Intelligent design
- Started
- Last post
- 690 Responses
- Mimio0
Not true discipler, they just want to change their mind based on some proof, a working model, and some extension and prediction of how the theory will play out into all the scientific disciplines. ID doesn't do this, it just calls a question mark an intelligent "designer".
- discipler0
Good GAWRSH, mimio! You sound as bad as the propagandists we keep hearing in the media who are against ID.
Read Behe's book. You will find compelling Biochemical evidence that challenges the Darwinian narritive. That's it.
And if you would take the time to read the link I posted, you'll realize that it went thru the same trade published peer review that other scientific books go through.
This guy could care less what anybody thinks of him, ID or Darwinist. He simply wrote a book about what he observes as a biochemist and how it thwarts Darwinism.
- mrdobolina0
discipler, are all of the creation proponents of the 80's extinct?
- discipler0
False, mimio. ID has a defined process of observing and falsifying specified and irreducible complexity in molecular machines. If you doubt this, spend some time at:
http://www.discovery.org
http://www.designinference.comIt is following the hard evidence without a bias. That's what ID is.
- discipler0
As opposed to hand waving speculations about how purposeful complexity arose by a mindless mechanism which cannot be tested or falsified.
- discipler0
yes, moot. Thank you, mrdobs.
- mrdobolina0
to say ID isnt rooted in religion is just dishonest.
- mrdobolina0
and everytime you lie, baby jesus cries.
- discipler0
heh, and there again... ignorant people who don't want to take the time to learn the facts. If only they'd spend just a few moments learning about the issue they oppose and they would find out that it's science vs. science, not religion vs. science.
Dover trial transcripts (Day 10 is good Behe examination):
- discipler0
to say ID is rooted in religion is just dishonest.
mrdobolina
(Nov 9 05, 07:43)
- discipler0
Day 21 with Scott Minnich is darn good too. Really shows how week the Darwinist's arguments are.
- discipler0
"weak", that is, mrdobs.
- Mimio0
Like I said Discipler, Behe didn't publish ANTHING about IC in the scientific community regarding his "findings" before he released a book aimed at conservative/religious Americans (Drawin's Black Box.)
I see, the religious zealot/ID proponent(discipler) isn't biased. I stand corrected.
- discipler0
haha, whatever mimio.
- Mimio0
Says you, to some it's a very telling point to be made about the author's intent.
- ********0
So have you gentlemen accomplished anything today?
No?
Didn't think so. I'll check back tomorrow to see if any ground was made.
- discipler0
Again, mimio... read the book and then we'll talk about it. ;)
Oh, his sequel is coming out in the next couple of months. Keep a look out for it.
- discipler0
garrette, you never know how many people are lurking and reading these threads and who are actually intellectually honest and want to honestly look at these issues. They may see a link or a book title and investigate it. :)
- discipler0
Dashing, eh? ;p