If evolution is teh realz then why is not it happeningg nows?

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

That is totally untrue, and it has been demonstrated as such. You refuse to acknowledge it and you are embarrassing yourself because of it.

No, you are embarrassing yourself, because nothing was demonstrated to be untrue, because science doesn't conclude! You see, I think this is your whole problem, you want to believe certain scientific theories are proven facts, and that science has disproved other things you don't want to believe possible. Science is not in the business of "proving" and "disproving" and you really should try to grasp that concept. It may keep you from making a complete ass of yourself in debates such as this.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

THAT'S WHAT I SAID! Fuck, you are dense.

I am dense because I said what you said? Hmmmm.... you might actually have a point there! Nevertheless, I don't think you are dense for thinking "falsifiable" means testable, because your own source says that's what it means, and I agree. So, in this case, me saying what you said, doesn't make either of us dense.

Not at all. I can imagine how it would be possible to conclusively prove ID. The intelligence could make it self known and demonstrate its powers while we thoroughly observe it. Proving it false is not possible because the designer is defined as being beyond our observational capacity.

Tell me, how can it be proven false?

But it's a logic thing... If something CAN be proven false, it CAN also be proven true, and visa versa. If it is impossible to prove something false, then it also becomes impossible to prove it conclusively true as well, and visa versa. However, let's not digress into this minutia of meaningless syntax...

The point is, you can offer NO proof, no test, no experiment, no observation, no plausible theory to explain cross-species evolution. This is important for several reasons, namely, because in order for our planet to have millions of various and very differing life forms, and the 'conclusion' it all resulted from Abiogenesis from a single living cell, you have to prove cross-species evolution possible, and that hasn't been done.

So essentially, the same refutation you throw up against ID, we can apply to Abiogenesis as well. It is not testable, not falsifiable, and invalid as a scientific theory. (This is where pinheads usually chime in about how science doesn't "prove" things.)

 

[ib1yysguy]

No, you are embarrassing yourself, because nothing was demonstrated to be untrue, because science doesn't conclude! You see, I think this is your whole problem, you want to believe certain scientific theories are proven facts, and that science has disproved other things you don't want to believe possible. Science is not in the business of "proving" and "disproving" and you really should try to grasp that concept. It may keep you from making a complete ass of yourself in debates such as this.

Dixie, you're making less and less sense. The guy demonstrated quite simply with colorful diagrams for guys like you who struggle that they are not irreducibly complex but are quite reducible. The fundamental premise of ID is wrong because the two examples they use most - blood clotting and a bacteria's flagellum - are explicable through evolutionary theory, which ID says is not the case. ID says a designer is necessary because evolutionary theory cannot explain them. Well, it can, and it has.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The intelligence could make it self known and demonstrate its powers while we thoroughly observe it.

And maybe some of you brainiac anti-ID Atheists could throw a bunch of life's building blocks into a vat, and demonstrate how random chance originates life, while we thoroughly observe that! The problem is, you CAN'T! It doesn't work! Try as you may, you can't replicate origin of life from non-organic matter, it's never been done.

 

[ib1yysguy]

The point is, you can offer NO proof, no test, no experiment, no observation, no plausible theory to explain cross-species evolution.

Oh my God that's so ignorant.

I can show you all four of those things. It's been done, Dixie. A test/experiment/observation/plausible theory has been conducted (long ago) and the beginning cross speciation has been observed in flies in a lab.

 

[ib1yysguy]

Here you go. I think it's even written for kids, so I'm optimistic even you can understand it.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article//evo_45

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Oh my God that's so ignorant.

I can show you all four of those things. It's been done, Dixie. A test/experiment/observation/plausible theory has been conducted (long ago) and the beginning cross speciation has been observed in flies in a lab.

LMAO... One type of fly "evolved" into another type of fly! One type of iguana "evolved" into another type of iguana, and one type of owl "evolved" into another type of owl... this is NOT cross-species evolution! Show me where a fly evolved into an iguana and it evolved into an owl, then we're getting somewhere! CROSS-species evolution, THAT is what you're looking for! Not INNER-species evolution.

Now run along and Google until your heart is content, you will not find it because it's never been observed, there is no evidence of it, we can't test it, we can't replicate it. In order for your theory that we all evolved from a single cell to be supported, you have to demonstrate an example of viable cross-species evolution. You have to show how inorganic matter generated organic matter. You have to show where plant life became cold blooded reptilian life... how cold blooded reptilian life became warm blooded mammal life... until you can show some evidence to support these theories, they are completely invalid, and you have no basis in science for them. According to Sol, we shouldn't be teaching this stuff in a science class.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

...because the designer is defined as being beyond our observational capacity.

I'm sorry, but I just caught this. Where has this been established in ID theory? The designer doesn't have to be defined to rationalize a theory of intelligent design. Taking from Paley's Watch Analogy... if you found a watch on a beach, would you have to find the maker of the watch to rationalize it was designed by intelligence? Go look in your driveway, that car you drive... do you know the person who assembled it? Do you know the identity of the person who designed it? My guess is, you don't question whether the car exists, or that someone assembled it and designed it.

Now.... Since we are talking about "life" and how it originated, isn't it logical that whatever created it and designed it, wouldn't be a living thing? Else, life already existed! Therefore, whatever the source of intelligence, it had to be something out of the realm of organic life forms we understand and can observe. We certainly know through science and physics, there are dimensions outside our own understanding and comprehension.... black holes were given earlier as a possible example. So you can't argue that it is impossible "intelligence" from another dimension, was the original designer of life as we know it.

Disproving ID is not as easy as you think.

 

[ib1yysguy]

You have to show where plant life became cold blooded reptilian life... how cold blooded reptilian life became warm blooded mammal life....

This is the most nobale thing you've said this entire thread because it reveals how you really believe evolution works. Reptiles turn into mammals, plants turn into reptiles. This is not what evolution predicts and it's proof positive that your understanding of evolution is flawed. No wonder you think it's bogus. You don't understand what the hell it is.

 

[ib1yysguy]

LMAO... One type of fly "evolved" into another type of fly! One type of iguana "evolved" into another type of iguana, and one type of owl "evolved" into another type of owl... this is NOT cross-species evolution! Show me where a fly evolved into an iguana and it evolved into an owl, then we're getting somewhere! CROSS-species evolution, THAT is what you're looking for! Not INNER-species evolution.

That is precisely what speciation is. When they can no longer mate with each other and share genetic information they are separate species, dumbass. That's is what speciation is. Owls don't turn into elephants. They turn into other, different owls. That's what evoltion predicts as well. It's been reproduced and it's speciation.

It's not inner species. They're separate species of owls, you fucking ignorant Southern waste of nutrients. They're separate species of flies produced from one common species. That's SPECIATION.

You really are the dumbest or most dishonest person imaginable.

I'm really actually amazed you said that bit about flies evolving into iguanas. You really think that's what evolutionary theory predicts? Really? Yeah, apparently you do. You are seriously mental.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

This is the most nobale thing you've said this entire thread because it reveals how you really believe evolution works. Reptiles turn into mammals, plants turn into reptiles. This is not what evolution predicts and it's proof positive that your understanding of evolution is flawed. No wonder you think it's bogus. You don't understand what the hell it is.

No, my understanding of evolution is perfectly fine! I fully understand that ET is a theory of how various life forms changed over time, and not indicative of origin. ET doesn't deal with or relate to the origin of life, and I fully understand this, which is why it puzzles me that you and others keep wanting to pit it against ID as an alternative for origin. Whether life originated as the result of intelligent design or not, doesn't effect ET or what it predicts (theorizes). Yet, people like yourself, continue to insist that it somehow offers us an explanation for origin of life.

The fact is, life originated through intelligent design or it didn't, there is no other possibility. Without ID, you must come up with some way or combination of theories... Abiogenesis coupled with Evolution... or something, to form any basis for what you believe. I am telling you that it is a baseless argument, you haven't offered any evidence to support any idea, regarding the origins of life. You have a theory (Abiogenesis) which is full of various sub-theories, none of which have a consensus, to offer a possible explanation for how the first life forms emerged. And you have ET, which theorizes on how life may have changed through time. What you don't have, is anything to show how life made the leap from simple cells to complex cells and organisms, to plant life, to reptilian life, to mammal life... and so on.

So perhaps you need to go back to the beginning, and explain what you believe happened from the start, from when there was no living organism on the planet, and walk us through what happened to result in what we see all around us today. Because, so far, none of you are making any sense... you're jumping all around on the subject... one minute, ET explains everything, the next minute, it doesn't address origin... one minute, science doesn't prove things, the next minute, it has disproved ID... on one hand, things have to be observed and testable to be considered science, the next thing you know, you are claiming things that haven't been observed or tested, are proven facts. You really need to articulate your thoughts in some coherent way on this, because you are making no sense in what you think happened.

Start from the start... There is NO life... then... ???

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

That is precisely what speciation is. When they can no longer mate with each other and share genetic information they are separate species, dumbass. That's is what speciation is. Owls don't turn into elephants. They turn into other, different owls. That's what evoltion predicts as well. It's been reproduced and it's speciation.

It's not inner species. They're separate species of owls, you fucking ignorant Southern waste of nutrients. They're separate species of flies produced from one common species. That's SPECIATION.

You really are the dumbest or most dishonest person imaginable.

I'm really actually amazed you said that bit about flies evolving into iguanas. You really think that's what evolutionary theory predicts? Really? Yeah, apparently you do. You are seriously mental.

Well you can call me names and insult me all you like, you are only showing me examples of "evolution" within a particular species of living organism. A fly is a fly... an owl is an owl! Let's go back to when there was no life... no living organism on the planet... something happened, obviously, because there are billions of life forms now. How did a simple non-living cell "evolve" into all the various forms of life we currently have? At some point, the simple cells had to 'transform' into something more, and that had to 'evolve' into something else, and so on and so forth... otherwise, we would still be sitting on a planet full of single-cell organisms which evolve into other types of single-cell organisms.

 

[ib1yysguy]

Well you can call me names and insult me all you like, you are only showing me examples of "evolution" within a particular species of living organism. A fly is a fly... an owl is an owl!

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080830161221.htm

150,000 SPECIES of flies

http://aviary.owls.com/owls.html

134 SPECIES of owls worldwide.

You don't even know what the fuck a species is. And I will call you names all I want, you dumbshit redneck ignorant summabich.

As to the rest of your dribble: You're now functioning off the fallacy (it is a fallacy) that if science can't presently explain something, the alternative is an intelligent designer. A few thousand years ago, we couldn't explain lightning either and we had a God to explain that as well. But now we know what it is and where it comes from.

So the entire premise of your last ditch argument here is that science can't explain it right now so it must be magic. That's hogwash. You can believe it if you choose, but you certainly wont get away with trying to get it taught in a public school science classroom.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080830161221.htm

150,000 SPECIES of flies

http://aviary.owls.com/owls.html

134 SPECIES of owls worldwide.

You don't even know what the fuck a species is. And I will call you names all I want, you dumbshit redneck ignorant summabich.

As to the rest of your dribble: You're now functioning off the fallacy (it is a fallacy) that if science can't presently explain something, the alternative is an intelligent designer. A few thousand years ago, we couldn't explain lightning either and we had a God to explain that as well. But now we know what it is and where it comes from.

So the entire premise of your last ditch argument here is that science can't explain it right now so it must be magic. That's hogwash. You can believe it if you choose, but you certainly wont get away with trying to get it taught in a public school science classroom.

spe⋅cies
   /ˈspiʃiz, -siz/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [spee-sheez, -seez] Show IPA Pronunciation
noun, plural -cies, adjective
–noun
1. a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind.
2. Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
3. Logic.
a. one of the classes of things included with other classes in a genus.
b. the set of things within one of these classes.
4. Ecclesiastical.
a. the external form or appearance of the bread or the wine in the Eucharist.
b. either of the Eucharistic elements.
5. Obsolete. specie; coin.
6. the species, the human race; mankind: a study of the species.
–adjective
7. Horticulture. pertaining to a plant that is a representative member of a species, one that is not a hybrid or variety: a species rose; a species gladiolus.
----------------------------------------------------


So as we see, there are a number of common definitions for the word "species" and it really just depends on how you are applying the word. I do clearly have an understanding of what it means. You are using the word to describe various "species" within a particular "species." I am asking you for evidence of "cross-species" evolution... meaning, where one species and another species produced a third unique species. You can only give me examples of "inner-species" evolution, meaning, flies which produced other types of flies, and owls which produced other types of owls... and that doesn't illustrate "cross-species" evolution.

Again, you can call me names and insult me, because frankly, that is all you can do, it's what I have relegated your arguments to.

You're now functioning off the fallacy (it is a fallacy) that if science can't presently explain something, the alternative is an intelligent designer.

No, I have presented my case for why it's perfectly logical to presume an intelligent source created life. You are functioning off the notion that if science can't explain something, it is fallacy. This is absurd because we know of a lot of things science has yet to explain, yet they are not fallacy. Black holes, gravity, dark energy, anti-matter, to name a few. It wasn't very long ago, science couldn't explain nuclear fission, yet it was not a fallacy.

What I have proposed is not an alternative to science at all, in fact, science and physics provide a basis of evidential support for an intelligent designer as opposed to random chance. Physics operate with predictability, you combine oxygen and hydrogen in certain proportions and you get water, you don't randomly get nitrogen sometimes. You add 1+1 and you get 2, not an unexpected random result. Non-organic matter doesn't randomly generate organic matter, we've never observed that, and no scientific experiment has ever produced that result. So the idea that life originated by random chance, without some intelligent input, defies logic, defies science, and defies probability. Furthermore, it is ignorant and contradictory to science to make this assumption. It's just a flat out lie to claim it as a fact.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

What silliness, of course they have been scathingly critical! The quote is that "they think about intelligent design". In other words, it requires them to seriously address the very notion of it. So much so, that they are forced to grapple with such things as irreducible complexity. And, though you, as they, like to claim they have debunked ID, it just ain't so Joe.

What old fart Darwinian's are being forced to do is defend their dying dinosaur of a theory. Many scientists entering into fields of biology, astronomy, and even archeology are giving a listen to the Behe's and Dembski's and their study into intelligent design. The face of Origin's science is changing no matter how people like you claim otherwise.

You don't know much about biology. Who is defending evolution in Biology? Hardly anyone but a few cranks. Our understanding of evolution is growing at an unprecedented rate thanks to new tools such as genome sequencing. This claim of yours that evolution is a dying theory or a theory in crisis is an argument from ignorance. Today almost all applied fields of biology are applied fields of evolutionary theory. Genetics, Cell Biology, Molecular Biology, Agronomy, Microbiology, Phylogeny, Population Genetics, Developmental Biology, Embryology, Histology, Ecology, Physiology, Biomedical Engineering, etc, etc, these are all applied branches of evolutionary theory.

If Neodarwinism is a dying Dinosaur then why are there so many applied branches of evolutionary theory in the field of biology? If Neodarwinism was debunked or falsified all these applied fields would collapse due to being based upon false concepts. If ID is valid how comes there are no applied branches of ID theory? How comes there is no relevant ID research published? I've challenged you multiple times to show me ID research or peer reviewed publications on ID and you've failed to provide even one.

Now let's go down the list of why ID is not science.

ID does not identify who or what this Intelligent Designer is.

ID Models supernatural behavior and not natural phenomena.

ID breaks the ground rules of science by invoking supernatural causation.

ID makes no testable predictions.

ID has not subjected it self to testing and research.

ID is not in principle falsifiable.

ID has failed to generate peer-reviewed publications on ID research.

Because ID Has not published any peer reviewed research no one has been able to independently verify ID.

ID attempts to prove itself by default by discrediting other theories without adequate proof while providing no evidence of it's own validity.

The argument for Irreducible complexity, which is central to ID, is based on the same flawed, illogical and contrived dualism that doomed creation science and has been debunked by the scientific community.

ID cannot separate itself from it's religious antecedents, i.e. creationism.

ID has failed to gain acceptance by the scientific community.

The real frustrating thing for me as a biologist and what makes this so tedious and boring is that there is not one single argument ID makes against evolution that is new. These are the same old, tired, run downed creationist arguments. I have not heard a new creationist/ID argument against evolution in my life time (and I'm not young).

So Thorn is wrong here. As a biologist I'm not beating my head up against a wall debating you ID/creationist supporters. I"m playing "Whack A Mole".

You ID/Creationist supporters make a lame argument and I knock that mole down. You make another lame argument, I knock that mole down, you make a third lame argument and I knock that mole down and then you go back and make the first lame argument again and I have to knock that mole down again.

It's tedious and it's boring.

 

[Timshel]

I am dense because I said what you said?

You said it as if you were countering my comments.

Hmmmm.... you might actually have a point there! Nevertheless, I don't think you are dense for thinking "falsifiable" means testable, because your own source says that's what it means, and I agree. So, in this case, me saying what you said, doesn't make either of us dense.

That's not what I said, that's not what the source said, that's not what you said in your previous post. Falsifiable means able to be proven false and therefore testable. Do you not understand what therefore means dumbfuck?

If I said, "you are a redneck and therefore a dumbass" this would imply all rednecks are dumbasses. It does not imply all dumbasses are rednecks.

But it's a logic thing... If something CAN be proven false, it CAN also be proven true, and visa versa. If it is impossible to prove something false, then it also becomes impossible to prove it conclusively true as well, and visa versa. However, let's not digress into this minutia of meaningless syntax...

Fine, how can ID be proven false?

The point is, you can offer NO proof, no test, no experiment, no observation, no plausible theory to explain cross-species evolution. This is important for several reasons, namely, because in order for our planet to have millions of various and very differing life forms, and the 'conclusion' it all resulted from Abiogenesis from a single living cell, you have to prove cross-species evolution possible, and that hasn't been done.

So essentially, the same refutation you throw up against ID, we can apply to Abiogenesis as well. It is not testable, not falsifiable, and invalid as a scientific theory. (This is where pinheads usually chime in about how science doesn't "prove" things.)

Nonsense. I have given you several examples of how one could falsify evolution. You can't provide one example of a way in which ID may be falsified.

 

[Timshel]

And maybe some of you brainiac anti-ID Atheists could throw a bunch of life's building blocks into a vat, and demonstrate how random chance originates life, while we thoroughly observe that! The problem is, you CAN'T! It doesn't work! Try as you may, you can't replicate origin of life from non-organic matter, it's never been done.

Are you dropping context because you are stupid or dishonest?

My point is not about evolution vs ID here. The point is that it might be possible to conclusively prove something true while not being able to prove it false. ID is an example.

Since you demand the comparison between ID and evolution. Once again and slowly, the.......difference.......is..... that.....evolution......can.....be......proven.....false. Neither need be proven true before they are given consideration. No one is demanding that you prove it true. It must be falsifiable, otherwise scientific inquiry is pointless.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Now let's go down the list of why ID is not science.

GOOD... Let's go through it once more!

ID does not identify who or what this Intelligent Designer is.

Science does not dictate the designer need be identified to theorize intelligence played a role. In forensic science, you may well determine what caused a victim's death without identifying who/what killed the victim. It is not a prerequisite.

ID Models supernatural behavior and not natural phenomena.

Not necessarily. Unless you can claim science understands all natural phenomenon, this is a false assumption. Technically, black holes and anti-matter model "supernatural" (not natural) phenomenon.

ID breaks the ground rules of science by invoking supernatural causation.

Fallacy built upon same false assumptions of your previous point. See above.

ID makes no testable predictions.

No theory of origin can because the precondition can't be replicated.

ID has not subjected it self to testing and research.

See above.

ID is not in principle falsifiable.

Which concludes you can't claim ID false.

ID has failed to generate peer-reviewed publications on ID research.

Not required for something to be true or false. Not required to be a theory or possibility.

Because ID Has not published any peer reviewed research no one has been able to independently verify ID.

Verification is not required for a theory. You are now demanding the standard of "proof" to establish a theory, and this is not within the ability of science to do.

ID attempts to prove itself by default by discrediting other theories without adequate proof while providing no evidence of it's own validity.

Logical fallacy. ID doesn't necessarily discredit other theories any more than theories tend to discredit one another. Again, you demand the theory be proven valid, and that is not what science does. If it could be proven true, it would be called the LAW of Intelligent Design.

The argument for Irreducible complexity, which is central to ID, is based on the same flawed, illogical and contrived dualism that doomed creation science and has been debunked by the scientific community.

Nonsense. Irreducible complexity is an observation, a prediction, a test, which you say is required for a theory. There is no "dualism" involved, it simply uses the Darwinian model to predict. It hasn't been debunked, science can't prove or disprove, and you already said ID is not falsifiable. Debunking would require you to contradict falsifiability.

ID cannot separate itself from it's religious antecedents, i.e. creationism.

It doesn't have to. You are claiming that because ID is associated with religion, this makes it invalid. There is no scientific basis to make this conclusion. I have presented an example of "intelligence" which doesn't conform to religious belief, which could have been responsible for the design of life as we know it. You want to connect ID with religion so you can refute religion and therefore refute ID as well, and that is not how science works.

ID has failed to gain acceptance by the scientific community.

Since when does a theory have to win a popularity contest to be valid? Where in science is this mandated? It seems to me, many things over the years, have not been initially met with scientific acceptance, yet they turned out to be valid. Many of Einstein's theories were not accepted by the scientific community in the beginning.

The real frustrating thing for me as a biologist and what makes this so tedious and boring is that there is not one single argument ID makes against evolution that is new. These are the same old, tired, run downed creationist arguments. I have not heard a new creationist/ID argument against evolution in my life time (and I'm not young).

Well, that is because ID doesn't have to make arguments against evolution. Here you seem to be reverting back to the absurdity that ET explains or theorizes about origin. Do you think ID refutes ET or ET refutes ID? Do you think ET sufficiently explains origin of life? Why would a theory about one thing, have to make an argument against a theory about something completely different?

So Thorn is wrong here. As a biologist I'm not beating my head up against a wall debating you ID/creationist supporters. I"m playing "Whack A Mole".

After your last comment, you should seriously stop lying about being a biologist. You are devoid of any understanding of science. It's a nice little ruse, and you probably think it lends some credibility to your absurd arguments, but it's quite embarrassing to the scientific world.

You ID/Creationist supporters make a lame argument and I knock that mole down. You make another lame argument, I knock that mole down, you make a third lame argument and I knock that mole down and then you go back and make the first lame argument again and I have to knock that mole down again.

It's tedious and it's boring.

Well I don't see where you have knocked anything down. You keep repeating the same idiocy over and over again, without addressing the issue. Since you are so tediously bored, try focusing on the question at hand and propose some answers for us!

How did non-organic matter generate organic matter? What is your theory on that?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

GOOD... Let's go through it once more!



Science does not dictate the designer need be identified to theorize intelligence played a role. In forensic science, you may well determine what caused a victim's death without identifying who/what killed the victim. It is not a prerequisite.



Not necessarily. Unless you can claim science understands all natural phenomenon, this is a false assumption. Technically, black holes and anti-matter model "supernatural" (not natural) phenomenon.



Fallacy built upon same false assumptions of your previous point. See above.



No theory of origin can because the precondition can't be replicated.



See above.



Which concludes you can't claim ID false.



Not required for something to be true or false. Not required to be a theory or possibility.



Verification is not required for a theory. You are now demanding the standard of "proof" to establish a theory, and this is not within the ability of science to do.



Logical fallacy. ID doesn't necessarily discredit other theories any more than theories tend to discredit one another. Again, you demand the theory be proven valid, and that is not what science does. If it could be proven true, it would be called the LAW of Intelligent Design.



Nonsense. Irreducible complexity is an observation, a prediction, a test, which you say is required for a theory. There is no "dualism" involved, it simply uses the Darwinian model to predict. It hasn't been debunked, science can't prove or disprove, and you already said ID is not falsifiable. Debunking would require you to contradict falsifiability.



It doesn't have to. You are claiming that because ID is associated with religion, this makes it invalid. There is no scientific basis to make this conclusion. I have presented an example of "intelligence" which doesn't conform to religious belief, which could have been responsible for the design of life as we know it. You want to connect ID with religion so you can refute religion and therefore refute ID as well, and that is not how science works.



Since when does a theory have to win a popularity contest to be valid? Where in science is this mandated? It seems to me, many things over the years, have not been initially met with scientific acceptance, yet they turned out to be valid. Many of Einstein's theories were not accepted by the scientific community in the beginning.



Well, that is because ID doesn't have to make arguments against evolution. Here you seem to be reverting back to the absurdity that ET explains or theorizes about origin. Do you think ID refutes ET or ET refutes ID? Do you think ET sufficiently explains origin of life? Why would a theory about one thing, have to make an argument against a theory about something completely different?



After your last comment, you should seriously stop lying about being a biologist. You are devoid of any understanding of science. It's a nice little ruse, and you probably think it lends some credibility to your absurd arguments, but it's quite embarrassing to the scientific world.



Well I don't see where you have knocked anything down. You keep repeating the same idiocy over and over again, without addressing the issue. Since you are so tediously bored, try focusing on the question at hand and propose some answers for us!

How did non-organic matter generate organic matter? What is your theory on that?

Whack a Mole, Whack a Mole, Whack a Mole. Dixie you just plain don't know what you're talking about. Go study some biology and then come back and lecture to me when you actually know something new.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Are you dropping context because you are stupid or dishonest?

My point is not about evolution vs ID here. The point is that it might be possible to conclusively prove something true while not being able to prove it false. ID is an example.

Since you demand the comparison between ID and evolution. Once again and slowly, the.......difference.......is..... that.....evolution......can.....be......proven.....false. Neither need be proven true before they are given consideration. No one is demanding that you prove it true. It must be falsifiable, otherwise scientific inquiry is pointless.

Logic isn't your strong point, is it? If the possibility exists to prove something, the possibility has to exist to disprove it as well. Otherwise, it can neither be proved or disproved. Theories all fall in this category, it's what makes them theory.

ID can't be proven true or false, ET can't be proven true or false, Abiogenesis can't be proven true or false. Science in general, doesn't seek to prove things conclusively true or false. For something to be proven true, the opposite must be proven false, for something to be proven false, the opposite has to be proven true, and without that, you can't make that conclusion, it fails the test of logic.