Who honestly doesn't belive in intelligent design?

[Foxfyre]

you've not made arguments, Foxfyre. you've stated what i consider to be falsehoods in ways which i feel to be disengenuous, and i've just pointed that out with consistency commensurate with your insistence in this sort of presentation of your case. having addressed your contentions with the position which i feel science and instructors of science are obliged to maintain, you've shifted from arguing that point to arguing that i dont have anything new to offer.

have you considered that you've not offered any substance to how you define ID or faced with my argument that ID is not an explanation of physical phenomena, that you haven't defended how it might be? i know that it might require breaking from your insistent ambiguity as to what you mean by ID, but declaring that ID could have this facility seems like an affirmation of the definition which ID originally possessed prior to your hijack. i thought there was supposed to be something different.

Yes I have defined it through the eyes of many different individuals now. I have purposely not expressed my own belief about it despite the fact that you repeatedly tell me what I believe. (And THAT is disingenuous. )

But you are still repeating yourself over and over and it is becoming quite tiresome. Again, when you come up with something new, or when somebody is interested in actually discussing the various concepts of I.D. I will be interested in discussing that.

Ya'll do have a great evening.

 

[antagon]

you have expressed your own belief: that gapfiller secular ID proposes explanations for physical phenomena which science cannot refute. i dont find that any explanation is offered through gapfiller and that the proposal that there are gaps is not scientific in the first place.

 

[Foxfyre]

you have expressed your own belief: that gapfiller secular ID proposes explanations for physical phenomena which science cannot refute. i dont find that any explanation is offered through gapfiller and that the proposal that there are gaps is not scientific in the first place.

I think that's because you aren't even trying to see anything other than a religious or deity based Intelligent Design that you assign with certain characteristics that you believe are refutable. I have given several examples and, because you blew off every one, I won't go back and look for them.

Again do have a great evening.

 

[antagon]

you have expressed your own belief: that gapfiller secular ID proposes explanations for physical phenomena which science cannot refute. i dont find that any explanation is offered through gapfiller and that the proposal that there are gaps is not scientific in the first place.

I think that's because you aren't even trying to see anything other than a religious or deity based Intelligent Design that you assign with certain characteristics that you believe are refutable. I have given several examples and, because you blew off every one, I won't go back and look for them.

Again do have a great evening.

think again. none of those examples empower you classroom argument.

good evening to you, too.

 

[Foxfyre]

A classroom argument which you have yet to accurately characterize which, among similar mischaracterizations, is what has made this discussion so damnedly frustrating and now uninteresting.

 

[Urbanguerrilla]

when somebody is interested in actually discussing the various concepts of I.D.

There are various concepts of ID? I am suprised, do tell...

 

[Foxfyre]

when somebody is interested in actually discussing the various concepts of I.D.

There are various concepts of ID? I am suprised, do tell...

We already did tell. You'll have to read the thread though because I sure as hell am not going to say all that yet again.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Yes I have defined it through the eyes of many different individuals now.

False, you have defined it yourself and then attempted to recruit long dead thinkers into your definition. They did not define it. You did.

I think that's because you aren't even trying to see anything other than a religious or deity based Intelligent Design

False again. Regardless of the nature of the "gap filler", it remains to be soundly outside the realm of science, having absolutely no supporting evidence. My space monkey idea has nothing to do with religion and yet is an equivalent gap filler.

Once again you claim no one understands when...... you give bad examples.

 

[Urbanguerrilla]

when somebody is interested in actually discussing the various concepts of I.D.

There are various concepts of ID? I am suprised, do tell...

We already did tell. You'll have to read the thread though because I sure as hell am not going to say all that yet again.

so do you believe that ID should be taught in science class or are you happy with these origin tales being taught in religious class?

 

[Foxfyre]

There are various concepts of ID? I am suprised, do tell...

We already did tell. You'll have to read the thread though because I sure as hell am not going to say all that yet again.

so do you believe that ID should be taught in science class or are you happy with these origin tales being taught in religious class?

Do you not read at least some of a thread before wading in? No I do not support and have never supported I.D. being taught as science.

 

[Urbanguerrilla]

there is no evidence whatsoever with which to falsify intelligent design either any more than dreams or imagination can be falsified and we believe those things exist even though we cannot prove it or falsify it.

That is true, just like you cant falsify santa clause or the tooth fairy

 

[Urbanguerrilla]

We already did tell. You'll have to read the thread though because I sure as hell am not going to say all that yet again.

so do you believe that ID should be taught in science class or are you happy with these origin tales being taught in religious class?

Do you not read at least some of a thread before wading in? No I do not support and have never supported I.D. being taught as science.

Read all that guff are you kiddin me, but you do believe in ID...

 

[antagon]

We already did tell. You'll have to read the thread though because I sure as hell am not going to say all that yet again.

so do you believe that ID should be taught in science class or are you happy with these origin tales being taught in religious class?

Do you not read at least some of a thread before wading in? No I do not support and have never supported I.D. being taught as science.

not as science, but by science teachers in science class -- a requisite of being a good science teacher, in fact.

 

[Foxfyre]

so do you believe that ID should be taught in science class or are you happy with these origin tales being taught in religious class?

Do you not read at least some of a thread before wading in? No I do not support and have never supported I.D. being taught as science.

not as science, but by science teachers in science class -- a requisite of being a good science teacher, in fact.

Antagon likes to make things up when he can't refute what was actually said.

 

[Foxfyre]

so do you believe that ID should be taught in science class or are you happy with these origin tales being taught in religious class?

Do you not read at least some of a thread before wading in? No I do not support and have never supported I.D. being taught as science.

Read all that guff are you kiddin me, but you do believe in ID...

I haven't said what I personally believe because what I personally believe about I.D. is irrelevent to the discussion. Antagon is doing his damndest to make the thread about me, and I haven't taken that bait. Not gonna take it from you either.

You will either join the trolls, numbnuts, and/or exercises in futility in flailing about in some anti-Christian screed that is every bit as faith based as anything Christians might believe, or you will give a reasoned plausible argument for why I.D. is not plausible and why all those great minds who have embraced it are idiots. And you will be able to explain why they are idiots and why their instincts and imagination is inferior to your own.

Or maybe you will join with the open minded who accept that their instincts and imagination is as good as anybody else's who draws conclusions about anything without being able to prove those conclusions.

I am of the school that a mind functions competently only when it is open. It seems so far all the anti-IDers here have closed minds on the subject so all they have is attack mode.

If you are anti-I.D., do you have anything substantive to offer?

 

[antagon]

Do you not read at least some of a thread before wading in? No I do not support and have never supported I.D. being taught as science.

not as science, but by science teachers in science class -- a requisite of being a good science teacher, in fact.

Antagon likes to make things up when he can't refute what was actually said.

oh, i've refuted this:

The teacher, if he is a good teacher, will point out those areas of science that we cannot yet explain. If he is so inclined, and if he is a good teacher, he can explain the various theories out there to fill in those gaps in our knowledge and I.D. is one that many people do believe.

who made that up?

 

[Foxfyre]

not as science, but by science teachers in science class -- a requisite of being a good science teacher, in fact.

Antagon likes to make things up when he can't refute what was actually said.

oh, i've refuted this:

The teacher, if he is a good teacher, will point out those areas of science that we cannot yet explain. If he is so inclined, and if he is a good teacher, he can explain the various theories out there to fill in those gaps in our knowledge and I.D. is one that many people do believe.

who made that up?

Yep I said that. And if you were an honorable man, you would have acknowledged the full context of the discussion in which I posted that which would fully explain what I was saying there.

Perhaps you were never blessed with teachers who provided the history of scientific theories held by brilliant people of the past but which have subsequently been shown to be in error. Perhaps you didn't luck out and get a teacher who explained those things that we don't yet know, but here are some theories about them. Perhaps you approve of a teacher who would presume to question or destroy a student's faith in order to support his own faith based beliefs. Perhaps you disapprove and would even censure a teacher who honestly admitted mysteries that science cannot yet explain or who admitted that many popular scientific theories supported today may be shown to be in error tomorrow or next year or in the centuries to come.

I approve of teachers who would not presume to attack a student's faith and who know that science cannot answer everything. I fully defend a teacher who acknowledges that we have a tiny fraction of the science that there is yet to know and be revealed to us. I support teachers who educate students and respect them as intelligent beings capable of drawing reasoned conclusions once furnished with accurate information. I would fire a teacher in a heartbeat who presumed to tell a student what he should or should not believe in matters that cannot yet be tested.

 

[antagon]

but you've said all that already, Foxfyre, but you've never answered to what science teaching is actually about and the reality that your perspective on it does not keep with prevailing scientific philosophy -- specifically your concept of gaps.

like your attempt to characterize my summation of your position as dishonest was shown above to be itself disingenuous, i feel your characterization of my 'honor' in debate to be similarly founded in fantasy or dishonesty. the statement in your quote is clear support for the characterization which i made: "[ID is taught] not as science, but by science teachers in science class -- a requisite of being a good science teacher, in fact." if there is any sort of context which contradicts this, then it is likely an example of the contradiction, the shiftiness, which i've pointed out in your presentation of your case.

 

[Foxfyre]

And no, my characterization was not disingenuous Antagon. You have been fairly regularly dishonestly characterizing what I said, what I intended, what I implied even as you take whatever statement out of its full context.

And I'm not going to make the same arguments again that I've already made and that you now say that I did not make.

If you have a direct question that has a specific answer, ask it. Or if you have a specific comment that applies to the topic, make it.

Until then, we cannot move on from where we have already been.

 

[antagon]

direct question: despite my obvious exhibition that you've indeed supported my characterization of your argument, what else supports your claim that i have consistently misrepresented what you've put forward?

i don't need to twist anything that you've said to lay my argument against it. i don't want to, either. i argue that i haven't done so and that your insistence in claiming that this has gone on is a lie of yours.

substantiate it.