Final-Fan said:
@ Nirvana_Nut85:
When I told you to tell us the arguments on the website that you agree with, I didn't have copypasta in mind, but whatever.
But before I spend time on a rebuttal of RICH DEEM's argument, I want to make sure you are in complete agreement with the quoted material. (And by the way, next time give your source.)
Rich Deem does NOT believe in what is generally known as Intelligent Design; rather, he believes in an intelligent design theory based on "a biblically-based ID model" which appears to depend on a literal interpretation of the Bible (for example, the entire human race being descended from Noah). This is in stark contrast from the better-known Intelligent Design that puts more distance between itself and the Bible, and which Rich Deem holds in contempt:
Excuse me, but your characterization of what my page says is absolutely false and deceptive. According to your blog, my site proclaims that "Intelligent Design is “A testable, falsifiable, predictive biblical creation model”" This is not what the page says. In fact, it says that ID is not a scientific theory because it lacks a model and fails to predict. So, you either 1) can't read or 2) are a liar. Either way, we have a problem here!
Rich Deem
So read it again, and make sure: do you agree with the material you quoted in every particular? Because I'm not interested in spending time on something you didn't even write if you're just going to abandon it when I rebut it and throw some other thing at me. (Speaking of which, have you nothing to say on my criticism of "Dr." Ujvarosy?)
And if I do rebut it I expect you to either make counterarguments, or concede the points, or admit you can't rebut (without conceding), as appropriate for each point of course.
|
First off I thought that I had given the link at the bottom, my bad, I wanted to use this as an example to show you how you observe, test, then repeat, the theory of intelligent design as you bolded so many times!
Second, your rebuttles are merely you giving your opinion in an ignorant manner without yourself backing up your own claims of why it is false with scientific facts (gotta give me something to work with here for fucksakes) I mean lets be honest, do you really think you did an actual good job of refuting anything? really, all you did was claim that it had already been refuted and then moved on to some other asinine comment. So therefore since you couldn't come up with anyhting intelligent to say regarding my previous example I gave you soemthing a little more simple in hopes of you using "Scientific Facts" to attempt to rebut it and what do I get....
Absolute fuck all so back up your fucking argument using science so that I can give you a more appropriate argument.
Excuse me, but your characterization of what my page says is absolutely false and deceptive. According to your blog, my site proclaims that "Intelligent Design is “A testable, falsifiable, predictive biblical creation model”" This is not what the page says. In fact, it says that ID is not a scientific theory because it lacks a model and fails to predict. So, you either 1) can't read or 2) are a liar. Either way, we have a problem here!
Rich Deem
(that wasn't even added by the guy)
P.S THe only thing I do agree with is that I.D (all of it) is creationism in some sort of manner.
