Questioner

OK, I found it, finally. What did I ask for? A way to falsify ID. What did you give me? A way to test ID. Not only, you pointed to one of the most evident failures of ID supporters. I wouldn't expect anyone, today, to point to something like Dembsky's filter. It's embarassing. That wikipedia page already links to the most relevant sources, so there is no reason for me to explain why Dembsky's filter is nonsense. No, it can't be supported by it. Dembsky's filter is 100% nonsense and totally useless. There won't me any more "flaws on both sides of this issue" because the issue is already closed.

Help me out here Questioner - Darwinists boast that Darwin

--double post--

Sorry I promised I would have answered yesterday but something came up, I'll be back either tomorrow or Monday.

That's great, I haven't noticed it. Let me go back and find it, I'll answer as soon as I can (before tomorrow for sure).

For the sake of balance, I will provide the answers science has to offer. This is not strictly your, or anyone's, understanding; it's what is written in the Bible, not the result of a study. Varves disprove the idea of a world-wide flood. It is also a fact that there isn't enough water in the world to cover everything, even leaving the tallest mountains out of the picture. There could have been a huge flood in the area where those who wrote the Bible lived and such an event could have inspired the Flood myth - I don't know. Because a global flood never happened. Leaving aside the flood, dinosaurs existed millions of years before humans so you'll never find dino fossils and human fossils in layers dating to the same period. Either the theory of evolution is mostly correct or animals were created by God at different times (for whatever reason). Linking to anything about evolution and old earth creationism is against the TOS. Sorry. If you start from answers in genesis you'll get to "that" site, eventually.

I don

Hehehe that's a nice one ^^ Finally someone who can answer jokingly to a joke. What about the serious ones (1..4)? Except 2, which isn't valid if you allow God to be omnipresent.

I don't see how having someone protect me all the time could possibly be a bad thing. Why would it be a prison? It wouldn't limit my freedom, it would instead enable me to go on living. The moment of shelter I would get every time I am in danger would be nothing compared to the years of life gained. In this case you have to add omnipresence to God's characteristics. I agree that defining God as omnimax and omnipresent both in time and space and acting concurrently in every moment of time solves number 2. Congratulations, you broke it ^^ If omnipresence is among the characteristics of the Christian God, then it is on the record that number 2 isn't valid anymore. Good job! You didn't answer to this (??) Not a problem, just making sure. Logical fallacy: appeal to ignorance. You "must" defend properly (if you wish).

Appeal to ingnorance.

You, sir, are guilty of reading about a certain blind watchmaker

Don't worry Runner's High, I don't know when exactly you started to talk about evo but I have a strong gut feeling that you took some troll's bait Anyway, I wasn't demanding apologies or anything, I just commented on the situation, even if the comment was harsh nobody should feel obliged to do anything in particular or apologizing or whatever. I'm just saying, people's actions reflect on people's credibility and in this thread there's a lot reflecting on ID proponents' credibility. As for the evo supporters, who cares what they say? We're working under the assumption that evo is false to restrict the discussion to something manageable, if someone wants to defend it he's wasting his time So there you are, I just bashed everyone and don't even feel bad about it

I would like you guys to stop a second and please read again the first post. I'm very dissatisfied with the behavior of, well, pretty much everyone. In this post we are working under the assumption that evolution is false; you don't need to argue that it is. If you want to talk about evolution, you can do that somewhere else, there are already tons of threads where you can do that and there's no reason to pollute mine. I was quite surprised and very pleased, in the beginning, that everyone was talking about ID leaving evolution out of the picture. I was expecting people to go off-topic almost immediately, but it didn't happen and that went to everyone's merit. However, after a few days away fromt he computer, I come back here and find the whole thread has been almost destroyed. This behavior is not polite, doesn't take in account my wishes, goes beyond the scope of the discussion and makes it worthless. It was my intention to set up a place where ID proponents could prove that ID is a scientific theory or, at the very least, a scientific hypothesis. To do that, ID proponents must show a way to falsify ID; this is not something one can argue, because the definition of "scientific theory" includes falsifiability. After 10 pages, nobody has been able to explain in any way how ID could be falsified. This is conclusive evidence that when someone on this forum says "ID is a scientific theory" he doesn't know what he's talking about and should simply shut up. It is patently obvious, at this point, that ID exists only to debunk evolution and has no value whatsoever as a theory. As this thread has proved, ID proponents are completely incapable of talking about ID without attacking evolution. Once again, I am very dissatisfied with the behavior of everyone here and their apparent inability to stick to the topic. As adults, we should avoid stupid quarrels and fistfights and discuss the topic peacefully and politely but most forum members have shown that such a behavior is beyond them. In this thread we have also posts that reflect very badly on this forum's reputation: - People laughing at other people and making fun of other people's arguments without presenting their own arguments - People changing the topic - People misrepresenting other people's positions and twisting their words I believe that if anyone knew of a way to falsify ID, he would have explained it long ago. The members of this forum do not have the answer to the question I asked, therefore I am now leaving this thread. This doesn't mean I want to have the last word: if you have anything to tell or ask me, you're welcome to do so and I will still answer to the best of my abilities. But I simply don't expect anyone to say anything valuable anymore, because it's obvious nobody has anything valuable to say.

You are basicly making the claim, "If you can't think of a way to disprove a theory or hypothesis then it must not be true anyway...." No, I'm saying that if a theory is not falsifiable, then it is not scientific.