Missouri puts prayers back in skool...

[Seth]

Cannot be excluded is not part of science. Once a reasonable explanation is found, the rest are of little value.

What a load of horseshit. If there are multiple explanations for a phenomenon science keeps on pecking away at it until THE explanation is discovered.

[Seth]

Let's have one testable prediction made by Seth's "theory".

Here's one: Through the use of intelligent design it is possible to manipulate DNA to guide the course of natural evolution down specific pathways.

Now find an intelligence capable of manipulating DNA somewhere in the universe(s) that has manipulated DNA to guide the course of evolution. Perfectly testable. Not currently achievable however.

Oh, wait, it IS achievable and that particular research has been done and the results are conclusively positive: Intelligence capable of manipulating DNA to guide the course of evolution has been observed...right here on this planet...at the Monsanto labs and elsewhere.

Nobody denies that. That isn't "ID."

Depends on what you mean by "ID." You're constructing a strawman argument by limiting the definition of "ID" to one particular and specific set of claims by one particular set of proponents. I'm talking about "intelligent design" not "ID", and to differentiate my hypothesis from the claims of, for example, the Dover school board's construction, I call it "OLE" not "ID." That being the case, the rest of your reply is non-responsive and evasive, so I'll ignore it.

[Seth]

Hilarious. Simply repeating the same mistakes from the last time this dead dog drifted down the river. Still doesn't understand. Poor Seth.

And still you haven't the wit to address the argument and so must resort to personal insult. Such a small, petty mind. What a pity.

[Tero]

Cannot be excluded is not part of science. Once a reasonable explanation is found, the rest are of little value.

What a load of horseshit. If there are multiple explanations for a phenomenon science keeps on pecking away at it until THE explanation is discovered.

We have news for you: It was already discovered. Only denialists keep searching for very unlikely scenarios. Maybe because the establishment and gubment funds research in evolution, the mainstream.

[Seth]

Cannot be excluded is not part of science. Once a reasonable explanation is found, the rest are of little value.

What a load of horseshit. If there are multiple explanations for a phenomenon science keeps on pecking away at it until THE explanation is discovered.

We have news for you: It was already discovered. Only denialists keep searching for very unlikely scenarios. Maybe because the establishment and gubment funds research in evolution, the mainstream.

You just think it's discovered. But you could be wrong, as I've explained. It's hardly the first time that science has made such a mistake, and it won't be the last.

[Coito ergo sum]

Let's have one testable prediction made by Seth's "theory".

Here's one: Through the use of intelligent design it is possible to manipulate DNA to guide the course of natural evolution down specific pathways.

Now find an intelligence capable of manipulating DNA somewhere in the universe(s) that has manipulated DNA to guide the course of evolution. Perfectly testable. Not currently achievable however.

Oh, wait, it IS achievable and that particular research has been done and the results are conclusively positive: Intelligence capable of manipulating DNA to guide the course of evolution has been observed...right here on this planet...at the Monsanto labs and elsewhere.

Nobody denies that. That isn't "ID."

Depends on what you mean by "ID." You're constructing a strawman argument by limiting the definition of "ID" to one particular and specific set of claims by one particular set of proponents. I'm talking about "intelligent design" not "ID", and to differentiate my hypothesis from the claims of, for example, the Dover school board's construction, I call it "OLE" not "ID." That being the case, the rest of your reply is non-responsive and evasive, so I'll ignore it.

No. You're constructing a strawman. The ID everyone is talking about is the ID that they want to put in the schools. The Michael Behe bullshit ID.

ID is not terreforming or genetic engineering. To suggest that genetic engineering is ID is a straw man.

Nothing would be wrong, nothing is wrong that is, with teaching genetic engineering in school. So, you, I and everyone else are in agreement with that.

But, what you're doing is engaging in sophistry when you say "I will call genetic engineering a form of ID," and then that means it's o.k.to teach ID in schools... The ID that they want to have in schools and the ID everyone is objecting to is not genetic engineering. It's the fucking moronic, imbecilic nonsense sold by the Discovery Institute.

[Coito ergo sum]

And, nothing in this was nonresponsive and evasive --- http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 5#p1248244

Your sophistry is showing again....and the fact is, you can't really make an argument that isn't a giant ball of circular fallacies. You make up a strawman definition of ID that nobody is using, and then you call it a strawman to use the term ID in accordance with its common English usage.

I have little doubt that you don't really think what you're saying makes sense. I think you're struggling to find something that does make sense that you can advance as an argument in this arena. But, what you're constructing here on this thread, if you are seriously advancing these ideas, is really embarrassing. I'll give you the credit of this being one of those arguments that you're just making to stimulate debate or something....

[Seth]

Nobody denies that. That isn't "ID."

Depends on what you mean by "ID." You're constructing a strawman argument by limiting the definition of "ID" to one particular and specific set of claims by one particular set of proponents. I'm talking about "intelligent design" not "ID", and to differentiate my hypothesis from the claims of, for example, the Dover school board's construction, I call it "OLE" not "ID." That being the case, the rest of your reply is non-responsive and evasive, so I'll ignore it.

No. You're constructing a strawman. The ID everyone is talking about is the ID that they want to put in the schools. The Michael Behe bullshit ID.

That's not the "ID" I'm talking about, and you know it. I've been very precise and specific in delineating and distancing my arguments from the "Michael Behe bullshit ID." Just because I agree with some of the rationale used by the proponents of "Behe ID" doesn't mean that I accept or am arguing for their entire program and agenda. I'm not, as you well know. You just want to create a strawman you can dismiss because you can't address the legitimate controversy I propound.

ID is not terreforming or genetic engineering. To suggest that genetic engineering is ID is a straw man.

Um, genetic engineering is axiomatically "intelligent design" because it's intelligence designing living organisms.

Nothing would be wrong, nothing is wrong that is, with teaching genetic engineering in school. So, you, I and everyone else are in agreement with that.

But, what you're doing is engaging in sophistry when you say "I will call genetic engineering a form of ID," and then that means it's o.k.to teach ID in schools... The ID that they want to have in schools and the ID everyone is objecting to is not genetic engineering. It's the fucking moronic, imbecilic nonsense sold by the Discovery Institute.

What you're doing is engaging in deliberate and malicious sophistry and strawmanning by trying to claim that I'm advocating teaching "Behe ID" in the schools. I'm not. I'm advocating teaching "both sides of the controversy" by which I mean the controversy I've described regarding the possibility of the origin of life on earth being the product of intelligent design.

You choose to falsely and knowingly ascribe to me motives and intents that I've consistently denied, which amounts to gross intellectual dishonesty.

[Seth]

Your sophistry is showing again....and the fact is, you can't really make an argument that isn't a giant ball of circular fallacies.

And yet you are entirely unable to debunk those "circular fallacies" at all using reason and logic and must, as usual, resort to constructing strawman fallacies of your own and engaging in personal insult. Weak, very weak.

You make up a strawman definition of ID that nobody is using, and then you call it a strawman to use the term ID in accordance with its common English usage.

I'm using it, so therefore ipso facto you're wrong. And I don't use "ID" I use two common English words in their proper context and usage of meaning "something that was designed by an intelligence" and I'm careful to distinguish my hypothesis as "OLE" not "Behe ID bullshit." But you refuse to recognize that the words "intelligent" and "design" are not restricted to use only in reference to one particular group's ideological agenda.

You're so utterly incapable of actually debating MY "version" of "intelligent design" (much less simply admitting that what I'm propounding is a valid scientific inference drawn from known facts) that you continually resort to invective, insult and fallacious strawman argumentation. How sad.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Why do you bring ID into a scientific discussion?

[Tero]

That's what skepdicks do. They make up stuff to be contrary.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

That's what skepdicks do. They make up stuff to be contrary.

That's S*th, contrarian rather than honest.

[Clinton Huxley]

Hilarious. Simply repeating the same mistakes from the last time this dead dog drifted down the river. Still doesn't understand. Poor Seth.

And still you haven't the wit to address the argument and so must resort to personal insult. Such a small, petty mind. What a pity.

My dear gun-frottering loon, you are a self-confessed troll. Why would someone engage with you?

[Seth]

Hilarious. Simply repeating the same mistakes from the last time this dead dog drifted down the river. Still doesn't understand. Poor Seth.

And still you haven't the wit to address the argument and so must resort to personal insult. Such a small, petty mind. What a pity.

My dear gun-frottering loon, you are a self-confessed troll. Why would someone engage with you?

And you are a small-minded bigot who hasn't the wit to engage in an adult debate with your intellectual betters but can only wank on and throw shit at the glass from inside the tiny cage you call your mind.

[Seth]

Why do you bring ID into a scientific discussion?

Because it's logical, rational, scientific and appropriate to do so.