Scientific and logical objections to evolution...

Unhappy438 said:
Actually not , that would be a Scientific argument against ID.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
Techne said:
No, that would be a philosophical argument since there is no empirical method to detect neither Intelligent Design NOR Stupid Design.
Click to expand...

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...
 
DJ... said:
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...
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
Techne said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I'm lost. What are you referencing when you say "Stupid Design"?
 
DJ... said:
FFS ID was being discussed. Stick to the topic or fsck off...
Click to expand...
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...
 
Techne said:
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.
Click to expand...

The facts Neil Tyson presents are Scientific? Yes or no?
 
Unhappy438 said:
The facts Neil Tyson presents are Scientific? Yes or no?
Click to expand...
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".
 
Techne said:
Err, ID is PD claptrap.
Click to expand...

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...
 
DJ... said:
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...
Click to expand...
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.
 
Techne said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't either. Others do. The world does not revolve around your circadian rhythms...
 
Techne said:
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".
Click to expand...

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?
 
DJ... said:
I don't either. Others do. The world does not revolve around your circadian rhythms...
Click to expand...
The mods and porchie have spoken, not me or you. ID does not belong here. Get used to it. Move along.
 
Unhappy438 said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Techne said:
The mods and porchie have spoken, not me or you. ID does not belong here. Get used to it. Move along.
Click to expand...

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...
 
DJ... said:
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...
Click to expand...
No need to get personal chap. Move along. Anything related to ID belong in PD. Get used to it.
 
Techne said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Techne said:
No need to get personal chap. Move along. Anything related to ID belong in PD. Get used to it.
Click to expand...

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...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X