• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Dover Penn ID trial

drkitten said:
Hmm, reading comprehension difficulties and context difficulties, all in ten short words.

Your ability to combine fallacious thought, factual inaccuracy, and pig-ignorance into the smallest possible expression continues to astound me. Have you considered writing Haiku?
Click to expand...
Your ability to ignore things because they are not by your standards logical & scientific is, unfortunately for evolutionists, not shared by your adversaries.

I suggest the dichotomy I highlighted is where this case has always been headed. Dream otherwise if such pleases you.
 
hammegk said:
Your ability to ignore things because they are not by your standards logical & scientific is, unfortunately for evolutionists, not shared by your adversaries.

I suggest the dichotomy I highlighted is where this case has always been headed. Dream otherwise if such pleases you.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that the ID arguments are reasonable in the slightest?
 
Hey all, don't miss the article "Why Scientists Get So Angry When Dealing with ID Proponents" in the latest Skeptical Inquisitor. It analyzes one Dembski essay to show how fair and accurate IDers try to be when quoting biologists---not.

~~ Paul
 
drkitten said:
But that's insufficient reason to ban a practice under US law. It's necessary to show that teaching ID "advances religion" in order for it to violate the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...
Actually, it's not (to my limited understanding, at least). The first prong of the Lemon Test is that the government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose. Violating any one of the three prongs makes it unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Showing that it violates more than one prong certainly strengthens the case, though, so if they can also show that it advances religion it would violate the second prong as well.
 
Ed said:
Are you suggesting that the ID arguments are reasonable in the slightest?
Click to expand...
No, he didn't say that. He said the ID guys lack the "ability to ignore things because they are not by [drkitten's] standards logical & scientific". This could mean two things:

1. They have no ability to filter out things that appear illogical and unscientific.

or

2. They have no ability to make their argument without introducing their own standards for what is logical and scientific. (such that astrology makes the cut :D )
 
hammegk said:
tsg said:
if there is no science, then there is nothing left but religion
Click to expand...
Indeed, cards face up on the table: Science vs. Religion. :boxedin:
Click to expand...

Way, way, way out of context, but whatever...

hammegk said:
I suggest the dichotomy I highlighted is where this case has always been headed. Dream otherwise if such pleases you.
Click to expand...
There is no dichotomy: science does not address the supernatural, philosophical or theological. The people who constantly try to make it a dichotomy are those who can't reconcile their religious beliefs with known facts.
 
hammegk said:
Your ability to ignore things because they are not by your standards logical & scientific is, unfortunately for evolutionists, not shared by your adversaries.
Click to expand...

By what standard is ID "logical and scientific"?

For that matter, by what standard are any of your contributions in this thread "logical and scientific"?

I'm not unreasonable. If the problem is that I'm using the wrong standards to evaluate an argument, convince me. I fear the problem is that I have standards at all, and that I'm not willing to uncritically accept whatever drivel drips from your keyboard.
 
Querry:

If I were to give a Dewey the Dunce thumbnail of ID (in order to present the basic principles) to someone would this be far off :

ID states that if something cannot be explained by rational means the cause is, ipso facto, supernatural.
 
No. "If there is currently no known rational explanation for something, the cause is supernatural."

You need to remove the verbal ambiguity. "Something that cannot be explained by rational means" implies that no such explanation is possible, rather than that no such explanation is known at present, which I think is what you meant.
 
Ed said:
Querry:

If I were to give a Dewey the Dunce thumbnail of ID (in order to present the basic principles) to someone would this be far off :

ID states that if something cannot be explained by rational means the cause is, ipso facto, supernatural.
Click to expand...
I would revise it thusly: "ID states that whether or not something can be explained by rational means the cause is, ipso facto, supernatural."
 
Ed said:
Querry:

If I were to give a Dewey the Dunce thumbnail of ID (in order to present the basic principles) to someone would this be far off :

ID states that if something cannot be explained by rational means the cause is, ipso facto, supernatural.
Click to expand...
If you are a materialist -- whether you recognize it or not -- yes, of course.


chippy_monk said:
Well, well! Look who arrived late to the party, looking smashing as always.

Originally Posted by hammegk (I'm paraphrasing, of course) :
I'm no creationist, but I sure do like their arguments!
Click to expand...
You are as wrong as you are irrelevant. :)


mojo said:
Nope. It's American Constitution vs. religion.
Click to expand...
Other see it differently. BTW, are you even a US citizen? If not, what dog do you have in this fight?


dr.kitten said:
By what standard is ID "logical and scientific"?
Click to expand...
Unknown. I've never suggested it is or was.

For that matter, by what standard are any of your contributions in this thread "logical and scientific"?
Click to expand...
That depends on one's understanding, or lack thereof. :)
 
Melendwyr said:
No. "If there is currently no known rational explanation for something, the cause is supernatural."

You need to remove the verbal ambiguity. "Something that cannot be explained by rational means" implies that no such explanation is possible, rather than that no such explanation is known at present, which I think is what you meant.
Click to expand...


I thought that is what I wrote. Perhaps taking out the "known" which is implied:

"If there is currently no rational explanation for something, the cause is supernatural"

I could say

"If there is no rational explanation for something, the cause is supernatural"

Which implies that we do not, nor is it possible, to have a rational explination. It seems that what they are arguing is that where we are now, from a scientific standpoint, is the pinnicle of understanding and that answers to things that Behe cited will never be forthcoming so we might as well not look.

so I go with... actually, I am not sure now. What is the guiding principle of ID? Once something is deemed to be "created" do they consider it blasphamy to investigate further?
 
hammegk said:
BTW, are you even a US citizen? If not, what dog do you have in this fight?
Click to expand...
We have creationist loons over here as well. Consider me as a sort of amicus curiae, if you will.

Anyway, do you claim to be a US citizen? If so, can you prove it to the sort of standard that you expect of others? ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom