Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

How nice for you then that you think you get to decide what is 'flawed'.

 

No not the same, only you present a crap load of straw men like in your last post to me.

- - - Updated - - -

If you can't post direct quotes correctly, then you really shouldn't quote at all.

 

...and you shouldn't make claims about something you know nothing about. Now, point what I didn't get.

 

How is it a strawman?
I have quoted you directly, repeatedly, as saying Genesis is "...very similar, if not identical..." to the BBT. Then I have shared a couple of logical absurdities that would have to be in keeping with the BBT if you want to maintain that position, and you have been running ever since.
You really don't have any idea of what a strawman is, do you?
Pride goeth before the fall.

 

What claims did I make about something I know nothing about?

Why don't you ask the OP about the parts of his post that you don't get?

 

As I am aware of this interpretation, and the hypothesis it presents I must ask again.....please provide the Data explaining a FINITE Universe....as this does not actually do so. I enjoyed the idea behind this, but do not see it as usable data, nor do those in the field. Hypothesis is not a proof.

 

So, that's YOUR full quote. Tell me, what don't I understand about his flawed comment?

Do you realize you have yet to win a single point of these debates?...You throw claims around and then run from the, when called on the carpet.

You have NO DESIRE to actually learn anything, you just want to have you emotional beliefs validated.

Oh, and OP, doesn't know is his ass from his elbow, regarding the Theory of Evolution. If he did, wouldn't have posted so ignorantly. Sadly, it's a comment he has made on many other sites, and has been refuted.

 

If all this is so easy for someone like you, a regular joe, to find the errors in the Theory of Evolution and Big Bang, then why are not the leading scientist in their fields echoing the same sentiment?

 

Bruce, if you have a point to make then make it. Do you disagree with something I said? Put it in a discernible argument and I'll get back to you.

- - - Updated - - -

Hey, I'm just a layman with a computer. Not a physicist and not a librarian.

 

I was making a comment to him. I have no idea what you don't understand about his comment flawed or not. I think I have held my own, stated my opinion whether you agree or not. I am willing to defend my position anytime.

As for learning, I am interested in how the universe works. The topic here is evolution vs ID. You are welcome to discuss it with me.

 

And yet, you see to be able to debunk the theory of Evolution and the Big Bang model with ease. Either you're worlds smartest person, or you really have no idea what you're posting about.

hhhmmmmmm....

 

I'm not saying that I have found a flaw, I am just saying that this is a question that I have and if someone could explain to me why this isn't the case please tell me why?

- - - Updated - - -

Actually what I have said is that the Big Bang Theory is very much like the story of Creation in the bible.

 

You're not holding your own...your being obtuse.

Regarding ToE vs. ID...when ID becomes a science, you can attempt to make that comparison. Until such time, there is no debate.

 

We are always interested in wondering about the self image of someone who actually thinks they
know more than all the scientists on earth. They generally wont say that outright, it is too outlandish even for a theocreologist, but, it is what they think.

 

Fine, whatever you say. Do you have a point to make or would like to argue something I said? Otherwise leave the literary critic at home.

 

No, it's not at all. The Big Bang model details how the universe came about...using facts and evidence. You just attempting to make the comparison in order to give Creation a sliver of credibility. Much the same way that people like to look back and attempt to portray the quatrains of Nostradamus as being accurate.

They're not.

 

"I've never been proved wrong". A fantastically arrogant and deluded pov! But, we do find people
who simply cannot permit the possibility that they are ever wrong about anything. I think Hitler is said to have been like that, too. (yeah, godwin)

 

You don't see the point there?...ID IS NOT SCIENCE. Period. The central argument for ID, irreducible complexity, is nothing more than sciency-sounder term with no legs. It's been soundly refuted and debunked...over and over.

Nothing to see there.

 

I am putting it in terms a grade schooler could understand. I don't know how to dumb it down any further than I have. You aren't having a hard time understanding the question, you are trying desperately to figure out an answer that won't further humiliate you beyond what you have already done for yourself.
That's the truth, PN. Everyone recognizes your refusal to answer questions that compromise you.

 

Please explain how ID is a valid scientific argument.

 

Okay so I'll put you in the disagree with my thesis column.

And now I'm Hitler too. Good one.

Fine ID is not science in your opinion. Others have different opinions than you. It's a free country.

Is this your idea of a discernible argument?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_Universe

"Although the shape of the universe is still a matter of debate in physical cosmology, based on the recent Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) measurements "We now know that the universe is flat with only a 0.4% margin of error", according to NASA scientists."

...

"According to cosmologists, on this model the observational data best fit with the conclusion that the shape of the universe is infinite and flat, [2] but the data are also consistent with other possible shapes, such as the so-called Poincaré dodecahedral space[3][4]and the Picard horn.[5]"

 

No, it is objectively not science by the definition of science. This is not an opinion. Science requires falsifiability. Intelligent design is not falsifiable. Science requires theories to have some sort of predictive power to them. Intelligent design has no such predictive power. Science requires theories that are reliant on observations and empirically testable. As far as that is concerned, intelligent design is simply an argument from ignorance (and more specifically is a God of the gaps argument).

Intelligent design advocates basically have been going about "proving" their "theory" to be correct by criticising evolution and pointing out that some things are "too complex" to have been created by anything other than an "intelligence". That isn't science. There is a reason why the major proponents of intelligent design are all creationists: it is an attempt by those who hate materialists (The Discovery Institute has even come out and admitted this) to shroud their religious ideas with specious scientific trimmings.

 

Here is my first post in this thread.

I don't agree with ID, I'm a Theistic Evolution guy.