nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 92:
Line 92: + + + + + + +
→Human appendix: There's those double standards
::::::::I think if the science behind ID was as rigorous as the standard the NEJM is used to, they would be open to publishing papers on it. The problem is that it is very difficult, I would argue near impossible, to prove that all other explanations besides an intelligent creator are insufficient, therefore the conclusions of the papers are not justified by the evidence they provide.
::::::::I think if the science behind ID was as rigorous as the standard the NEJM is used to, they would be open to publishing papers on it. The problem is that it is very difficult, I would argue near impossible, to prove that all other explanations besides an intelligent creator are insufficient, therefore the conclusions of the papers are not justified by the evidence they provide.
::::::::You're right that the appendix could be a redundant structure, my logic was faulty on that point. [[User:GodWarrior|GodWarrior]] 12:00, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::::You're right that the appendix could be a redundant structure, my logic was faulty on that point. [[User:GodWarrior|GodWarrior]] 12:00, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::But we do know what was in those "missing" papers; that's what the cited articles were relating. It's not quite like your analogy because nobody is ''refusing'' to show you the papers; it's just that you've been unable to find them.
:::::::::True, many scientific "facts" once thought to be irrefutable were later shown to be incorrect, but that doesn't mean that we have to go around qualifying every statement that doesn't suit evolutionists, particularly when the "scientific facts" of the other vestigial organs have all been shown to be wrong. I haven't noticed you qualifying any other scientific observations, why is this one different?
:::::::::Despite your rosy view of scientists, they are not as objective as you would like to think.
:::::::::Your response regarding the ID paper presumes that the science wasn't rigorous. Do you have any reason for suggesting that? It was accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal (which means, of course, that it passed peer-review), and the opposition to it was on ideological grounds.
:::::::::Surely you know that science can never prove anything, only fail to disprove it, so nothing is ever 100.00% certain. So of course it is impossible to prove that all other explanations are insufficient, but that's not the standard that science normally uses. For example, an archaeologist who finds an odd-shaped stone can often determine that it was intelligently designed simply by knowing that the shape does not arise naturally. If archaeologists can conclude intelligent design, why can't biologists? Oh that's right, because in the case of biology, the intelligent designer is presumably (please avert your eyes) shock, horror—''God''!!! And as an evolutionist said, you can't allow a Divine foot in the door.
:::::::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:36, 31 May 2007 (EDT)