The flaws in Intelligent design

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

ID does not have falsifiable theories. ID rests on concepts that are unsupported claims that cannot be validated and are logically impossible. Irreducible complexity is the primary example. Specified complexity is just an argument from incredulity and has no explanatory value. The very fact that they have come out and said that they are trying to remove science from education and replace it with a religious view sort of gives away with any further ado, but you do want to hear the truth.

'Hop to it already' is easily recognizable as an example of emotionalism.

 

[Jollybear]

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

Ok, thats just a assertive statement. Explain how you came to that conclusion.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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

Now please, no more false accusations.

That seems like good idea. I think he likes it that way so he can pretend his view overwhelmed his opponents, when in reality, it becomes clear it is pointless to try to discuss anything rational with him. This is another fairly common feature in discussions of science with creationists. They try to win debates by attrition, since they do not have the support of evidence on their side.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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



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.

Dan's use of "you" appeared to be more of a case of bad grammar than directly referring to you. One needs to apply context. I could have been less formal and said "You" instead of "One" but I did not want to take the risk of being misunderstood.

 

[Jollybear]

ID does not have falsifiable theories. ID rests on concepts that are unsupported claims that cannot be validated and are logically impossible. Irreducible complexity is the primary example. Specified complexity is just an argument from incredulity and has no explanatory value. The very fact that they have come out and said that they are trying to remove science from education and replace it with a religious view sort of gives away with any further ado, but you do want to hear the truth.

'Hop to it already' is easily recognizable as an example of emotionalism.

Why dont you support these assertions?

Like, who said they wer trying to remove science from class?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok, thats just a assertive statement. Explain how you came to that conclusion.

No, it was an observation and if you understood the scientific method it would be clear to you too.

 

[Jollybear]

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

I agree with this.

So, now, explain HOW ID goes against this?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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

You proved nothing and there is no point to continue this silly sidebar any further.

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.

It is exactly what you posted. You gave two contradictory statements about what Francis Collins said. One that he could not prove the existence of God and then another where you say he can. It does not make sense.

admits evidence. You dont. Your not like callins.

I am very much like Francis Collins. A lot more than you are. Not that this makes any difference to the discussion. You are turning this into a red herring and a diversion, since you cannot support your claims.

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

I do defend my views. I have done so consistently. You are being dishonest here. You're just upset, because you know I am right.

 

[Jollybear]

No, it was an observation and if you understood the scientific method it would be clear to you too.

Ok, then explain your observation and your understanding

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I agree with this.

So, now, explain HOW ID goes against this?

The existence of an intelligent designer cannot be tested and is not falsifiable.

 

[Jollybear]

You proved nothing and there is no point to continue this silly sidebar any further.

Denial.

It is exactly what you posted. You gave two contradictory statements about what Francis Collins said. One that he could not prove the existence of God and then another where you say he can. It does not make sense.

Your twisting my words.

Proof requires no inference, evidence still does. Do you understand that?

I am very much like Francis Collins. A lot more than you are. Not that this makes any difference to the discussion. You are turning this into a red herring and a diversion, since you cannot support your claims.

Theres no red herring going on.

If you wer like callins, then why did callins say theres evidence and said God designed it, and theres fine tuning, but you deny all that!?

I do defend my views. I have done so consistently. You are being dishonest here. You're just upset, because you know I am right.

Yea, you do degend your views, your atheistic views, thats right!

Thats not like callins.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

ID does not test its ideas in the natural world, nor has it developed any mechanisms to explain what it claims. Belief in God or a designer is a personal issue and not one of science.

 

[Jollybear]

The existence of an intelligent designer cannot be tested and is not falsifiable.

How or why is ID unfalsifiable explain more.

 

[Jollybear]

ID does not test its ideas in the natural world, nor has it developed any mechanisms to explain what it claims. Belief in God or a designer is a personal issue and not one of science.

How does ID not test its ideas? Explain, dont preach

 

[Subduction Zone]

I agree with this.

So, now, explain HOW ID goes against this?

They stop at step two.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How does ID not test its ideas? Explain, dont preach

That again is an observation. There are no proper tests of ID.

Obviously you do not understand step three of the flow chart.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Denial.

I have said that you are in denial from the beginning. It is good to see you admit it. That is the first step in overcoming it.

Your twisting my words.

No. That was what you posted.

Proof requires no inference, evidence still does. Do you understand that?

But the evidence he is claiming would have no value in revealing God, because it is subjective. It could be interpreted to mean anything. Sorry. Nice try though.

no red herring going on.

Smoke screen. Diversion. Call whatever you want.

If you wer like callins, then why did callins say theres evidence and said God designed it, and theres fine tuning, but you deny all that!?

I think we have seen enough of this. Talk to him if you want to know his reasons. I am still very much like Francis Collins.

Yea, you do degend your views, your atheistic views, thats right!

Thats not like callins.

I am not an atheist, so I cannot have atheistic views to defend. False accusations are false witness. Not what Francis Collins would do.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That again is an observation. There are no proper tests of ID.

Obviously you do not understand step three of the flow chart.

Good luck with this.

 

[Jollybear]

That again is an observation. There are no proper tests of ID.

Obviously you do not understand step three of the flow chart.

They stop at step two? Really? And how do you figure that?

 

[Bear Wild]

All of that is a load of crap.

No its not! But what would I expect from someone supporting ID. All you can say it that! That is the stance of someone without support and knows it and can only make meaningless exclamations. You cannot support ID so make ridiculous statements. That is the hallmark of intelligent design or maybe unintelligent design. Show the real support any support.