Search results

You state that a case can be made for ID. The Discovery Institute's most revered figures attempted to do exactly that in Dover and they lost -- miserably, and not just on the law -- they lost on the facts. The ID movement has not one piece of scientifically verifiable fact with which to...

That sounds pretty nice, however you failed to cite the author of your rebuttal, apparently one "Davit Pratt," who appears from my rather quick research to be someone without any published scientific background in the field of geology or radiometric dating. See...

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz: So stop the defamation. I deny defaming you, and it's up to you to prove otherwise in a court of law. I will be happy to waive personal service of process if you will agree to litigate the matter in my jurisdiction. I will, of course, have a number of cross...

My statements are not slanderous, because, among other things, slander is the legal term for "verbal" defamation. The correct legal term for written defamation, assuming I was defaming you and causing you damage (something that you could never prove), would be "libelous." Now then: 1. In...

Your links are especially interesting to me. Thanks for posting them. You also state that you think that ID should be taught along side evolutionary theory. Since you have apparently read the short debate between the Ev/ID players you obviously have a grasp of the dispute, so I think it's...

You understand my response jess fine, hooney. You're playing games, and intentionally avoiding a direct response. If you want to play Socrates you'll have to do it with someone else. I asked: "If you want to show that it is reasonable to induce that biological organisms are the consequence...

Look, either explain your position or decline. If you decline, the conversation is over.

So, your version of creation is essentially the Biblical Genesis, correct?

PS. If you want to show that it is reasonable to induce that biological organisms are the consequence of design, and you want to do this without resort to magic, then you need to propose something precise as to exactly what occurred, and not simply cast stones at evolution as being wrong. So...

I see. Of course, that logic would have to apply for the overwhelming majority of scientists who find evolution to be the correct explanation of the development of life on Earth, now wouldn't it? But, on the more logical side, what the majority thinks is true has never been the hallmark of...

Already did that in this thread. Multiple identical retroviral insertions in the germ line of all related primate species. In order for this to have occured by chance, simulataneously in gibbons, chimps, gorillas, orangatans and old world monkeys, the same infecting viruses would have had to...

As I just pointed out, I have provided evidence throughout this conversation, so I am not speaking as a self designated personal authority on evolution. I am arguing the science for the evidence provided. On the other hand, does speaking as a self designated personal authority for God, carry...

We're not talking about what "many" will argue. We're talking about science and scientific proof. And, as previously stated, an argument is nothing more than an unsupported observation until it is actually tested. So, the "many" can argue whatever they want. But if you want black magic in...

If you state that "my personal authority" carries "no logical weight" in the argument, while simultaneously knowing that I have been providing supporting evidence throughout this entire conversation for each of my conclusions, then what you are attempting is to discredit my conclusions by...

If you're gonna resort to an ad hominem attack, I'm not gonna continue the discussion, so try to stick with facts to support your argument.

Beg all you want. It doesn't change the fact that rejecting the literal interpretation of Adam and Eve does not automatically reject the existence of a divine creator of the universe. It simply means that the creator either, (1) has used evolution to achieve life's diversity, or (2) has...

Your legal analogy is meaningless in this discussion. The "ultimate" truth is not provable under ANY burden of proof. The only thing that can be proven is what can be observed and tested in the natural universe. And in that context there is no doubt, reasonable or otherwise, as to the suggestion...

You ask them. It's your "scientific" hypothesis that they won't know that the drawing is ridiculous. Now you go out and make your case. However, assuming that I agree that 100 randomly selected people would view evolution as you describe, if you asked the same 100 people to explain how the...

Evolution does not advance a theory of no God, so by your definition, it is not atheism in practice. Evolution merely advances the theory that God didn't create the Heavens and the Earth in six days, about 6,000 years ago. So, while evolution may threaten the beliefs of fundamentalists who take...

Nice try, however your description of courtroom burdens of proof is incorrect as a matter of law. No one wins in court by merely impeaching the other party's case in chief. In order to win, you must prove your case by at least some infinitesimal amount greater than one half. Otherwise, while...