The universe is proof of god!

[Random Person]

You either can't remember what you post or don't realize there's a transcript.

Was ID scientifically tested before it was rejected?

Every time.

That's why it's rejected..

How was it tested?

Scientifically.

Great. Let's see a link to the scientific study.

Then you complained of dismalization or some such.

Sounds like a scientific claim is being made without the benefit of applying science.

You have a real problem with English.

A scientific study is an experiment or research based on the claims being made. As I have said, ID offers nothing that can be studied scientifically any more than the ancient alien visitation claims do.

Scientific testing can be comparing the claim to what is known and established and failing the claim if it is contrary to or can not be fit into established knowledge.

ETA:
You may note that even Behe had to admit that his "examples" of "irreducible complexity" could not be supported.

You have a problem with English. Your response doesn't indicate any comprehension of what was discussed.

 

[Random Person]

Turns out their are no studies. Color me surprised.

Did you look for any scientific studies of the unscientific yourself?

Read this: https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/id_checklist . It describes the overall reason why ID fails to be science, and touches on how even the very few testable claims made by ID were tested and refuted.

I was inquiring if any scientific studies existed. I was assured there were. Your link doesn't quite fit the bill, it makes assertions but no studies.

 

[skepticalbip]

You either can't remember what you post or don't realize there's a transcript.

Was ID scientifically tested before it was rejected?

Every time.

That's why it's rejected..

How was it tested?

Scientifically.

Great. Let's see a link to the scientific study.

Then you complained of dismalization or some such.

Sounds like a scientific claim is being made without the benefit of applying science.

You have a real problem with English.

A scientific study is an experiment or research based on the claims being made. As I have said, ID offers nothing that can be studied scientifically any more than the ancient alien visitation claims do.

Scientific testing can be comparing the claim to what is known and established and failing the claim if it is contrary to or can not be fit into established knowledge.

ETA:
You may note that even Behe had to admit that his "examples" of "irreducible complexity" could not be supported.

You have a problem with English. Your response doesn't indicate any comprehension of what was discussed.

If your problem isn't your ignorance of the difference between "study" and "test" then maybe your problem is reading comprehension.

 

[Random Person]

You either can't remember what you post or don't realize there's a transcript.

Was ID scientifically tested before it was rejected?

Every time.

That's why it's rejected..

How was it tested?

Scientifically.

Great. Let's see a link to the scientific study.

Then you complained of dismalization or some such.

Sounds like a scientific claim is being made without the benefit of applying science.

You have a real problem with English.

A scientific study is an experiment or research based on the claims being made. As I have said, ID offers nothing that can be studied scientifically any more than the ancient alien visitation claims do.

Scientific testing can be comparing the claim to what is known and established and failing the claim if it is contrary to or can not be fit into established knowledge.

ETA:
You may note that even Behe had to admit that his "examples" of "irreducible complexity" could not be supported.

You have a problem with English. Your response doesn't indicate any comprehension of what was discussed.

If your problem isn't your ignorance of the difference between "study" and "test" then maybe your problem is reading comprehension.

Says the farting goat guy

 

[bilby]

You either can't remember what you post or don't realize there's a transcript.

Was ID scientifically tested before it was rejected?

Every time.

That's why it's rejected..

How was it tested?

Scientifically.

Great. Let's see a link to the scientific study.

Then you complained of dismalization or some such.

Sounds like a scientific claim is being made without the benefit of applying science.

You have a real problem with English.

A scientific study is an experiment or research based on the claims being made. As I have said, ID offers nothing that can be studied scientifically any more than the ancient alien visitation claims do.

Scientific testing can be comparing the claim to what is known and established and failing the claim if it is contrary to or can not be fit into established knowledge.

ETA:
You may note that even Behe had to admit that his "examples" of "irreducible complexity" could not be supported.

You have a problem with English. Your response doesn't indicate any comprehension of what was discussed.

If your problem isn't your ignorance of the difference between "study" and "test" then maybe your problem is reading comprehension.

Or perhaps that he needs a bridge to live under.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I was inquiring if any scientific studies existed. I was assured there were.

no, WHEN you actually asked for a study, you were told there were none.
The rest is your phantasy.

 

[Keith&Co.]

You may note that even Behe had to admit that his "examples" of "irreducible complexity" could not be supported.

Hmmm.
The whole argument for Irreducible Complexity is that for a given trait, Behe could imagine no way it could develop except by the work of a god.
Shouldn't that mean that those people who worked to figure out interim steps would be gods to Behe?

Not THE God, not the one he's pretending not to try to prove, but smaller gods? Workaday divinity?

 

[Elixir]

It may be that there are no stupid questions. But there certainly is no shortage of inquisitive idiots.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

ID is unscientific?

I would say yes. But then you have to understand what science does.

Given two "ideas" which, if either or both, is an idea that could be investigated scientifically? Then specifically how would science proceed in investigating it.

1. An intelligent supernatural force designed and incorporated certain aspects of life (like the eye).

2. An alien species visited earth several hundred thousand years ago and tinkered with the lettering of some genes in a primate species that eventually led, through ensuing evolution, to human intelligence.

Damn Vorlons!

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The problem with ID is that ID has no way to demonstrate that an evolved trait is indeed irreducible. Not even in principle. That we do not know how a genetic trait evolved does not mean one can safely assume it did not evolve. Thus ID is simply a God of the gaps argument and can never be more than that. For ID to evolve to being a true science, ID has to establish a way to differentiate from a trait that evolved to a trait that cannot in principle evolve. That has not been done. ID is not science, it is bad metaphysics at best.

The IDist's "Wedge Document" demonstrates that this ID nonsense is just creationism in new clothing."

 

[Keith&Co.]

The problem with ID is that ID has no way to demonstrate that an evolved trait is indeed irreducible.

Which is handy, because that also means that scientists demonstrating that any given example is, in fact, reducible, it means nothing. Irreducibility was never established, so actual facts can't disprove it.

 

[Random Person]

It may be that there are no stupid questions. But there certainly is no shortage of inquisitive idiots.

My science professors said that never.

 

[Elixir]

It may be that there are no stupid questions. But there certainly is no shortage of inquisitive idiots.

My science professors said that never.

Might be why you're oblivious to it.
As a total waste of electrons, welcome to my ignore list.

 

[Random Person]

It may be that there are no stupid questions. But there certainly is no shortage of inquisitive idiots.

My science professors said that never.

Might be why you're oblivious to it.
As a total waste of electrons, welcome to my ignore list.

They seemed to prefer inquisitiveness over obliviousness.

 

[skepticalbip]

It may be that there are no stupid questions. But there certainly is no shortage of inquisitive idiots.

inquisitive idiots who ask stupid questions, honestly seeking understanding, isn't that bad. Worse are the idiots who blindly believe idiotic claims so try to convince others of their truth by asking idiotic questions intended to prove their idiotic beliefs.

 

[Random Person]

It may be that there are no stupid questions. But there certainly is no shortage of inquisitive idiots.

inquisitive idiots who ask stupid questions, honestly seeking understanding, isn't that bad. Worse are the idiots who blindly believe idiotic claims so try to convince others of their truth by asking idiotic questions intended to prove their idiotic beliefs.

Where do the farting goats play into your idiocy? Are idiotic proclamations immune?

 

[Keith&Co.]

It may be that there are no stupid questions. But there certainly is no shortage of inquisitive idiots.

inquisitive idiots who ask stupid questions, honestly seeking understanding, isn't that bad. Worse are the idiots who blindly believe idiotic claims so try to convince others of their truth by asking idiotic questions intended to prove their idiotic beliefs.

Where do the farting goats play into your idiocy? Are idiotic proclamations immune?

You're really hung up with the goat analogy, without grasping the purpose of the analogy.

 

[Rhea]

thoughtful explanations to explain why Learner and Random Person are trying to put an emotional dress onto science's crystal clear shoulders

And then, the predictable when he realizes his arguments are 100% refuted... The prodigious topic leap in an effort to salvage a belief he desperately wants to hold, but sees that he cannot logically do...

How did life begin?

Oh, ~jump!~


The answer: not with "intelligent design," sweetie.


Also chuckling at, "ID doesn't propose a god!"
Oh? What's the intelligence that you're imagining doing the designing,, then?
Mice?

 

[Random Person]

And then, the predictable when he realizes his arguments are 100% refuted... The prodigious topic leap in an effort to salvage a belief he desperately wants to hold, but sees that he cannot logically do...

Hah, that's what you guys are doing sweetie.

- - - Updated - - -

Where do the farting goats play into your idiocy? Are idiotic proclamations immune?

You're really hung up with the goat analogy, without grasping the purpose of the analogy.

The purpose trolling.

 

[skepticalbip]

Also chuckling at, "ID doesn't propose a god!"
Oh? What's the intelligence that you're imagining doing the designing,, then?
Mice?

Maybe the proposal is that god's supernatural intelligent minions do all the design work. That god is just "the idea guy", in charge of thinking up the idea of creation and deciding on a list of sins. That god is just a given but that isn't what ID is about, it's about those fucking little supernatural intelligent minion designers.