Search results

I've already stated that there are an endless number of possible evidences you could provide, and I've offered two. Let me repeat it, for the benefit of your alter ego. "OK, Z, show me a complex multipart lifeform which has no fossil ancestry. In other words, a complex lifeform which appears...

Because it's a waste of time.

If it's so "obvious," then why are you unable to produce any scientific evidence in support? The answer, of course, is that the evidence of design, is exactly as obvious as is the evidence that the Earth is flat. That is to say, if you don't actually conduct any experiments, you'll never know...

Liberal use of the word "because" in your posts, will gain you credibility. By never supplying any supporting evidence for your statements, you appear to your opponents as intentionally ignorant. Obviously, if you're using multiple identities, your supporters are reasonably certain to...

The road to ultimate truth is infinitely long. Along the road, however, each milepost is scientifically measurable.

People with reasonably healthy self images have no problem admitting error or changing their opinion based on the existence of new information. I've changed my mind. I'm currently of the opinion that Teleolgist, jem, Z, Jampiler, and very probably a few others in this and other similar...

You are mischaracterizing the issue. The question is whether or not ID is scientific. Science requires only a hypothesis and an experiment to verifiably confirm it. Nothing more nor less. That the hypothesis may be based upon some prior inconsistency is irrelevant within the limit of the...

Yes, I agree. The circular reasoning is very obvious.

Non responsive. Just a monologue devoid of evidence.

You asked for what we would accept as evidence of ID. I just gave you two possible proofs. Now this is the part where you provide the proof. We're all waiting.

Only in Karl Popper's obsolete opinion.

OK, Z, show me a complex multipart lifeform which has no fossil ancestry. In other words, a complex lifeform which appears to have been dropped into its environment out of thin air. Or, show me a complex lifeform, existing on Earth, made from something other than DNA/RNA -- a creature made...

You did not read the article. If you did you would know that: 1. The engine of evolution is random mutation (aka DNA replication error). This has nothing to do with whether the environment is or is not random. 2. The article is intended to show how environment may cause evolution to be...

The article does not draw that conclusion. But, if you keep saying that it does long enough, you are certain to convince yourself that it does.

I've already stated that I have no argument with the proposition that evolution is channeled by environmental conditions. So if the environment is non-random, then the distribution curve of evolutionary change will be non-random. However, this has nothing to do with whether evolution is...

You're being highly disingenuous. Why don't you quote some of the conclusions of the article? The article does not support the hypothesis of some advanced technology front loading evolution.

OK, here, I'll challenge you to a duel, Z. Each of us gets to ask the other a question in turn. There are only three possible responses to any question: 1. Yes 2. No 3. I don't know. No amplification of any answer is permitted. If a person answers "I don't know," then the other...

No, it's your reasoning that is silly. Refuting YEC rules out certain tenets of young earth creationism such as the fixity of species and an earth just 6,000-10,000 years old but it doesn't touch design per se. Modern design hypotheses posit that life is the product of advanced bioengineering...

Really? That's fascinating. Z never presents any science and clings to a singular circular logic to support his conclusion. Teleologist has presented at least one attempt to prove his point with a peer-reviewed article. Although, it does appear that he may not have actually read the...