Dinosaur tail found preserved in amber!

[Faith No More]

Thanks,   I think you confirmed quite a bit with the bolded section above.  It explains the shifting the goal posts, and question begging.

And I'm not making any arguments for or concerning AIG.    As to not understanding what constitutes science, I normally ask what you are basing that conclusion on? (and rarely get an answer).  I don't feel that I cherry pick science, but look to what is the best logical explanation given the evidence and the reasons given for the claims being made.   I don't feel that I am the one dismissing the evidence, and appealing to the source of the arguments, rather than the reasons given for the arguement.  If you feel otherwise, please feel free to point it out.

Lol, you can't just throw out the names of logical fallacies with no explanation like it means anything.  But congratulations, you know the names of two fallacies.  

You want to know what I base that conclusion on?  That you think ID is science.  That's basically a litmus test for a person's understanding of the process.  

Are you a biologist?  Or a geneticist?  Then why do you think you are qualified to come to a better logical conclusion than they are?  I'm sure when you're sick you go to a doctor instead of trying to diagnose and treat yourself, yet you somehow think that you know more about biology than the people that spend their lives studying it.  That is why you're a cherry-picker.

Let me ask you this.  Have you ever noticed that the only people that think that ID is science are people that have a vested interest in it being true, i.e. Biblical literalists?  And how come there are Christian scientists out there that think ID is junk?  It doesn't matter to them whether evolution is true or not, but they are unimpressed with ID.  Take my dad, for example.  He's an organic chemist and a Christian, so he would have no problem accepting that god created the world as it is.  Yet not only does he think ID is hogwash, he refuses to acknowledge it as science.  So on one side the only people claiming it's science are people that want it to be true, while many people that have nothing to lose one way or the other think it's unscientific.  Funny how that works.

[RoadRunner79]

edit... removed double post

---

Thanks,   I think you confirmed quite a bit with the bolded section above.  It explains the shifting the goal posts, and question begging.

And I'm not making any arguments for or concerning AIG.    As to not understanding what constitutes science, I normally ask what you are basing that conclusion on? (and rarely get an answer).  I don't feel that I cherry pick science, but look to what is the best logical explanation given the evidence and the reasons given for the claims being made.   I don't feel that I am the one dismissing the evidence, and appealing to the source of the arguments, rather than the reasons given for the arguement.  If you feel otherwise, please feel free to point it out.

Lol, you can't just throw out the names of logical fallacies with no explanation like it means anything.  But congratulations, you know the names of two fallacies.  

You want to know what I base that conclusion on?  That you think ID is science.  That's basically a litmus test for a person's understanding of the process.  

As I suspected... nothing specific, just begging the question.

Are you a biologist?  Or a geneticist?  Then why do you think you are qualified to come to a better logical conclusion than they are?  I'm sure when you're sick you go to a doctor instead of trying to diagnose and treat yourself, yet you somehow think that you know more about biology than the people that spend their lives studying it.  That is why you're a cherry-picker.

I do go to the doctor and I do rely quite a bit on what they say.   And if they are not producing results, and what they explain doesn't make sense, then I go to another doctor.  Similarly, I rely on biologist, geneticist, chemist, and what they say in regards to evolution and intelligent design. I don't understand everything, and certainly am not qualified to do the work myself.   But I find that I am drawn more to those who can explain things in a way that makes sense, rather than those who just insult, and demand everything be taken on faith.

Let me ask you this.  Have you ever noticed that the only people that think that ID is science are people that have a vested interest in it being true, i.e. Biblical literalists?  And how come there are Christian scientists out there that think ID is junk?  It doesn't matter to them whether evolution is true or not, but they are unimpressed with ID.  Take my dad, for example.  He's an organic chemist and a Christian, so he would have no problem accepting that god created the world as it is.  Yet not only does he think ID is hogwash, he refuses to acknowledge it as science.  So on one side the only people claiming it's science are people that want it to be true, while many people that have nothing to lose one way or the other think it's unscientific.  Funny how that works.

This is just incorrect as well as non-sequitur.   Also, if you looked into it, you may find, that a number changed their religious beliefs after.   I for one, would fall into your group, that it doesn't matter one way or the other.   All I ask is that you give reasons for your claims and allow all the information into evidence.   Frankly; conversations like this, just make me think that there is less behind the reasoning, then I previously thought (when you criticise everything but the subject matter).

[Tonus]

I.D. doesn't stop anyone from researching or learning anything.   I don't see how your statement follows

That's because you misunderstood it. I'm pointing out that claims like "irreducible complexity" are attempts to stop research at a specific point. If something is irreducibly complex, then we've reached a start point and no further research into how it may have evolved is necessary. That isn't how science works.

I would disagree, if you are making an implication, that a cause must me confirmed, before you can make a scientific inference (or profile) of that cause.

You can make as many inferences and profiles as you wish. But until you actually find it, that's all they are. Like I said, you cannot claim that it exists if you cannot confirm its existence.

I would also be curious as to what definition you are using of confirmed.   It seems there are a number of claims of evolution, which would not meet your standards put forth here (modern synthesis and even common descent).

The standard dictionary definition. If there are claims of evolution that don't meet those standards, then they're not confirmed.

I would also ask you to look at who between us, is saying that we should not question or accept evidence, that may alter the theory's in this conversation?

I made no claims regarding the acceptance or denial of evidence. I pointed out how the scientific method works, and how the ID approach can run afoul of it. I also pointed out how one can apply the scientific method to ID in order to test its veracity. I don't know if you're not understanding me or reading something that you think is between the lines, but you don't seem to get the point I'm making.

[Faith No More]

As I suspected... nothing specific, just begging the question.

Lol, it's not begging the question, you dolt.  If you can't identify the common cold, it is perfectly reasonable for me to deny that you're a doctor, just like it's perfectly reasonable for me to say that if you think ID is science, you don't understand science.

I do go to the doctor and I do rely quite a bit on what they say.   And if they are not producing results, and what they explain doesn't make sense, then I go to another doctor.  Similarly, I rely on biologist, geneticist, chemist, and what they say in regards to evolution and intelligent design. I don't understand everything, and certainly am not qualified to do the work myself.   But I find that I am drawn more to those who can explain things in a way that makes sense, rather than those who just insult, and demand everything be taken on faith.

What makes sense to you has absolutely nothing to do with whether it's true or not.  It's impossible to explain quantum mechanics in a way that makes sense.  It must not be true, then?  Why would you expect something as complex as genetics to be easy to explain?  Nothing can be true unless the great RoadRunner can comprehend it?

This almost appears to be an admission that you prefer easy answers like "God did it" as opposed to something you might have to work to understand.

This is just incorrect as well as non-sequitur.   Also, if you looked into it, you may find, that a number changed their religious beliefs after.   I for one, would fall into your group, that it doesn't matter one way or the other.   All I ask is that you give reasons for your claims and allow all the information into evidence.   Frankly; conversations like this, just make me think that there is less behind the reasoning, then I previously thought (when you criticise everything but the subject matter).

Jesus Christ, what drugs are you on?  In what world can you just call something a fallacy and move on like you've addressed it?  It's all actually very relevant to the discussion, but I can understand why it makes you uncomfortable.

Criticize everything but the subject matter?  I already gave you one example of why ID is not scientific (they assume a conclusion and refuse to accept anything that contradicts that conclusion no matter what), and you just ignored it and whined about me not being able to prove you don't understand science while mindlessly tossing out some fallacy names.  If you continue to pretend I'm not making any points by erroneously claiming "that's a fallacy," I'm done here.  I mean, not only can you not properly identify a fallacy, you're either too lazy or stupid to even try to defend why you think something is a fallacy.

So far, all you've shown here besides that you lack a basic understanding of science is that talking to you is a lost cause.

[RoadRunner79]

As I suspected... nothing specific, just begging the question.

Lol, it's not begging the question, you dolt.  If you can't identify the common cold, it is perfectly reasonable for me to deny that you're a doctor, just like it's perfectly reasonable for me to say that if you think ID is science, you don't understand science.

I do go to the doctor and I do rely quite a bit on what they say.   And if they are not producing results, and what they explain doesn't make sense, then I go to another doctor.  Similarly, I rely on biologist, geneticist, chemist, and what they say in regards to evolution and intelligent design. I don't understand everything, and certainly am not qualified to do the work myself.   But I find that I am drawn more to those who can explain things in a way that makes sense, rather than those who just insult, and demand everything be taken on faith.

What makes sense to you has absolutely nothing to do with whether it's true or not.  It's impossible to explain quantum mechanics in a way that makes sense.  It must not be true, then?  Why would you expect something as complex as genetics to be easy to explain?  Nothing can be true unless the great RoadRunner can comprehend it?

This almost appears to be an admission that you prefer easy answers like "God did it" as opposed to something you might have to work to understand.

This is just incorrect as well as non-sequitur.   Also, if you looked into it, you may find, that a number changed their religious beliefs after.   I for one, would fall into your group, that it doesn't matter one way or the other.   All I ask is that you give reasons for your claims and allow all the information into evidence.   Frankly; conversations like this, just make me think that there is less behind the reasoning, then I previously thought (when you criticise everything but the subject matter).

Jesus Christ, what drugs are you on?  In what world can you just call something a fallacy and move on like you've addressed it?  It's all actually very relevant to the discussion, but I can understand why it makes you uncomfortable.

Criticize everything but the subject matter?  I already gave you one example of why ID is not scientific (they assume a conclusion and refuse to accept anything that contradicts that conclusion no matter what), and you just ignored it and whined about me not being able to prove you don't understand science while mindlessly tossing out some fallacy names.  If you continue to pretend I'm not making any points by erroneously claiming "that's a fallacy," I'm done here.  I mean, not only can you not properly identify a fallacy, you're either too lazy or stupid to even try to defend why you think something is a fallacy.

So far, all you've shown here besides that you lack a basic understanding of science is that talking to you is a lost cause.

Well, I do agree, I don't think that the current course of the conversation is getting us very far.  I would much rather discuss about the reasons for and evidence for the claims.  I am happy to do this.
Perhaps part of the problem is that we are mixing up a couple of conversations.   I am perfectly willing to give my reasons and evidence for my claims.  Whether you want to talk about evolution or I.D.
This conversation was about evolution, and the only reason that I brought up I.D. at all, was in response to someone's question.   Otherwise, I addressed fallacies, where I.D. was brought up and fallacies followed.   And if one of us think that the reasoning is fallacious, I don't see why we can't discuss that as well (like grown up's, without resorting to name calling)!  

If you would like to have a civil conversation... I'm game.