What is scientific about ID?

Post Reply New Topic

i'd bank on what is known considering his attitudes and the whole god of the gaps thing.



/we are all modern gods.

Must you be so insulting? I'm guessing that's the kind of stuff you only say on Internet forums where no one can get their hands on you. I'm not wrong for believeing what I believe, no matter how you demean me. Honestly I'd rather not know everything.

And I'd twist your neck if I could.

"i can't defend my beliefs and ideas so i have to resort to violence!! !"

I tried defending my beliefs, but clearly you're biassed against them. And how can I resort to violence when I'm in Canada and you're in LA?

Screw you.

Prove to me that there are not invisible pink unicorns on the far side of the moon. The burden of proof is on the person making the extraordinary claims.

If it can't be proven then your "God" is no more relevant to me then invisible pink unicorns. People who believe something out of blind faith deserve nothing but contempt and pity.

IF you want to believe in pink unicorns on the dark side of the moon, go right ahead. I won't object. Sounds silly to me, but then again so does the Noah's Ark Story.

Your contempt and pity? Meaningless!

But sentiments you may wish to review if / when you go among people.

You don't have a right not to be offended. We will say what we want, if you people that blindly believe in an invisible Bronze Age superman in the sky don't like your fairy tales crushed that is too damn bad.

I have every right to be offended, Odin. It's fine if you don't share my beliefs, but that doesn't give you the right to insult me. Go out into the world and learn why people get offended. Learn about what makes people tick, from people rather than video-games and Anime cartoons.

you're wrong. and i guess that's the biggest insult there can be for you, huh?

You can't definitively say I'm wrong any more than I can definitively say you're right. There's no irrefutable proof either way. There is not. And now you're just intent on antagonizing me, huh? This was not what the thread was for, antagonizing. This was supposed to be an ID thread.

I have no intent to 'rescue' anyone..after all I'm not proponent of ID.

And even if someone claims that you have 'misjudged' somebody,it only depends of your good will if you would accept this critic or not.



Yes,but I have no intention for debating in behalf of ID.
You have called Ragtime and iamnotparakeet,who are Evangelical Christians(by their own claims),so I highly doubt that you would get 'scientific' answers.



You have already claimed that I'm not impartial...so your 'hoping' for my impartiality is clearly just rhetorical.

If you are really impartial,and you really want to know arguments of ID movement,then go to their websites or mail them.
Since I hardly doubt that you will heard better reasons from young earth creationists,and Evangelicals.

Second,Ragtime and others have no obligation to join your challenge,even if they have 'reasons',since they have not started this thread.

Thirdly,I believe,that this entire topic is about proving something to you.But you may dismiss any reason that is in collision with your personal convictions as 'unreasonable'.
And what these convictions are,only you know.



I have no private messages from you.



This is very nice Gromit.
There are few problems....

I had similar discussions on other forums,that went on for ages.
Unfortunately,most people debate in order to convince others into their convictions,or to demonstrate 'intellectual superiority' over opponents...

I personally have no nerve or time to join in endless debates,since,although I'm an Aspie,I also have a life.
I am also a working man,and such debates consume my time,nerves and energy,without solving anything.

Any side can spam quotations,interpretations,evidences that 'support' their views,and then try to debunk proofs of opponents.
At the end there is no result.



I was here,and after all my answers were the last.
Unfortunately,I have no more time as before,and no more psychic energy for such time-consuming and barren debates,especially those that are several months old.

I have stated my reasons in our mile-long debate,and if you think that they are wrong,so be it.
I'm not sure what another mile-long debate could solve.
I have no intention to 'convert' anyone.

Logical consequence of this skepticism is skepticism in science itself.



Something that is invisible cannot be pink,since invisible things have no color.

Last edited by Witt on 27 Apr 2008, 5:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

says you. problem is that the burden of proof isn't on me to disprove something because it's impossible to prove something doesn't exist. however, the burden of proof is on all those who make such claims on deities and they refuse to say they can or can't prove it but harp on god of the gaps whenever they can to try and "prove" it.

so i repeat: you're wrong.

you just repeated what i said but made it out in such a way to make it sound like science loses or something.


it's not a consequence (which i'm taking to mean a negative effect). it's what science is...a skeptical view of the world that is defined by reproducable results and a constant back-checking (meaning updating theories and facts as more information becomes present).

now...there's a difference between skepticism and accepting proof and evidence as its presented and simply just denying it without proof or without any logical argument....which i get the impression that you were trying to imply in your post but there's one problem with that: skepticism isn't sitting in a corner with your fingers in your ears shouting louldly "lalalalalalalalalalalala...".

Why do want science to win so badly? Science and religion may be at odds with one another, but actually they cannot exist in a vacuum. They need eachother. They inform eachother. The passionate and rational sides of human nature are always communicating, are they not?

Okay, I'm done. Now you may insult me.