[_ Old Earth _] Is ID really creationism rebranded?

[Snidey]

Another non-response. I want you to explain how the quotations in your prior post were grammatically adequate.

My replicating mechanical parts comments was obviously tongue in cheek.

 

[Snidey]

Oh and what silver bullet are you referring to? It's common for people who aren't actually educated on the topic at hand to believe they are winning an argument when they are barely engaging in one, but to actually announce victory is generally a sign of an ignorance/arrogance combo that only years of not reading anything of intellectual value could produce.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob said
Exactly. And if Snidey's religion told him "there are no Refrigerator MAKERS no engineers no designers no electricians" so "refrigerators just evolved from dirt over time" -- then all of your "look rocks don't come up with refrigerator lights" arguments will be "just so much engineerISM" to the truly faithful religionists in the no-engineer club and they will seek to CENSOR any science that challenges their faith just as was done in the Dark Ages!

How "horrible the thought" of ALLOWING scientists to "follow the data where it Leads" in those scary caes like study of the architecture and design in the error correcting, data encoding, translation and protein PRODUCTION seen in DNA-mRNA, tRNA protein synthesis.

By contrast the much simpler "EM wave form" studies DO distinguish ID vs no ID even without all of that advanced architecture seen in the case of "applied chemistry" (i.e. microbiology).

Scientists are allowed to follow the data where it leads

Not if it leads to ID... watch the movie Expelled -- respond to the arguments made.

I forgot though that you saying "i dunno that really looks designed to me lolz" is good enough

Wrong. Again.

The same point is raised in the incredibly easy example I already gave you with EM wave forms - the one test for ID that is already comercially viable not merely "proven". The test in BOTH the applied chemistry case of microbiology AND the applied EM example is the same - test against what you can show rocks doing on their own - filter that out and then watch for information being transmitted -- in the case of applied chemistry watch that information be translated AND then used to creat a product.

You know -- just the glaringly obvious point that you have to keep "pretending" you don't understand while "everyone and their cousin" can see the point cleary (if not already married to the anti-knowledge mechanism in what Patterson calls evolutionISM).

(hint: Feel free to re-read that three times until you can admit that you grasp it --)

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Snidey asks for the definition of "silver bullet", on this thread that would be ...

===========================

Why is it that Darwinst pretending to have an objective interest in the objective definition of what "ID SCIENCE IS" -- have to spend all their time "running away" from the definition given by the Discovery Institute?

It is actually "instructive" to observe what ID scientists themselves say about it.

Obviously.

Keep in mind ID in it's essence makes no claims for or even mentions Christ.

True - but Darwinists on this board go to court room documents where judges are duped into unwittingly censoring thought in highschools in favor of atheist drawinist dogma when they want to "define something" in science.

As opposed to the Discovery Institute's actual definition for ID science.

From “Discovery Instituteâ€Â
http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php

What is intelligent design?
Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.

And of course we see that it is not YEC -- not even remotely.

But for devotees to atheist darwinism - the main point is that "it is not atheism" and that is all it takes to get believers in atheist darwinism "going".

Bob

 

[Snidey]

You didn't give me an example, like I said - you just made some vague allusion to something I am unaware of.

You ignore 95% of every post when someone is debating you. From this point forward, I am not responding unless you address every relevant point. What this basically means is I will never respond to you again, because you will never come even remotely close to being intellectually honest enough to do that. Even someone like Gabriel, who came into this at least leaning fairly heavily toward your viewpoint, can see how tedious and eye-rollingly ridiculous discussing any issue with you is.

 

[Snidey]

THAT is your silver bullet? I have had no reason to even address the Discovery Institute's definition of ID. I only said that YOUR definition was idiotic, which it is. I am only making this response to you because you made that post before I could get my last one out - from here on out, I will engage you only when you address all the relevant parts of a post. Which means I might as well have you on ignore.

 

[BobRyan]

Wrong again.

I gave you the post for this subject title - showing the correct source and definition for ID SCIENCE
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33062&start=30#p393285

One that you have yet to address.

I also gave you the perfect example of ID in both applied chemistry and in the applied EM science field AND the test for it.

You seem happy to pretend you don't understand the posts -- but I don't know how this is helping you argue your case.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

THAT is your silver bullet? I have had no reason to even address the Discovery Institute's definition of ID.

well of course you don't -- you are after all a Darwinist kneck-deep into "stories easy enough to make up" why should YOU be concerned about what the group DOING and promoting the ID SCIENCE work says it is -- when you are not dealing in facts to start with?!

Which means I might as well have you on ignore.

I notice that darwinists "imagine to themselves" that pretending not to get the point and placing me on ignore "makes their logical fallacies dissappear" -- but there are lots of readers on this thread - not just darwinists.

why does that always surprise them?

Secondly - the atheist darwinist attack on ID SCIENCE is "distinctively atheist" which is why I point to a definition for ID SCIENCE that most directly highlights the point -- ID science does NOT pander to the dictates of atheism and that ALONE makes the science distasteful not only to the atheist darwinists themselves but to all that unwittingly follow after them.

I suppose Snidey "meant to ask" what is it about the atheist darwinist attack on ID SCIENCE that is so out-of-the-closet atheist and the answer is that even by Discovery Institute standards you have ID accepting the evolutionist motion of 500 million years of life -- so this is a case of evolutionists attacking EVOLUTIONISTS not the YEC group that always speaks in terms of 6000 years of life on earth.

So the attack on ID science is an attack on evolutionists BY other evolutionists who are arguing a DISTINCT point of atheism!! They have unwittingly exposed the atheist central core of darwinism for all the world to see!

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The "heart and soul" of the Darwinist argument is what I call "Rabbit - trailing" it is a kind of social phishing exercise. It works like this;


1. A thread like this is started with a title pretending to have a valid genuine sincer interest in the truth of some topic -- in this case the defintion of ID SCIENCe and the differences between it -- and the YEC argument.

However as Snidey unwittingly admitted -- they have no interest at all in learning the facts as to what the leading proponents of the ID SCIENCE agenda are saying it even IS!! They are only here to blurt out propaganda and "ignore inconvenient facts that get in the way of a good story".

2. So when we point to what the Discovery Institute (the guys pushing ID SCIENCE forward) SAY IT Is the Darwinist bait-and-switch tactic is to "ignore it".

3. When we point to the DIFFERENCES in the ID SCIENCE statement and the actual beliefs of the YEC group -- the bait-and-switch rule for Darwinists means they must "ignore it".

4. when we SHOW a commercially viable example of discriminating FOR ID In SCIENCE (in the case of EM wave forms -- one of the four fundamental forces in nature) and show that the same test in principle can be used in the field of applied chemistry that we call microbiology -- the bait-and-switch dogma of darwinists dictates that they "pretend not to understand the point at hand".

Question - how can you guys be so transparent in your dubious methods and still hope to make a point with reader that are NOT already drinking darwinist pablum??

Bob