The word "assumption" is a faith component, especially since a different subjective inclination could take the exact same formula and proceed in a religious direction. Nice one, "scientist."
Thanks, Z! Everyone knows that the case of whether ID, a purely faith-based theory akin to suggesting that the moon is made of green cheese, is closed. When some evidence can be offered, the case can of course be reopened. Try to be a little more flexible in your thinking. And just a word of advice... don't try to use 'subjunctive inclination' in a sentence again. It makes you look kind of dumb, and the fact that you tried to use it shows that you want very badly to be seen as smart.
That's a purely faith-based statement which you cannot prove. Very funny. Go back and try to read it again.
I notice you selectively cut out the next sentence which specifically said "until some proof can be provided, the case is closed'. Of course, we've come to expect this kind of intellectual dishonesty from the Creationists. Anyhow, it's easily proven. Just look at your three attempts to start a thread on the subject. In every one, over thousands of posts, the ID'ers were unable to provide one shred of evidence to support their theory. All they could do was attempt to attack evolution using assertion, arguing from a stance of willful ignorance. Kind of like the Dems in the last election - no position of their own, just attacking the Republicans. Look where it got them. This is at least circumstantial evidence that ID isn't ready for Prime Time, and since it's a purely faith-based belief system which cannot be disproved (thus making the scientific method useless as a way of testing it), it will never be taught in our schools alongside evolution. ID is Creation rebranded as a scientifically provable theory. It is indeed ironic that Creationist - ID'ers attacked the scientific method so forcefully in these threads, when in fact they should have been arguing for it, since it's the Trojan Horse they are trying to use to get ID accepted. One has to wonder who the strategists are and whether this simple contradiction even occurred to them. Too bad we're moving, inexorably, towards secularism. You Jesus-Christers must be feeling badly about it. Thanks for playing and have a nice day!
Are you really that backward? A case is closed AFTER proof is provided, not before. (The rest of your post is just long-winded bigotry.)
Thanks for acknowledging that I was right. You must be taking a different approach with this alias Remember what I said about using phrases like 'subjunctive amelioration'. It makes you look like you're trying too hard.
well, you made a statement, and now you are trying to wiggle your way out unsuccessfully... an evidence. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote from Jampilier: Science must rest on unscientific premises. To say it's alright or unavoidable for this to happen does not remove the inconsistency. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2cents: rest on premises / axioms etc, yes, thats the basis of any theory... what exactly is unscientific about that, sir?
no its simply to sow confusion or because u yrself are confuzzzed, just-registered jampilier complete rigor is absolutely possible and u need to go back to school re completeness of set theories etc... premises / axioms are what they are, there is not an ounce of 'faith' in them... feel free to build your own theory with your own premises / axioms and let us know if it matches current observations and produces falsifiable assumptions and then perhaps we can talk...
This is an impressive post â will run and run. My apologies if I break the flow but if I may, I would like to add a few thoughts. Appeals to authority are generally shitty rhetorical devices. In the current context, why should it be assumed that a scientist, eg physicist, has superior knowledge and thus credibility beyond his own field? Intellectual legitimacy is one thing but it doesnât follow its all encompassing (omniscient? Joke). Religion is metaphysics. The fatuous counter-argument to a statement of non-belief â âCan you prove God doesnât exist?â â should not arise. The first question for proâs and antiâs should be, Is there a rational basis for this belief? Re ID/Creationism vs Evolution. Iâm not sure why there is this dichotomy. Is it a question of which has the greater credibility? Is it a question of If one, then not the other? Does one disprove the other? Letâs assume that evolutionary theory was suddenly declared rubbish, based on falsified and fraudulent data. Would that suddenly prove creationism is true? No, it wouldnât. Its status would remain - a belief system based on fantasy, myth and mis-information, with a political undercurrent. By the way, Iâm not ant-religious, just anti-dogma. Grant.