So sayeth joe g
Here is a list of statements from joe g (aka joseph, john paul, IDguy, joe gallien) and at the end I'll make a comment or two about them:
ID is based on observations and experiences. It can be tested and refuted.
Strange how some scientists are saying they are testing it and refuting it.
I and others have explained EXACTLY what ID argues for and against and EXACTLY what would refute ID.
ID is not Creation
Paley isn't any patron saint. IDists say he went to far- We say that arguments for design are not arguments for any specific designer.
.. Intelligent design already incorporates that- not everything in the universe has been nor had to have been directly designed.
I wouldn't run to any "God" hypothesis and I would fight to the death anyone who attempted to make ID into a religious argument.
And again IDC exists only in the minds of the willfully ignorant
But anyway ID is based on observation and experience. It can be tested
So just as the origin of life is kept separate from the theory of evolution ID keeps those questions separate from the detection and study of the design
ID is primarily concerned with ORIGINS
The theory of evolution is silent on origins.
The theory of evolution is silent on ORIGINS- common ancestry does not equal ORIGINS.
The theory of evolution starts with some number of populations already in place. And that means it does not speak of "biological origins"- ie the origin of those unknown populations, aka abiogenesis.
But yes baraminology and the ToE disagree on the starting points of the diversity. Baraminology can support theor points of origin whereas your position cannot.
Even the experiments evolutionists are conducting support baraminology- that is the point.
The theory of evolution stole its classifiction scheme, its genetics and ntural selction. That would mean the theory of evolution is the parasite. Oh and the theory of evolution doesn't have any evidence to call its own.
Atomic Chimp: Do you base all of your conclusions on wild assumptions? Joe: I never have.
The reason I choose ID is because it is a non-religious approach to the prigins and diversity questions.
Key DI people have spoken of ID as NOT being a religious view. And I have provided the quotes.
ID DOESN'T EVEN REQUIRE THERE TO BE A GOD.
In other words, religion is compatible with modern evolutionary biology (and indeed all of modern science) if the religion is effectively indistinguishable from atheism.
OK so we have RichTard saying the painting in the sistine chapel is a religious painting. Richtard openly admits it was sanctioned by the Pope- a CATHOLIC Pope.
Neither ID nor YEC are anti-evolution.
Umm Biblical passages are supposed to be actual historical events. Obviously you are too stupid to understand that.
The Bible is supposed to depict actual historical events- period. thta is how it was written- as an actual historical account of past events.
The Bible doesn't say anything about a "literal 7 day creation" that is meaningless tard.
Ummm I am not upset with evolution. ID is not anti-evolution- your ignorance is meaningless.
I wouldn't want my children taught religion as science either.
I support teleological design in biology for what I believe to be sound scientific reasons.
Where is the testable theory of ID?
joe: We can test for IC and CSI. If it can be demonstrated that life can arise from non-living matter via unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes, ID would be falsified. (Dr. Behe's criteria would have been met)
If ID is so good, why does it spend most of it's efforts trying to disprove another theory rather than proving it's own?
joe: Now you are confusing what IDists do with ID. Also science isn't about proof. It is about coming to a reasonable inference given the data.
That is what you are doing by denying the design inference. We exist. There are a very limited number of options that can explain that existence. Nature could not have originated via natural processes.
No one is saying we have to study the supernatural. The design is here in this universe and can be studied. That the data will lead to the non or super natural is inevitable.
Just because a willing judge accepted the BS of the ACLU does not mean much in the real world.
Do you have anything that remotely resembles ID reality?
But science can tell us that the metaphysical does/ did exist, even though it is an obvious conclusion. Ya see THAT is what ID is saying- if the data leads us to the metaphysical then so be it. The ONLY way to truly understand something is to study it in the light of the reality behind its existence.
Also as I said how Earth and living organisms originated directly impacts any and all subsequent change.
Natural processes only exist in nature and cannot account for its origins. And science says it had an origin- meaning something CREATED it-
Creation has a specific definition and is based on the Bible
Also the debate is about conducting scientific research and being allowed to reach a design inference based on the data.
ID doesn't have any issue with the fossils nor the pattern evolutionary paleos make of them.
Once AGAIN- Intelligent Design is neither anti-evolution nor anti- common ancestry-
From the Intelligent Design authorities it is clear that ID is neither anti-evolution nor anti- common ancestry
ID doesn't say anything about worship- nothing about who, how, why, when, where to worship- nothing about any service- nothing about any faith nor beliefs except the belief we (humans) can properly assess evidence and data and properly process information.
And if you weren't trying to indoctrinate kids to atheism you wouldn't have any worries at all.
Nazi Center for Spewing Evolution
Nazi Center for Stifling Education
Nobody Cares for Students' Education
National Center for Shitting on Education
the painter was not present when God created Adam
Deal with it. Atheism sucks, grow out of it...
I told you you ignorant fuck- the artist was not present when Adam was Created and never saw God Creating Adam.
Yet no one has seen God so no one can paint God.
And even at 7 I knew God was not a man. Yup that is pretty good design detection work.
Just because you and the nazi thought police at the NCSE can be disingenuous pricks that does't impress me.
If I am ever involved in an ID court case you bet your ass the anti-IDists are going to face some serious questioning that ill expose their position as the bullshit it is. By the time they get to me the point will be moot.
Are you really that ignorant? I have to wait for a Court case you moron- one that involves me.
Said the materialistic atheist.
What is your retarded and twisted definition of religion?
I am still waiting for some atheistic nut-job to try to stop my Intelligent Design Awareness Day. It's not my fault they are chicken-shit cowards- or perhaps they realize they don't have a case...
So when is the NCSE going to admit is represents the Nazi thought police of atheism?
Baraminology is real science. Also Linneaus was looking for the Created Kinds when he came up with binomial nomenclature. IOW evolutionists "borrowed" that from Creationists- and they also "borrowed" Mendelian genetics and natural selection.
1- I was just linking to an authorative site on baraminology
2- Science Richtard- if we are the Creation of God then it is science anyway.
3- And if Lenski's work is any indication baraminology is a safe and sound biological model.
Whined the materialistic atheist who is also a proven liar and intellectual coward. Same scene, different tard.
What a contradictory, inconsistent, dishonest, nonsensical, ignorant mass of bullshit.
Did you all notice this one especially?:
"I wouldn't run to any "God" hypothesis and I would fight to the death anyone who attempted to make ID into a religious argument."
Isn't it strange that joe-boi isn't telling his buddies on UD (and everywhere else) to stop making ID into a religious argument? Shouldn't he be "fight(ing) to the death" to do that? And if ID isn't a religious argument, why does joe-boi have such a problem with atheists?
joe, you are the poster boi for "tard".