league and handily lost that debate by a landslide.


Similarly, a Christian friend of mine sent me a video a few days ago titled "Atheist makes fool himself on TV". It was a debate between two gentlemen that I can't identify talking about Objective Morality. The Atheist's stance in this debate was more supported and more eloquently delivered. It was quite apparent to anyone who follows the rules of debate that the Theist had no rebuttal, but that didn't change the fact that my friend felt that this video accurately portrayed an "atheist making a fool of himself"


Again, titles mean nothing.

One more thing guys, can you please explain it to me, ‘cause I really don’t have any idea at all, how they got the millions of years of dating the fossils they’ve found in New Mexico? By what standard of studies or age assignments did they compare it from?

 

[JM2C]

it got all you guys jumping. Why? What the rush? I was just asking a fair question.

 

[jonathan180iq]

it got all you guys jumping. Why? What the rush? I was just asking a fair question.

This:

How about you guys, you have anything you could say about yourselves at all? Ph.D. or anything at all… that’s what I thought.

Is not a fair question. It is a loaded question and, as has been stated, an appeal to authority.

Fallacy: Appeal to Authority

Argument from authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[JM2C]

Just to continue the appeal to authority route here just 2 people who have debunked Meyers work:


Paul Myers (note that the qualifications are in relevant fields).

• Associate Professor

• Ph.D Biology., University of Oregon
• B.S. Zoology, University of Washington, Seattle

University of Minnesota, Morris | Academics | Biology | Faculty


or how about:


Jerry Coyne.

Coyne graduated with a B.S. in biology from theCollege of William & Maryin 1971. He started graduate work atRockefeller UniversityunderTheodosius Dobzhanskybefore logistical complications (militaryconscription) forced a hiatus. He then earned a Ph.D. in biology atHarvard Universityin 1978, studying underRichard Lewontin, and went on to do a postdoctoral fellowship at theUniversity of California, Daviswith Timothy Prout. He was awarded theGuggenheim Fellowshipin 1989, was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2007, and received the "Emperor Has No Clothes" award from theFreedom from Religion Foundationin 2011.


Coyne has served as President (2011) and Vice President (1996) of theSociety for the Study of Evolution, and as Associate Editor ofEvolution(1985–1988; 1994–2000) andThe American Naturalist(1990–1993). He currently teachesevolutionary biology,speciation,genetic analysis, social issues and scientific knowledge, scientific speaking and writing.


Jerry Coyne - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


If you want make appeals to authority a yardstick then you will lose, because the overwhelming number of qualified scientists in the life sciences field all accept evolution.

So, it's all about who got the most scientists and not about the facts anymore? You all know that none of us here are experts on the subject. We all read articles/wiki and C&P most of the time and sometimes, if not most of the times, pretend we knew what we are talking about, but the fact is, we do not. People who studied this do not engage in forum like this. We are the modern day barber shop around the corner putting our .02cents. So, please do not tell me that you knew more than me, unless you have a Ph.D. of course.

 

[JM2C]

A guy with a Ph.D in Physics & Earth Science would be considered an authority in biology, why?

Why not? How about you? What is you qualification here? Do you have anything to say about how you found out about dating fossils? Cause I don't.

 

[JM2C]

So. His Christian-based philosophy, in any debate, is one that must ultimately rendered a belief in a being with no empirical evidence to support its existence and you are attaching to the universe in such a way as to allow for supernatural occurrences to happen.


A Ph.D. in the history and philosophy of science doesn't make him a scientist. He was either a history or a philosophy student.


He worked a geologist. He is a Ph.D., but not a scientist.

Stephen Meyer knew what he is talking about and that what the reason “He is a Ph.D.”, you do not. You need to understand this.

 

[JM2C]

Hello

 

[JM2C]

Wow... Would you like to wait for a response or go ahead and make assumptions about people you know nothing about?


There are some very accomplished people on this forum who prefer to let their arguments speak for themselves and don't have to spout off their credentials in order to validate their claims.

I guess you’re one of them? Since dating fossils is part of evolution, can you kindly please educate me on how you understood the millions of years from the mass extinction?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Just to continue the appeal to authority route here just 2 people who have debunked Meyers work:

Paul Myers (note that the qualifications are in relevant fields).

• Associate Professor

• Ph.D Biology., University of Oregon
• B.S. Zoology, University of Washington, Seattle

University of Minnesota, Morris | Academics | Biology | Faculty

or how about:

Jerry Coyne.
Coyne graduated with a B.S. in biology from the College of William & Mary in 1971. He started graduate work at Rockefeller University under Theodosius Dobzhansky before logistical complications (military conscription) forced a hiatus. He then earned a Ph.D. in biology at Harvard University in 1978, studying under Richard Lewontin, and went on to do a postdoctoral fellowship at the University of California, Davis with Timothy Prout. He was awarded the Guggenheim Fellowship in 1989, was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2007, and received the "Emperor Has No Clothes" award from the Freedom from Religion Foundation in 2011.

Coyne has served as President (2011) and Vice President (1996) of the Society for the Study of Evolution, and as Associate Editor of Evolution (1985–1988; 1994–2000) and The American Naturalist (1990–1993). He currently teaches evolutionary biology, speciation, genetic analysis, social issues and scientific knowledge, scientific speaking and writing.

Jerry Coyne - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you want make appeals to authority a yardstick then you will lose, because the overwhelming number of qualified scientists in the life sciences field all accept evolution.

Jerry Coyne is another one who denies free will is real. And that doesn't mean like he is good at using the logic of free will, out of intellectual curiosity, but rejected it for lack of evidence. It means he doesn't understand anything about the concept of choosing, and therefore rejected it because it doesn't make any sense to him.

That describes his real credentials for talking about origins.

Jerry coyne you dont have free will
Jerry A. Coyne: You Don't Have Free Will - The Chronicle Review - The Chronicle of Higher Education

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

No I don't. My problem in your eyes is that I don't buy what you're saying.



I do. Everyone does.



I think you're trying to make your observations fit a belief system.



Freedom negates the need for a higher power.

I love how you accuse me of bias just because I don't see your way of thinking. Carry on.

You are just another evolutionist to write meaningless nonsense around the issue of how things are chosen in the universe.

When the issue is decisions then all these stated ideals of evolutionists to look at the evidence and such goes right out the window. Because they are social darwinists, and don't care for freedom .

One wonders what evolutionists do in a court of law when the judge points to their decisions as the origin of their behaviour.