Scientific and logical objections to evolution...

[Unhappy438]

PD claptrap... Captain porchie report.

Actually not , that would be a Scientific argument against ID.

 

[Techne]

Actually not , that would be a Scientific argument against ID.

No, that would be a philosophical argument since there is no empirical method to detect neither Intelligent Design NOR Stupid Design.

It's just another case where people confuse empirical science for philosophical arguments.

 

[DJ...]

No, that would be a philosophical argument since there is no empirical method to detect neither Intelligent Design NOR Stupid Design.

Some think there is scientific basis to it, in which case science can be used to debunk it. Not sure why everything HAS to have a philosophical spin to it with you...

 

[Techne]

Some think there is scientific basis to it, in which case science can be used to debunk it. Not sure why everything HAS to have a philosophical spin to it with you...

It's interesting, you two think one can empirically detect Stupid Design i.e., it's not philosophical claptrap. But on the other hand you two think Intelligent Design is not. What is more, you actually think that Stupid Design has been empirically verified on some level or think the arguments above are empirical. What is next, should we teach Stupid Design in science class?

Bad logic really. It belongs in PD.

 

[DrJohnZoidberg]

It's interesting, you two think one can empirically detect Stupid Design i.e., it's not philosophical claptrap. But on the other hand you two think Intelligent Design is not. What is more, you actually think that that Stupid Design has been empirically verified no some level. What is next, should we teach Stupid Design in science class?

Bad logic really. It belongs in PD.

Sorry, I'm lost. What are you referencing when you say "Stupid Design"?

 

[Techne]

Sorry, I'm lost. What are you referencing when you say "Stupid Design"?

Oh sorry, I was referring to bob's video above, here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJfqmZ0cuek&feature=BFa&list=WLEB3D4FB31DD25E68

For those foolish enough to still entertain the notion of design, my brother Neil Tyson lays it down.

 

[DJ...]

It's interesting, you two think one can empirically detect Stupid Design i.e /snip

FFS ID was being discussed. Stick to the topic or fsck off...

 

[Techne]

FFS ID was being discussed. Stick to the topic or fsck off...

Err, ID is PD claptrap. Careful, Captain porchie is going to report you for soiling the natural science section with PD-level stuff. And kindly watch bob's video, it references "Stupid Design" nogal...

 

[Unhappy438]

It's interesting, you two think one can empirically detect Stupid Design i.e., it's not philosophical claptrap. But on the other hand you two think Intelligent Design is not. What is more, you actually think that Stupid Design has been empirically verified on some level or think the arguments above are empirical. What is next, should we teach Stupid Design in science class?

Bad logic really. It belongs in PD.

The facts Neil Tyson presents are Scientific? Yes or no?

 

[Techne]

The facts Neil Tyson presents are Scientific? Yes or no?

No, "Stupid Design" is not a scientific fact. It's his philosophical point of view. Unless of course you or he or anyone else provide some kind of empirical test for "Stupid Design".

 

[DJ...]

Err, ID is PD claptrap.

While I agree, many others believe that there is scientific basis for it and this is the thread in which science can be used to address it. I know I am repeating myself here because you seem wholly fscking incapable of deciphering simple sentences. PD refutations of ID can still take place in PD. Nobody is denying you that derail luxury, for the time being...

 

[Techne]

While I agree, many others believe that there is scientific basis for it and this is the thread in which science can be used to address it. I know I am repeating myself here because you seem wholly fscking incapable of deciphering simple sentences. PD refutations of ID can still take place in PD. Nobody is denying you that derail luxury, for the time being...

I disagree, I see no need to drag talk about "Intelligent Design" or "Stupid Design" into natural sciences. I don't think this is controversial really.

Btw, I decipher your sentences just fine, no need to insult me.

 

[DJ...]

I disagree, i see no need to drag talk about "Intelligent Design" or "Stupid Design" into natural sciences. I don't think this is controversial really.

I don't either. Others do. The world does not revolve around your circadian rhythms...

 

[Unhappy438]

No, "Stupid Design" is not a scientific fact. It's his philosophical point of view. Unless of course you or he or anyone else provide some kind of empirical test for "Stupid Design".

Not sure why you keep focusing on the "stupid design" title you're probably reading into that too much. So i ask you again did he present scientific facts?

 

[Techne]

I don't either. Others do. The world does not revolve around your circadian rhythms...

The mods and porchie have spoken, not me or you. ID does not belong here. Get used to it. Move along.

 

[Techne]

Not sure why you keep focusing on the "stupid design" title you're probably reading into that too much. So i ask you again did he present scientific facts?

Because that is the reason why the clip doesn't belong in the Natural Sciences section. Tyson is abusing science to try and propagate the philosophical idea of "Stupid Design". On this point he is no better than the IDers.

 

[DJ...]

The mods and porchie have spoken, not me or you. ID does not belong here. Get used to it. Move along.

When science is used to address geological findings pertaining to any aspect of ID, it should go into the science thread. Not immediately dumped into PD because it has vague references to philosophical issues. Regardless, my issue is you trying your damndest to fsck up every thread you enter with the same bullschit, time and time again. There was no need to have this conversation, as usual...

 

[Techne]

When science is used to address geological findings pertaining to any aspect of ID, it should go into the science thread. Not immediately dumped into PD because it has vague references to philosophical issues. Regardless, my issue is you trying your damndest to fsck up every thread you enter with the same bullschit, time and time again. There was no need to have this conversation, as usual...

No need to get personal chap. Move along. Anything related to ID belong in PD. Get used to it.

 

[Unhappy438]

Because that is the reason why the clip doesn't belong in the Natural Sciences section. Tyson is abusing science to try and propagate the philosophical idea of "Stupid Design". On this point he is no better than the IDers.

Lol , i knew you were reading into it too much. Anyway i think the clip is fine you don't, lets just leave it at that and let the mods decide.

 

[DJ...]

No need to get personal chap. Move along. Anything related to ID belong in PD. Get used to it.

There is always a need to get personal with you. You are a relentless troll with a one-track mind and you have a tendency to cock up perfectly decent threads with your own version of clap-trappery...