Skip to comments.Is Intelligent Design a Bad Scientific Theory or a Non-Scientific Theory?
Posted on 11/10/2005 4:43:24 AM PST by Nicholas Conradin
click here to read article
An in stating that gravity "exists" has science thereby proven gravity to be anything less than supernatural?
You are Conflating proving "statements" false with proving there is no physical evidence for that which does not exist.
Hi, just curious why you pinged me twice on your BTTT on the ID/Evolution thread. Anything in particular that requires my attention? :-)
The double ping was a mistake. The BTTT was b/c I liked the way you stated the situation as it exists. FReegards
I am merely asking you to prove your statement. You've been blustering for a few weeks now.
Prove that I haven't.
Cop-out. Not unexpected.
ID is an excellent scientific theory. It is, in fact, the only true theory that will soon replace the pseudo theory of evolution.
Evolution is all speculation with zero speciation.
The other list, which shall not be mentioned, is too intollerant and extremely anti-Christian.
Thank you and...
No, I was demonstrating that if there is no evidence - the assertion cannot be refuted. This is why the Burden of Proof is upon the person who makes the statement, there must be some level of evidence to justify the assertion. (Unicorns exist, ID is science.)
Saying that natural process "cannot" have produced "irreducible complexity" Begs the Question that it cannot and asserts a premise for which there can be no evidence, Proving the Negative. You have to prove that a Negative can be Proved, not the other way around. The Burden of Proof is upon you.
I am not so naive as to think there is anything that I could write here that you would accept as "proof."
But then again, I don't have anything to prove.
By saying "there is no evidence," you have asserted a "negative" which, by your own claims, YOU CANNOT PROVE.
This is why the Burden of Proof is upon the person who makes the statement, there must be some level of evidence to justify the assertion.
And golly, you just made "the assertion." So the burden, sir, is on you.
(Unicorns exist, ID is science.)
This is called "changing the subject." You have made a specific assertion (which, btw, is demonstrably wrong). You've repeated it many times, and gotten downright insulting about it. But you've never proved your statement. So please: prove your stattement that "you can't prove a negative."
By my count this is at least ten times now that I've asked you to provide that simple little proof. Are you going to put up, or shut up?