Search results

James Bond 3rd: Well, you obviously can't comprehend what you read. The article I posted claims that Darwinism is useless to modern medicine. It is not anti-evolution.

Posted by Michael Egnor on March 22, 2007 Evolution News & Views Is Darwinism essential to understanding bacterial resistance to antibiotics? Consider the following conversation, at the bedside of a patient with a serious antibiotic-resistant infection: Nurse: Nothing’s working...

James Bond 3rd: I understand that the evidence needs be strong for there to be consensus among scientists that something is well established but this only occurs after a long successful investigation. One doesn't begin an investigation with overwhelming evidence. As you previously noted, the...

James Bond 3rd: Show me a reference that says inference is based on overwhelming evidence. Show me a reference that says inference is the same as proof. If you look up synonyms for inference you won't find proof listed. Nor will you find inference listed as a synonym for proof.

James Bond the 3rd: When evidence is direct you have proof. Provide some references where it is claimed that an inference must be based on overwhelming evidence.

James Bond 3rd: Inferences arise in cases where the evidence is circumstantial and thus where we lack direct evidence. Therefore, abiogenesis is inferred not proven.

James Bond 3rd: ID can be inferred from empirical data. That's not the same as claiming that ID can be proven. Inference and proof are not the same thing.

James bond 3rd: I didn't say that the appearance of design equals proof of design. The appearance of design warrants a suspicion of design. Can you tell the difference?

TraderNik: Of course the data exists. Richard Dawkins says: These "complicated things that appear to have been designed for a purpose" are data from the natural world. The only isssue here is how to interprete this data. You interprete the data from a non-teleological perspective and I...

TraderNik: Data can be interpreted from either a teleological or non-teleological perspective. That I can interprete certain data as supporting a design inference doesn't stop you from interpreting the same data from a non-teleological perspective. The only thing that would back you into a...

TraderNik: It wouldn't be good for you as the only evidence you will accept is seeing the designer designing. If there's some other kind of evidence you will accept let me know.

TraderNik: Well, you haven't offered a shred of evidence to support your belief in a non-teleological origin of life. As for my not providing evidence of ID, the only thing you will accept as evidence of ID is seeing the designer designing. If there is any other kind of evidence you...

TraderNik: Nonsense. ID scientists think like engineers when doing research on the cell. The same approach recommended by Bruce Alberts, former president of the NAS.

It's your blind watchmaker perspective that is faith-based and it is useless to science. Scientists learned nothing useful by viewing the cell as the product of accidental / coincidental processes. What helped unlock the secrets of the cell was reverse-engineering it. That's why Bruce...

ddunbar: More nonsense. Just 40 years ago scientists viewed the cell as no more complicated than a blob of Jell-O. Scientists are now describing the cell thusly: Explain how the blind watchmaker perspective was any help at all in guiding scientists away from the simplistic view of the cell...

ddunbar: Your broad definition of creationist includes just about everyone but atheists. So your statement above translates to this:

ddunbar: Nonsense. Most persons don't consider someone a creationist simply because they are a theist. And you know darn well that the ID critics don't pin the label "creationist" on ID proponents just to out them as theists. IDers that are theists don't attempt to hide the fact that they...

ddunbar: You find it surprising that atheists aren't attracted to the concept of intelligent design? ddunbar: Richard Dawkins is an atheist and he thinks things in nature look designed. Is this merely a function of his presupposition of an intelligent designer? And didn't you say that...

ddunbar: But it's the Biblical form of creationism (not your definition of creationism) the ID critics are trying to pin on ID and that's what this thread is disputing. I made it clear on page 1 that the purpose of this thread is to make 3 points. 1. ID is not based on the Biblical...

ddunbar: Why do you keep repeating this? Have I ever disputed that design implies a designer? We both agree that life is the product of design, right? We both agree that it's fine to use this insight to guide scientific research, right? So what exactly are you arguing with me about? Is it...