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.

I don't apologize to entities I perceive as imaginary. On the other hand, politeness is important in the relationship between non-imaginary entities like us

Aaaand... drum rolls... apology sincerely accepted! Let's keep the discussion up (if you wish) and be polite Indeed, peace

Thanks for the support, SaturnV. It was starting to become bothersome to keep repeating the same thing over and over, now we can split that task between the two of us

I find this to be an overly simplistic categorization of science. In fact, scientific method says just the opposite of what you say. Scientific method says that a hypothesis CAN be tentatively accepted so long as it cannot be falsified. Further, it says that NO scientific theory can be conclusively established. (there can always be variables or laws at work that you haven't discovered yet.)

Please make your post readable.

The first one is just for fun. The others are all valid. The last one is the strongest; I believe with some fantasy the others could be answered, although that's just a gut feeling, but the last one is simply impossible to break, as far as I know.

The first one is stupid. I already said it's just for fun and I already explained why it's nonsense. It's numbered 0 for a reason. It is true for God, because He could use His magic to save everyone. He's omnipotent, he can do that. The police officer and the first guy cannot, so they're excused. God is not excused. If God sees everything at once, then everything has already been decided and He can't change it, thus He's not omnipotent. Your answer does break the paradox, but it seems very unsatisfying. Killing only the unclean would have been preferable in the eyes of an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God. That's not the case. I said unnecessary evil. I'm talking about things like forest fires, hurricanes and other things that haven't been caused by humans.

It's not personal but I do apologize if you took it that way, if you can't take the heat then maybe you should get out of the fire? You laughed at me, I pointed out that maybe if you do only that you just don't have a good argument. Your answer is that if I can't handle being flamed I should avoid posting, but this very answer shows that you're the one who can't take criticism. I'm perfectly fine even when someone tells me "filthy atheist you'll be in hell forever" (it happened somewhere else) and I merely pointed out the shortcomings in your position, which seems to be spectacularly weak. You mean I was right? Then why did you say "Keep grasping" as if I'm the one without an argument? Anyway, it's on the record that you admitted that you don't know why I am wrong but laughed at me anyway. I think a real apology (one without "if you don't like it just leave" or "if you can't take the heat then maybe you should get out of the fire?" right after it) would be appropriate.

Every single Christian scientist disagrees with you and would tell you that it's not your place to choose what science is or is not, what constitutes science and what doesn't. We already have a definition of science and if you want ID to fit that definition you have a lot of work to do.

Hey,that's my point! Don't steal it! I'll overlook the DNA-is-a-language silliness for the sake of staying on topic. All you said about ID supports my point: ID is not science and must not be called science. Well, it seems nobody on this forum knows of a way to falsify ID. I'll make sure I'll point it out whenever someone calls it science in other threads.