Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 24:
Line 24: + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Intelligent design (view source)
Revision as of 17:59, December 3, 2011
, 17:59, December 3, 2011Laughably obvious strawman fallacy opens up this section - nice try, liberals
Further, it argues from the inane position that ID needs to be refuted, not proven, and that irreducible complexity is in some way this test that totally verifies ID. Irreducible complexity is not definitive proof of ID (nor is it right, numerous tests have proven it to be untrue), the same way vestigial organs, DNA records, and a gigantic fossil record that supports our understanding of evolution, etc. etc. are not definitive proof of evolution.
Further, it argues from the inane position that ID needs to be refuted, not proven, and that irreducible complexity is in some way this test that totally verifies ID. Irreducible complexity is not definitive proof of ID (nor is it right, numerous tests have proven it to be untrue), the same way vestigial organs, DNA records, and a gigantic fossil record that supports our understanding of evolution, etc. etc. are not definitive proof of evolution.
:Did you read the book? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:24, 5 August 2011 (EDT)
:Did you read the book? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:24, 5 August 2011 (EDT)
::The remarks of Celigans above provide delicious food for thought, if one is interested in understanding the sorts of arguments which atheists and materialists typically use against ID - all erroneous, of course. But they as they are not supplied here with the intention of making our ID article more trustworthy, they are out of place.
::*They can make them on a debate page, if they want to fight it out in the open (see [[Conservapedia:Debate Topics]])
::*We could analyze these erroneous remarks and present them in a section on typical hostile responses to ID.
::If we analyze typical arguments offered by ID opponents, we find several logical fallacies, included the old favorite "first refuge of scoundrels": the [[strawman attack]], i.e., putting words in your opponent's mouth.
::* The writer pretends that ID has argued ''that since there is no evidence against intelligent design, it must be true.''
::*:Of course he gives no reference for this, because no one has said this but ID '''opponents''' (and only as a debate tactic)
::I could go on, but I won't unless someone shows some interest. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 12:59, 3 December 2011 (EST)
== SETI ==
== SETI ==