Final-Fan said:
Nirvana_Nut85 said:
Final-Fan said:
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. |
First off, I think you're confusing me with WessleWoggle.
Second, I still think you're confusing me with WessleWoggle but just in case I provided a serious expansion of my earlier brief criticism.
As for the blog comment, I think it's easily possible that "Godan" is short for "God and Science" i.e. the guy's website, and I don't know why someone would be running around making comments in his name; but it doesn't really matter that much so let's just pretend I never mentioned that blog comment in the first place.
Lastly, since your comment apparently means you weren't advancing all that as your own positions per se but rather simply using it as an example, thanks for saving me a LOT of time. I think that he is mistaken in many particulars but he does at least attempt to apply a scientific model of testing the predictive accuracy of ID and evolutionary theory. So yes, that answered the question that was "bolded so many times".
|
There are many others out there as well who can at least attempt to apply scientific theory to their claims, it's just the unfortunate few who who have caused the scientific community and other people to state that Intelligent design is bullshit that can't be backed up. Which by reading through alot of the theories I can't argue with them, which is why I tired to provide a different side of the debate.
I mean the biggest reason why I support I.D is that in all honesty, is that evolution seems much to flawed for me to be able to believe that we were once a single cell organism that eventually evolved into a human being with, emotion, intelligence,ect. It's not just the fact that I believe in god, because one could use the argument of god intended for creatures to evolve.
When looking at the human cell, which I'm sure you've heard this exaple many times, we know that for one cell it contains 60,000 different protiens and 100 different configurations. The odds of that happening by chance?1 in 10 to the power of 4,478,296.17. Doesn't make sense to me and I've heard some pretty good explainations. Also I have yet to hear an actual good argument explaining how evolution can exist with the law of thermodynamics. Anyways though, to each his own.
