The flaws in Intelligent design

[Subduction Zone]

It is a common occurrence with creationists. They have these gut feelings, but they have neither the knowledge nor the analytical ability to pull those feelings up from their guts and examine them with their heads.

And they get terribly insulted when one points out that they do not even understand the basics of science. And that is not limited to creationists. With one poster I offered to go over the scientific method, which he claimed to understand, and if he could show that he understood it I told him that I would apologize. What did he ultimately do? He made a show of putting me on ignore. Why would someone do that unless he knew he was wrong on some level.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And they get terribly insulted when one points out that they do not even understand the basics of science. And that is not limited to creationists. With one poster I offered to go over the scientific method, which he claimed to understand, and if he could show that he understood it I told him that I would apologize. What did he ultimately do? He made a show of putting me on ignore. Why would someone do that unless he knew he was wrong on some level.

Dunning Kruger is not really their friend.

I am a strong proponent of STEM curricula and from the looks of it, we need even more emphasis on general science knowledge for those looking to other futures as well.

It is funny how I read how you cannot know something about another poster, when it is so obvious that you can learn something about them from their words and actions here. You called it correctly I would say.

 

[Jollybear]

His words are also correct. That you are wrong has been explained to you by many people now. Intelligent design is a religious position and is not science. There is no evidence objectively demonstrating intelligent design.

Just keep preaching it.

 

[Jollybear]

And they get terribly insulted when one points out that they do not even understand the basics of science. And that is not limited to creationists. With one poster I offered to go over the scientific method, which he claimed to understand, and if he could show that he understood it I told him that I would apologize. What did he ultimately do? He made a show of putting me on ignore. Why would someone do that unless he knew he was wrong on some level.

Oh so by your own standard when you put me on ignor in the past, then on some level you knew you was wrong?

Very good.

 

[Jollybear]

It is a common occurrence with creationists. They have these gut feelings, but they have neither the knowledge nor the analytical ability to pull those feelings up from their guts and examine them with their heads.

Tell me how ID is religion and not science? Go ahead.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh so by your own standard when you put me on ignor in the past, then on some level you knew you was wrong?

Very good.

For a while we were banned from speaking to each other since we fought. So not the same thing at all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Tell me how ID is religion and not science? Go ahead.

It does not follow the scientific method.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Tell me how ID is religion and not science? Go ahead.

I have told you. Others have told you. It has been explained and supported. We can only tell. We cannot think, understand, learn and remove your bias and ignorance for you.

 

[Jollybear]

When I said 'you' in my last post, I was not referring to 'you' in particular, but people in general.

No, you clearly refered to me.

Heres the context >

"Jollybear---"Francis callins admits he cant prove it, but he did say the evidence tips in favor of God."

Then you said this >

"Yes. You said this. So, he stated his belief and recognizes that he has no evidence that can support that belief. He and I are alike in that."

I respect Francis Collins for his belief, his science and his ability to keep his belief out of the science he reports. His personal views about belief are his belief and not science. I personally recognize that there are aspects of morality that I cannot find answers for in science and have to turn to my beliefs for guidance, but my adherence to belief does not make science able to demonstrate a creator.

I gave you quotes from callins showing he DOES consider there to be evidence for God.

 

[Jollybear]

I have told you. Others have told you. It has been explained and supported. We can only tell. We cannot think, understand, learn and remove your bias and ignorance for you.

No, you have not told me how id is religion and not science, all youv done is preach that its religion and not science.

Explain how its religion and not science. Hop to it already.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It does not follow the scientific method.

It is like talking to a plant. At least a plant does not suck the oxygen out of a discussion.

 

[Jollybear]

It does not follow the scientific method.

How or why does ID not follow the scientific method? Explain

 

[Jollybear]

It is like talking to a plant. At least a plant does not suck the oxygen out of a discussion.

Really? Gotta empower eachothers nonsense i see.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, you clearly refered to me.

Incorrect. But I predicted that you would take that position which is why I qualified it. I know who I am dealing with.

Heres the context >

"Jollybear---"Francis callins admits he cant prove it, but he did say the evidence tips in favor of God."

Then you said this >

"Yes. You said this. So, he stated his belief and recognizes that he has no evidence that can support that belief. He and I are alike in that."



I gave you quotes from callins showing he DOES consider there to be evidence for God.

So you are contradicting yourself. You are saying he admits he cannot prove it and he can prove it. Which is it? You are not making sense. I get it. You do not understand any of this and you are desperate to support your bias. All kinds of silly posts erupt out of that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, you have not told me how id is religion and not science, all youv done is preach that its religion and not science.

Explain how its religion and not science. Hop to it already.

It does not follow the scientific method. Its views are religion based, not science based. That makes it a religion.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Really? Gotta empower eachothers nonsense i see.

No. I am recognizing another person that understands. I would recognize you for it as well, accept you do not understand. Apparently, you do not want to understand.

Do you have a valid argument in support of intelligent design? Come on. You have to have more than this emotional banter, misrepresentation and personal attack?

 

[Jollybear]

For a while we were banned from speaking to each other since we fought. So not the same thing at all.

Eh....no, you put me on ignor, i did not put you on ignor. I could see your posts, you could not see mine.

We wernt banned from talking to eachother. The mods may have wanted us to ignor eachother, but i did not do it, you did.

So, again, your going by a double standard. If the guy whp ignored you did so because he thought he was wrong, then you thought you was wrong because you put me on ignor .

 

[Subduction Zone]

How or why does ID not follow the scientific method? Explain

First you need to understand the scientific method. Here is a simplified flowchart of it:

 

[Subduction Zone]

Eh....no, you put me on ignor, i did not put you on ignor. I could see your posts, you could not see mine.

We wernt banned from talking to eachother. The mods may have wanted us to ignor eachother, but i did not do it, you did.

So, again, your going by a double standard. If the guy whp ignored you did so because he thought he was wrong, then you thought you was wrong because you put me on ignor .

I never put you on ignore. I avoided responding to you.

Now please, no more false accusations.

 

[Jollybear]

Incorrect. But I predicted that you would take that position which is why I qualified it. I know who I am dealing with.

I just proved you refered to me and you blatently ignor it.

So you are contradicting yourself. You are saying he admits he cannot prove it and he can prove it. Which is it? You are not making sense. I get it. You do not understand any of this and you are desperate to support your bias. All kinds of silly posts erupt out of that.

No, thats not what i said. In fact, in prior posts ive said theres a difference between proof and evidence. Proof requires no inference, while evidence still does.

Callins admits evidence. You dont. Your not like callins.

Furthermore, callins debated Dawkins defending his views, while you on the other hand debate NOT defending your views.