Is Intelligent Design a Bad Scientific Theory or a Non-Scientific Theory?

Tech Central Station ^ | 11/10/2005 | Uriah Kriegel

[Baraonda]

Please put me on the Creationist ping list.

The other list, which shall not be mentioned, is too intollerant and extremely anti-Christian.

Thank you and...

Merry Christmas

[LogicWings]

Cop-out. Not unexpected.

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.

[r9etb]

No, I was demonstrating that if there is no evidence - the assertion cannot be refuted.

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?