94
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 107:
Line 107: + + + + +
→Human appendix
:::::::::::Intelligent Design: Now we get down to it, don't we. Earlier you claim that the New England Medical Journal wouldn't be biased, and now you attempt to justify the bias of not publishing ID papers. So are you admitting that you knew all along that they wouldn't publish such papers? But to get to the point you are making, you are simply asserting your ''opinion'' in order to argue your case. ID proponents claim that ID is testable and makes predictions, and the same applies for creationists. Creationists have not only made testable predictions, they made ones that have been shown to be correct.
:::::::::::Intelligent Design: Now we get down to it, don't we. Earlier you claim that the New England Medical Journal wouldn't be biased, and now you attempt to justify the bias of not publishing ID papers. So are you admitting that you knew all along that they wouldn't publish such papers? But to get to the point you are making, you are simply asserting your ''opinion'' in order to argue your case. ID proponents claim that ID is testable and makes predictions, and the same applies for creationists. Creationists have not only made testable predictions, they made ones that have been shown to be correct.
:::::::::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:08, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:08, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::::I don't trust those sources because I can't even read them! That's all there is to it. I still haven't had time to check the other references but chances are some of them will be available.
::::::::::::The New England Journal of Medicine is not biased when it comes to scientific evidence. I believe that the reason more ID papers are not published (there are some btw) is because for the most part, ID is not science.
::::::::::::You are absolutely correct about evolution; no one can be absolutely certain that it happened because we weren't there. I happen to think that most of the evidence supports it, but I can understand how other reasonable people could disagree. I don't know anything about wikipedia, but we should probably aim to be better than them, not stoop to their level.
::::::::::::The relevant point here is that reasonable people disagree about the evidence on the function of the appendix. Your point about how papers that prove a function are not contradicted by those that don't show one is not really the issue. Just because one paper provides evidence for something does not make it indisputable. [[User:GodWarrior|GodWarrior]] 01:35, 1 June 2007 (EDT)