Hey buddy, just remember where you got some Telecaster help from! :p

I'm an MS in Electrical Engineering (didn't complete work for a PhD :( ) and have done work in neural networks back in the 1980s/1990s. I can read and understand scientific journals and have seen the stupidity in the creationist literture on the internet. I have also stayed at Holiday Inn Expresses on many occasions. :D

Jim,

I greatly appreciate the Tele help!! In fact, dare I say I see the work of a higher power in those tones....

I'm really not interested in your credentials or anyone else's. My point was that if credentials are so important to the discussion, then it should cut both ways and not just be applicable to those who disagree with you...

BTW, I am a creationist, but not in the usual sense. Of course I'm sure you understand that what is posted on the internet is usually done by the fanatical and does not represent the views of much of the creationist community.

I just thought I'd clear the air. It allows the twang to come through. :D

In my experience, the higher the education, the harder it becomes to have a conversation.

I've spoken with many a 'smarty'. They have a hard time getting it, because they already 'know it all'. :D

Not all, but most.
Education is their 'god'.


KT

Scientists eat their own. ID'ers need to stop shedding crocodile tears. Until they use real science in their theories, they are going to be treated like nut jobs. IMO, of course. :D

Because they are not arguing to overthrow years of peer-reviewed science.

That's because we're taught to think. The only classes we have for mindless opinionating are in the subject of Philosophy, and nobody can make any sense of that!

Trekkor has a very biased view against knowledge, and it's shown on all the threads where's he's ignored the information that has been provided for him to read.

So if you don't delve into the motivations of all the people that agree with each other, how do you know all of them aren't hacks?

LOL...i'm just sayin'....

It will be amusing to revisit this topic when the first AI is created in a lab somewhere. It's pretty obvious ID does or will soon exist. Seems pretty stupid to say that it's unfounded.

Actually if we are talking about the origins of life then there really is no peer reviewed science there to overthrow.

See, the problem with every thread like this is that the creationists fall into the same trap. They fall for arguing evolution with the evolutionists. Evolution does occur and has been for millions of years. The Theory of Evolution itself does not attempt to address the origins of life. Now then, some evolutionists extrapolate the theory into the abiogensis type scenario but this is not contained in the theory itself.

So what always happens is the creationists start to argue about the origins of life and the evolutionists argue right back until they decide to pull out their trump card and proclaim "Evolution doesn't address the origins of life, dumba$$!!!" Then it devolves into a name calling contest.

That's quite a wide, sweeping generalaztion, Jim.

I'm all for knowledge, accurate knowledge.
Produce facts, not popular theory.

Not accepting an unproven theory is not the same as 'ignoring the information'.

It would be like getting driving direction from a tourist as opposed to a local.
Sure you heard to information, but consider the source.


KT

Hardly, however, you wear your bias proudly.
ID is PC creationism plain and simple. It is pure religion without any scientific content. It is the pseudo-scientific battle cry of the hard core YECer.
Now that may be an unfair generalization as Behe himself is not a YECer and recognizes much of evolution, however, it has been adopted hook, line, and sinker by the ICR, DI, and AIG types as a code word for young earth biblical creation and a segue into the public science classes. This is the issue.
ID and irreducible complexity have no scientific basis, no testable hypothesis, make no testable predictions, and simply say "its too complex, god did it".
There is absolutely no evidence contrary to the "Theory of Evolution" (neo-Darwinism or what ever you want to call it).
Abiogenesis is too young of a field at this time but there is research and many hypotheses on how geochemistry became life. Using ID as an argument against abiogenesis is merely the same old "god of gaps" argument and displays the same closed minded ignorant arrogance of the bible thumpers who already have all of the answers. This is where the Dawkins quote is so abused in this discussion as he was saying that it is not impossible that life was seeded here by an ET that had already evolved (abiogenesis to evolution) somewhere else.

Here, I will display my bias proudly:

ID=god of gaps=creationism=YEC=anti-intellectual=anti-science=theocracy=taliban

I take it I have now proven to you otherwise.

Incorrect. Look up astrobiology and abiogenesis. There is a lot of research going on and many publications. Robert Hazen is probably the most publicly known author/researcher.
Try reading this thread a little more carefully. Every effort has been made by the "evolutionists" to keep this discussion to evolution and not abiogenesis. It is a distinction that we know well. It is the creationist that want it both ways. Read the Dover trial transcripts. This was about evolution in the schools not abiogenesis in the schools. ID was attacking evolution not abiogenesis.

Steve you are so wrong!!

I remember when I was a teen...And knew it all, too :D


KT

You estimate tile job costs. You must not be good at it since nobody has 100% accurate facts. It must make your business very difficult and your customers unhappy. ;)

sjf911, IMO you utterly discredit yourself with posts like that last vitriol filled diatribe. If anyone is showing bias here, it is -you-.
What are your credentials to so totally dismiss his views again? Cause Nathans Dad has at least laid his out.

You say ID has no testable thesis, well, neither does Evolution when it comes to the origins of life. It totally ignores the entire subject.

If anyone acts like a strict fundamentalist taliban type here, it's YOU.

When AI is born, ID will be proven to exist.

Then what gizmo?

BTW....abiogenesis doesn't address the origins of life either. Just the possible origin of life here(no matter how mathematically improbable it may be to have occured that way) I think it's a crock, regardless.

Dark Ages. Spanish Inquisition.

Evolution does not equal origin of life.

Your example of AI does not equate to ID as creationists want taught in schools.

You are arguing separate issues.

I do? Are you sure it isn't that you are looking for a reason to discredit my views since they don't align with yours? Is that perhaps why you latched onto my sig as my "bias"????

I'm curious as to why you choose to discredit my views based on the fact that I believe in a higher power yet you are happy to follow right behind Nostatic in this thread even though he too has said in this thread that he believes in a higher power as well. Is your response to me just because I happen to disagree with you?

He has been told, yet he persists.