Despicable God-Haters Will Resort to Anything!

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Errrm, not quite.

Yes, quite!

I have assessed ID notions...

Notions are trivial thoughts, ID is a theory based in science principles. Unless we can now refer to the Evolution Notion, and you are alright with that terminology, then I suggest we stick with the actual facts here. See, before you even have begun to state your case, you have demonstrated profound prejudice toward what you are examining. This disqualifies your opinion on the subject from this point forward, your judgement is tainted.

and the analogies it is based on.

What about the science principles it is based on? The inherent need for humans to connect to their spirituality and belief in a higher power? This is just as scientific as your evolution theories, because we have observed and noted substantial evidence among the animal world, to reasonably conclude that all animal behavior has purpose and reason, in fact, part of that evidence lies in Darwin's theory on natural selection. If belief in something greater were not a vital and necessary part of humanity, it would have culled itself out long ago from our "enlightened" species, but it hasn't, more people believe in something now than ever before. So we have an inherent animal behavior in humans, and a weak speculative myth from you on why this is.

I haven't dismissed ID out of hand

Yes, you most certainly have... I believe your exact words were, "it fails at first hurdle." This essentially means, it didn't even make it to the first test or objective analyzing. You dismissed it out of hand because you felt it was based on "logical fallacy" and those were your words too.

an argument which seems to be all you have in your armoury whenever I criticise the notion.

It's because you keep referring to legitimate scientific theory as a "notion" and it's not. You also keep insisting that ET, through prostoreiteoros evidenciosiuomo concluvimotiom... pretty much proves we all came from apes!

If the arguments for ID were in the slightest bit convincing, logical or supported by evidence, it might be a little more plausible.

Well, they are, but you have chosen to close your mind back at the "first hurdle" and you haven't bothered with examining ID from a science perspective. You want to switch lenses and go to your philosophical arguments then, and refuse to allow any scientific consideration.

I'll tell you what. Produce evidence to support the argument of ID....

Produce evidence to support the notion that pattern equates to design.
Produce evidence to support IC, that isn't an attribution of functional evolution.
Produce a syllogism that demonstrates the validity of ID, and produce evidence to support the soundness of your premises.

This has all been done, ad nausea. You have your textbook responses to each of the things you listed, you've already argued them a million times! Do you feel some need to type the same shit over and over or something?

I've gone through the various scientific arguments to support intelligent design. You've simply dismissed all of them and reverted back to the same philosophical arguments. Science doesn't simply dismiss things because it wants to divert to philosophy.

Repeated pattern does equate to design. The development of the human eye is not attributable to evolution. In fact, there has never been any evidence produced to support human evolution. ID, like ET, is neither "valid" or "invalid", it is a theory. Science mandates that we not determine with conclusions such as "valid" and "invalid" because this would involve absolutes.

 

[AnyOldIron]

Notions are trivial thoughts, ID is a theory based in science principles.

Notions are simply ideas. ID isn't a theory as it doesn't produce testable hypotheses and it isn't based on scientific principles of this.

See, before you even have begun to state your case, you have demonstrated profound prejudice toward what you are examining.

No, I have evaluated the notion impartially. If it begins to produce testable hypotheses and peer-reviewed material... I'd consider it science.

You cannot blame others for not taking your notion seriously if the notion is built so poorly.

Yes, you most certainly have... I believe your exact words were, "it fails at first hurdle." This essentially means, it didn't even make it to the first test or objective analyzing. You dismissed it out of hand because you felt it was based on "logical fallacy" and those were your words too.

It fails at the first hurdle because it is based on a non-sequiter fallacy. Simple as that. I have explained why it is logical fallacy. You are yet to produce a syllogism to demonstrate that it isn't a fallacy and that it is valid.

Again, you aren't arguing the points. All you have is 'you aren't taking ID seriously'....

It's because you keep referring to legitimate scientific theory as a "notion" and it's not. You also keep insisting that ET, through prostoreiteoros evidenciosiuomo concluvimotiom... pretty much proves we all came from apes!

Again, strawman. I haven't claimed this, in fact I have lost count of the number of times I have explained to you that 'to prove' is impossible.

I have stated that evolution through natural selection has overwhelming evidence to support the theory (it is a theory because it produces testable hypotheses) and it isn't based on logical fallacies.

You still aren't arguing the points, still misrepresenting, producing strawmen and chuntering 'you haven't considered ID'..

Well, they are, but you have chosen to close your mind back at the "first hurdle" and you haven't bothered with examining ID from a science perspective. You want to switch lenses and go to your philosophical arguments then, and refuse to allow any scientific consideration.

Science is part of philosophy, you moron... lol

Again ID doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny because it doesn't produce testable hypotheses, which is essential to the scientific method.

I've gone through the various scientific arguments to support intelligent design. You've simply dismissed all of them and reverted back to the same philosophical arguments. Science doesn't simply dismiss things because it wants to divert to philosophy.

Divert to philosophy? lol. Are you really claiming that logic and reason have no place in science? lmao!

I have presented arguments, reasons why ID is such an unsubstantial notion. Argue against the arguments I present, not my worthiness to raise them....

Repeated pattern does equate to design.

No, don't just make the statement, support it with argument.

Why is reasoning called reasoning? Because you present the 'reasons' for your argument.

Making a statement doesn't suffice.

The development of the human eye is not attributable to evolution.

Again, support your assertion. I have produced evidence on this thread to explain how the eye can evolve. Now you back your argument up.

In fact, there has never been any evidence produced to support human evolution.

Again, you are making assertions without supporting them. The evidence supporting human evolution is easily found, on the internet, in peer-reviewed publications and books....

ID, like ET, is neither "valid" or "invalid", it is a theory. Science mandates that we not determine with conclusions such as "valid" and "invalid" because this would involve absolutes.

Ha ha ha! This is one of the funniest things you've written.

So science states that we shouldn't consider whether a hypothesis is logically valid or not?
Explain how logical validity involves absolute knowledge?

Are you really stating that logic has no place in science? Could you post that for me, so I can use it in a signature?

Tell you what. Print off this thread, take it home with you, read through it over the weekend.

Come back after the weekend with reasoning. Support your arguments with reasons, rather than simply making assertions.

If you believe something, you must support that with reasons why you believe it. And then those reasons must be subjected to criticism, then you retort to the criticisms. That's how debate works...