Republicans Belief in Evolution plummets

[Roustabout]

Which is what exactly? I'm arguing the merits of the science. You know, observable, verifiable, and falsifiable evidence. This has nothing to do with worldviews amigos.

I could just as simply be arguing Christian theology versus Islamic theology. Since we are arguing science, I am arguing the science.

No you're not. There is literally no piece of evidence that you, I, or anyone else for that matter, 'has.' Shame on you for trying to turn this into a science vs. Religion argument. It isn't.

Then why did you bring up theology?

 

[Orange_Crush]

Evolution makes sense from a SCIENTIFIC point of view. This has nothing to do with my theological worldview. From a theological point of view, all your points of He is the designer and what not are worth talking about and we have. I would like to think even if I believed in God, I would categorize ID as scientific sewage on a generous day.

And folks, this is what it comes down to, when arguing the actual merits of ID fails, it turns into accusing me of saying things I didn't, arguing semantics, and flying charges of fallacies.

It may make you think your winning a internet message board debate, but your position is still just as weak as when you started.

This is priceless in its irony. Congratulations. You must have won some sort of prize for that one.

 

[Orange_Crush]

And folks, this is what it comes down to, when arguing the actual merits of ID fails, it turns into accusing me of saying things I didn't, arguing semantics, and flying charges of fallacies.

It may make you think your winning a internet message board debate, but your position is still just as weak as when you started.

Says the guy posturing to the masses. Bravo. Bravo. Bravo...

 

[rjd970]

Then you said:



So, the fact that I speak of ID as a scientific theory while saying other stuff from a philosophical and theological perspective... What does that speak volumes about?

You weren't comparing theories? Oh.... So you were judging the theory because a Christian believes it. Should we not call evolution a theory because an atheist believes it? You most definitely are a strange cat.

I'm saying I think you are a smart cat, and if you really looked at ID objectively and independent of your other worldview, you would see this isn't science at all.

I like to think that anyway.

 

[rjd970]

No you're not. There is literally no piece of evidence that you, I, or anyone else for that matter, 'has.' Shame on you for trying to turn this into a science vs. Religion argument. It isn't.

Then why did you bring up theology?

This is rich, who said this:

I answered the critique of design from my theological and philosophical position. Believing that I know who the designer was, and believing that I have His revelation to us, I can speak to His motives and intents where:
ID theory does not, and can't
The unbeliever making the critique can't.

Edit for addition: From a theological and philosophical perspective, I don't need to refer to falsifiable evidence to refute the philosophically void critique. I just need to refer to

then fine, answer the critique of design from your scientific point of view.

Hint: If it is "we don't know the intent" then it is a fail from the beginning.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I'm saying I think you are a smart cat, and if you really looked at ID objectively and independent of your other worldview, you would see this isn't science at all.

I like to think that anyway.

So, you're argument that ID isn't science includes the statement that:

ID is not science because if you were not Christian you'd know that ID is not science.

Blazing new trails in your philosophizing there rjd.

 

[Orange_Crush]

This is rich, who said this:


then fine, answer the critique of design from your scientific point of view.

Hint: If it is "we don't know the intent" then it is a fail from the beginning.

Oh... My... Goodness...

I just... I'm almost speechless. I think that this is the fifth time I've posted this.

Flawed design does not negate design.

There you go.

Now... With that out of the way... Why do you ask for a scientific explanation for a non-scientific question? Short of theological implications, why would you ask about flawed designs?

It is a theological question asked by people who do not understand ID theory.

 

[rjd970]

So, you're argument that ID isn't science includes the statement that:

ID is not science because if you were not Christian you'd know that ID is not science.

Blazing new trails in your philosophizing there rjd.

Jesus, are you serious with this? Must I re-quote everything I say, so you know:

1. Who it was in response to

and

2. What I said?

Here it is again:

I'm saying I think you are a smart cat, and if you really looked at ID objectively and independent of your other worldview, you would see this isn't science at all.

I like to think that anyway.

I would like to think even if I believed in God, I would categorize ID as scientific sewage on a generous day.

 

[rjd970]

Oh... My... Goodness...

I just... I'm almost speechless. I think that this is the fifth time I've posted this.

Flawed design does not negate design.

There you go.

Now... With that out of the way... Why do you ask for a scientific explanation for a non-scientific question? Short of theological implications, why would you ask about flawed designs?

It is a theological question asked by people who do not understand ID theory.

I. Know. This.

Why was the design flawed?

Is that a better way to ask it?

 

[rjd970]

Evolution by NS has a beautiful answer to the "design" flaw question, by the way. I would just think ID would as well.

This "flaw does not negate design" business tiresome. An answer to the actual question would be nice.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I. Know. This.

Why was the design flawed?

Is that a better way to ask it?

How can you ask without knowing the designer? Is this a scientific question or a philosophical;/theological one?

 

[Orange_Crush]

Evolution by NS has a beautiful answer to the "design" flaw question, by the way. I would just think ID would as well.

This "flaw does not negate design" business tiresome. An answer to the actual question would be nice.

Short of knowing the designer, it's not a scientific question. It is a philosophical/theological question.

 

[rjd970]

How can you ask without knowing the designer? Is this a scientific question or a philosophical;/theological one?

This is a question that ToE by NS answer in a scientific and observable manner.

I'm asking if ID Theory, and its bona fides as a legitimate scientific theory, has a scientific and observable answer to as well.

 

[rjd970]

Short of knowing the designer, it's not a scientific question. It is a philosophical/theological question.

Then why, if there is a designer, there would be no way to scientifically account for this in a science class along side a scientific theory that absolutely does?

 

[Orange_Crush]

Jesus, are you serious with this? Must I re-quote everything I say, so you know:

1. Who it was in response to

and

2. What I said?

Here it is again:

I've been requoting the original context of the post. You said, "The fact that you are referring to ID as a theory while also saying..." ...theological stuff.

You tied my comments back to the veracity of ID as a theory. Remember?

 

[Orange_Crush]

Then why, if there is a designer, there would be no way to scientifically account for this in a science class along side a scientific theory that absolutely does?

There are many things that science can't answer. You've even stated that. Just because a theory can speak to more areas on a subject does not mean it is correct on those areas or more. I hate to pull the fallacy card again, but quantity != quality. Volume does != truth.

 

[Septic]

And folks, this is what it comes down to, when arguing the actual merits of ID fails, it turns into accusing me of saying things I didn't, arguing semantics, and flying charges of fallacies.

It may make you think your winning a internet message board debate, but your position is still just as weak as when you started.

 

[rjd970]

I've been requoting the original context of the post. You said, "The fact that you are referring to ID as a theory while also saying..." ...theological stuff.

You tied my comments back to the veracity of ID as a theory. Remember?

Fine, whatever, you can have your "win the post context debate". I'm not interested in going in the same circle about it.

 

[Orange_Crush]

This is a question that ToE by NS answer in a scientific and observable manner.

I'm asking if ID Theory, and its bona fides as a legitimate scientific theory, has a scientific and observable answer to as well.

On second thought, I'll add this. NS does not answer the question of 'flawed design'. There is no concept of 'flawed design' in NS. All it does is explain how we came to be as we are. It does so in a tautology by the way.

Who survives? The fittest.

Who are the fittest? Those that survive.

So, all it really does is answer that we are what we have been produced to be. ID would answer it the same way. We are what we have been designed to be.

The moment you add a subjective judgement of what we were "supposed" to be, it becomes a philosophical question.

 

[rjd970]

There are many things that science can't answer. You've even stated that. Just because a theory can speak to more areas on a subject does not mean it is correct on those areas or more. I hate to pull the fallacy card again, but quantity != quality. Volume does != truth.

What exactly is ID answering then? What is there to teach?

 

[Septic]

Read the thread topic. The subject is evolution.
Your post is just a bald assertion.

Ah. So your body of work isn't entirely permissible.

My fault. ardon:

 

[Orange_Crush]

What exactly is ID answering then? What is there to teach?

It is teaching that design can be recognized in nature and proposing those specific areas where it can be recognized. It is proposing mathematical models for other areas of research.

Because DE makes the claim that DE has happened unguided and through strictly natural means, it obviously puts the theories at odds. For one to be true, the other would have to be false.

Note that ID agrees with NS and evolution. It just states that there are some structures that DE could not have produced.

 

[rjd970]

On second thought, I'll add this. NS does not answer the question of 'flawed design'. There is no concept of 'flawed design' in NS. All it does is explain how we came to be as we are. It does so in a tautology by the way.

Who survives? The fittest.

Who are the fittest? Those that survive.

So, all it really does is answer that we are what we have been produced to be. ID would answer it the same way. We are what we have been designed to be.

The moment you add a subjective judgement of what we were "supposed" to be, it becomes a philosophical question.

Holy **** this is good. Let me clarify one thing:

Who survives? The fittest.

Who are the fittest? Those that have the best reproductive capability.

Survival and reproductive success go hand in hand, but they aren't dependent. A 1000lb alpha bear that lives for 40 years is the fittest, but if he is sterile, or in an area with no fertile females, or can't produce viable offspring, or...etc, etc.... none of his fittest genes will get passed on.

Survival of the fittest does not mean NS will necessarily favor those genes. That is the general rule, but it isn't a necessity.

 

[Obsessed]

Yall are still at it I see.

I hurt my ankle yesterday building fence.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Holy **** this is good. Let me clarify one thing:



Survival and reproductive success go hand in hand, but they aren't dependent. A 1000lb alpha bear that lives for 40 years is the fittest, but if he is sterile, or in an area with no fertile females, or can't produce viable offspring, or...etc, etc.... none of his fittest genes will get passed on.

Survival of the fittest does not mean NS will necessarily favor those genes. That is the general rule, but it isn't a necessity.

Yes. Fittest to leave offspring. I understand DE theory. It is still a tautology.