Intelligent design theory, PROVEN

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Phantom423
. The EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE showed that it was a safe and effective compound. EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE is acquired by rigorous research which is usually published in leading journals. So that's why PEER REVIEWED JOURNALS and publications are extremely important. Do you get it now??

Ahh so you cant ingest evolution and be poisoned, I get it
Evolution theory is a medication, does it dull the mind as well, obviously

I hope that they didnt put to much effort into reading a peer paper that suggested it was ok to ingest evolution like asprin

Tee Heee hee

I really think it's straitjacket time for you, Raggedy. You're off the cliff.

If you want to pose your question, I'm happy to answer it. In the meantime, take a pill.

So you want to compare a quantifiable asprin with the unquantifiable evolution

and you expect me to swallow that, you should give yourself a headache, I just get a chuckle

Peer review, when you have a belief and you dont want to look stupid without someone else holding your hand

"There was a big bang from nothing, anyone want to agree, lets peer review a big bang from nothing, all agree then we wont look as stupid as if its just one or two of us, please"

Religious view
"There was a big bang from God, anyone want to agree, lets peer review a big bang from God"
Scientists respond, "No we cant have that, it has God in it"

I havnt missed any points

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman

So do you miss the point on everything, or just on things you are resistant to trying to understand? Because anytime peer reviewed journals are brought up, you seem to loose any connection to reason.

Evolution, can be demonstrated via empirical evidence, and it gets published in peer reviewed journals. It is an well controlled process. I know, I've been through peer reivew on my academic (pre industry research).

Now creationism, and ID, that can't pass peer review, as it can not be empirically demonstrated.

Hmm
So if I am asking for evidence and I get silly links that I am sick of reading and dont show evidence, get bored and lose interest, its my inability to understand thats at fault?
Of course, I am to sill to know that what I am told is the truth, not just a faith

Evolution must be proven, micro evolution is, its the rest of the theory I battle with.

a reply to: Raggedyman

So if I am asking for evidence and I get silly links that I am sick of reading

From the guy that admits openly that he doesn't read other peoples offered information...

case closed?

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Phantom423
. The EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE showed that it was a safe and effective compound. EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE is acquired by rigorous research which is usually published in leading journals. So that's why PEER REVIEWED JOURNALS and publications are extremely important. Do you get it now??

Ahh so you cant ingest evolution and be poisoned, I get it
Evolution theory is a medication, does it dull the mind as well, obviously

I hope that they didnt put to much effort into reading a peer paper that suggested it was ok to ingest evolution like asprin

Tee Heee hee

I really think it's straitjacket time for you, Raggedy. You're off the cliff.

If you want to pose your question, I'm happy to answer it. In the meantime, take a pill.

So you want to compare a quantifiable asprin with the unquantifiable evolution

and you expect me to swallow that, you should give yourself a headache, I just get a chuckle

Peer review, when you have a belief and you dont want to look stupid without someone else holding your hand

"There was a big bang from nothing, anyone want to agree, lets peer review a big bang from nothing, all agree then we wont look as stupid as if its just one or two of us, please"

Religious view
"There was a big bang from God, anyone want to agree, lets peer review a big bang from God"
Scientists respond, "No we cant have that, it has God in it"

I havnt missed any points

Yes, in fact, that's exactly what I'm doing - the scientific method is utilized regardless what you're researching. Doesn't matter whether it's evolution, an aspirin or an ant. The fundamental methodology is the same. EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE is acquired through rigorous research and development.

And once again, you don't understand what PEER REVIEW means. Your learning curve is at zero.

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Phantom423
. The EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE showed that it was a safe and effective compound. EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE is acquired by rigorous research which is usually published in leading journals. So that's why PEER REVIEWED JOURNALS and publications are extremely important. Do you get it now??

Ahh so you cant ingest evolution and be poisoned, I get it
Evolution theory is a medication, does it dull the mind as well, obviously

I hope that they didnt put to much effort into reading a peer paper that suggested it was ok to ingest evolution like asprin

Tee Heee hee

I really think it's straitjacket time for you, Raggedy. You're off the cliff.

If you want to pose your question, I'm happy to answer it. In the meantime, take a pill.

So you want to compare a quantifiable asprin with the unquantifiable evolution

and you expect me to swallow that, you should give yourself a headache, I just get a chuckle

Peer review, when you have a belief and you dont want to look stupid without someone else holding your hand

"There was a big bang from nothing, anyone want to agree, lets peer review a big bang from nothing, all agree then we wont look as stupid as if its just one or two of us, please"

Religious view
"There was a big bang from God, anyone want to agree, lets peer review a big bang from God"
Scientists respond, "No we cant have that, it has God in it"

I havnt missed any points

Yes, in fact, that's exactly what I'm doing - the scientific method is utilized regardless what you're researching. Doesn't matter whether it's evolution, an aspirin or an ant. The fundamental methodology is the same. EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE is acquired through rigorous research and development.

And once again, you don't understand what PEER REVIEW means. Your learning curve is at zero.

That's so beautiful all those pretty colours, they prove you like pretty colours

What did they test in evolution, the woo woo factor

Seriously how do you test woo

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman

So do you miss the point on everything, or just on things you are resistant to trying to understand? Because anytime peer reviewed journals are brought up, you seem to loose any connection to reason.

Evolution, can be demonstrated via empirical evidence, and it gets published in peer reviewed journals. It is an well controlled process. I know, I've been through peer reivew on my academic (pre industry research).

Now creationism, and ID, that can't pass peer review, as it can not be empirically demonstrated.

Hmm
So if I am asking for evidence and I get silly links that I am sick of reading and dont show evidence, get bored and lose interest, its my inability to understand thats at fault?
Of course, I am to sill to know that what I am told is the truth, not just a faith

Evolution must be proven, micro evolution is, its the rest of the theory I battle with.

Here's a silly link posted 2 days ago. You haven't read it, yet you comment on it. You don't understand it, yet you're interpreting the contents. You've never been in a real laboratory, yet you can instruct everyone that the methods are flat wrong and prove nothing, you've never read ANY scientific journal article, yet you can comment on all of them as though you had some insight into science. Learning curve = 0.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman

So do you miss the point on everything, or just on things you are resistant to trying to understand? Because anytime peer reviewed journals are brought up, you seem to loose any connection to reason.

Evolution, can be demonstrated via empirical evidence, and it gets published in peer reviewed journals. It is an well controlled process. I know, I've been through peer reivew on my academic (pre industry research).

Now creationism, and ID, that can't pass peer review, as it can not be empirically demonstrated.

Hmm
So if I am asking for evidence and I get silly links that I am sick of reading and dont show evidence, get bored and lose interest, its my inability to understand thats at fault?
Of course, I am to sill to know that what I am told is the truth, not just a faith

Evolution must be proven, micro evolution is, its the rest of the theory I battle with.

Here's a silly link posted 2 days ago. You haven't read it, yet you comment on it. You don't understand it, yet you're interpreting the contents. You've never been in a real laboratory, yet you can instruct everyone that the methods are flat wrong and prove nothing, you've never read ANY scientific journal article, yet you can comment on all of them as though you had some insight into science. Learning curve = 0.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You got that right Phants

It is silly

Can you tell me how many times the word "possible/possibility" was used in the peer reviewed document

It's not even worth explaining to you why it's tripe if you can't work it out yourself.

But I will, it's an assumption, it's not empirical, it's a possibility

Read it for yourself, it's a guess

Your learning curve is also Zero

Can you please tell me why you hate science, why you want to discredit it with this kind of woo

Why do you want to subject science, your god to this kind of blasphemy

Why do you ignore science, turn it into religion

a reply to: Raggedyman


Since there's clearly no empirical evidence supporting evolution, it should be a cakewalk for you to demonstrate such for your preferred scenario of YEC right?

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: Raggedyman


Since there's clearly no empirical evidence supporting evolution, it should be a cakewalk for you to demonstrate such for your preferred scenario of YEC right?

Oh pv you are so funny.
I don't call creation a science, I am not so hypocritical as to suggest that my beliefs are a science
You can act so very silly sometimes

How about once Phanta has done his best brow beating me with his religios ideologies, you and I discuss your faith in science of evolution
You can show me your peer reviewed evidence laced with possibility sand assumption

Simply, creation isn't being sold as a science, I have never suggested it should be

Why do you hate science pv, why do you allow it to be subject to this kind of religios evolution woo

Empirical evidence for evolution?
No, you are baiting and switching trying to turn this discussion into something it's not, trying to move the goal posts, hiding you have no evidence and trying to make out I don't.
Well I don't, I don't claim creation a science

Where is the evidence PV, for your proven scientific evolution

a reply to: Raggedyman

LOL!


The title of your thread is "Intelligent design theory, PROVEN", but apparently now your claiming it's not science? You're not even being logically consistent in your OWN thread!

Brilliant.

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: Raggedyman


Since there's clearly no empirical evidence supporting evolution, it should be a cakewalk for you to demonstrate such for your preferred scenario of YEC right?

Oh pv you are so funny.
I don't call creation a science, I am not so hypocritical as to suggest that my beliefs are a science
You can act so very silly sometimes

Actually you're far more hypocritical than that.

How about once Phanta has done his best brow beating me with his religios ideologies, you and I discuss your faith in science of evolution
You can show me your peer reviewed evidence laced with possibility sand assumption

By your standards, no science is valid then because similar qualifiers will be included in any paper from any scientific discipline. Even the ones you think you understand.

Simply, creation isn't being sold as a science, I have never suggested it should be

Bull. This thread is about ID which is most definitely creation repackaged as science.

Why do you hate science pv, why do you allow it to be subject to this kind of religios evolution woo

Does the untruth seem more real to you the more times you repeat it? I think the real question is, if you're not a troll, why are you so afraid of science, so afraid of being wrong? See, in science, we embrace our errors and mistakes because once we know where we have gone wrong, it opens us up to new avenues of research.

Empirical evidence for evolution?

Your inability or refusal to attempt to understand the subject matter doesn't make you correct and it doesn't invalidate the science.

No, you are baiting and switching trying to turn this discussion into something it's not, trying to move the goal posts, hiding you have no evidence and trying to make out I don't.

Hahahaha right... That's rich! The guy who has his own magical playing field and doesn't even use goal posts because the constant heavy lifting is too tiring accusing someone else of moving goal posts is the funniest thing I've seen yet today. Its early though do I have faith that you've got a couple more hum dingers up your sleeve.

Well I don't, I don't claim creation a science

Actually you do, in the title to this thread where you refer to ID as a theory and as proven and then fail miserably at understanding what a peer reviewed paper actually is with your litany of garbage that doesn't even support your position. It's as if you googled a key word and then just copy and pasted any link that sounded good to you and as usual, without the most basic due diligence. Really, at this point ATS should just give you your own topic forum so you don't tie everything else up with the same rehashed thread with a shiny new bow err... Title... Every few days.

Where is the evidence PV, for your proven scientific evolution.

It's been demonstrated more times than I can count. Maybe you should enroll in your local community college and take a science course to see how all of this actually works.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: flyingfish
a reply to: peter vlar
but here the religious loons get a free pass to preach their ant- science propaganda.

Your bias is showing - Refuting a theory is not science denial. In a decade or so we'll probably be looking back at this era as the scientific inquisition, where you either believed in evolution or were dispelled from the clergy. It's sad how material reductionism still plagues our society.

You got me. I am bias to Lies and deception.
And yes! I applaud any one who can overturn an accepted theory! It's what makes new discoveries exciting!
Your confusing religion with science, any science can be discarded with evidence, while religion demands faith regardless or in spite of evidence.

a reply to: Raggedyman

If you are sick of reading, then bow out. You clearly are no up to the discussion.

a reply to: cooperton

I believe that the Gods and Humans intermingled.
Science does not disagree with the cosmology of "Order arose from Chaos" and that it was "of it's own accord". The rest is UPG. As to where the Gods are now? Some died (as I said), others retreated under the hills (sidhe) and to the other world. Science has nothing to say about that.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Raggedy, if intelligent design is proven, what happened to you? Somehow, you got left behind (I think they made a movie about that).

The EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE for evolution is contained in over 150,000 research articles. ID proponents, to include you, have 0 EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE and 0 articles in ANY JOURNAL.

I was encouraged, however, when I read a line in your previous post.

Well I don't, I don't claim creation a science

You are correct. Creationism is not a science. There is hope for the hopeless - do not give up!

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

I believe that the Gods and Humans intermingled.
Science does not disagree with the cosmology of "Order arose from Chaos" and that it was "of it's own accord". The rest is UPG. As to where the Gods are now? Some died (as I said), others retreated under the hills (sidhe) and to the other world. Science has nothing to say about that.

So the Gods were a product of evolution?

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

I believe that the Gods and Humans intermingled.
Science does not disagree with the cosmology of "Order arose from Chaos" and that it was "of it's own accord". The rest is UPG. As to where the Gods are now? Some died (as I said), others retreated under the hills (sidhe) and to the other world. Science has nothing to say about that.

So the Gods were a product of evolution?

Yes!!
It's obvious the God's have evolved or have gone extinct. Will yours evolve? History has shown it will probably die out just as all other God's have.

a reply to: cooperton

No you don't seem to be reading what I said.

Evolution in this context refers to biological evolution. Not Cosmological evolution. They are separate ideas. Just because they both contain the word evolution, does not mean then they are the same. It is accepted by the majority of english speaking people that when you use the word evolution, without a qualifying term, that it is biological evolution. Not the evolution of gas or heat in chemical reactions, not the evolution of the solar system, nor the universe. No it is assumed that the term means biological evolution.

So I have no idea what the Gods, the outsiders, etc were the product of. But my USG (Unverifiable Shared Gnosis) is that they just arose, like the Universe, like life on the whole.

originally posted by: Noinden

Evolution in this context refers to biological evolution. Not Cosmological evolution. They are separate ideas. Just because they both contain the word evolution, does not mean then they are the same. It is accepted by the majority of english speaking people that when you use the word evolution, without a qualifying term, that it is biological evolution. Not the evolution of gas or heat in chemical reactions, not the evolution of the solar system, nor the universe. No it is assumed that the term means biological evolution.

Dishonest creationist tactic #3657: instead of sticking to the clearly defined scientific definitions of terms, pick and choose different definitions as and when it suits your argument.

originally posted by: GetHyped
Dishonest creationist tactic #3657: instead of sticking to the clearly defined scientific definitions of terms, pick and choose different definitions as and when it suits your argument.

Unfortunately, not just a creationist tactic