When are the IDiots going to get the ID science?

[RonO]

We have Jonathan dithering about stasis when over 99% of the species
that have ever existed are extinct, and he doesn't have an alternative
as to why his IDer would like stasis when it isn't what the IDer
normally does.

We have Eddie claiming that the ID science exists, but he can't tell us
what it is. He claims that the science is in some video, but why would
the science be there? Behe has had 20 years to publish the wonderful IC
science, and he does know how to publish real science papers, so why
hasn't he done it? Why can't we go and see what Behe means by science
laid out in the accepted format where it can be evaluated and replicated?

Bill has claimed that there are some real ID scientists that aren't the
ID perps, but he never puts any forward or what ID science they may have
done.

Dean claims that systems like the HOX system are designed, but no one
could support his contention with anything except their say so. No one
could apply CSI or IC to the HOX system to tell us anything about if it
was designed or not. So what good are the IDiot claims?

As pathetic as it may seem, the ID science never existed. Philip
Johnson admitted that after Dover and he hasn't been back to support the
ID scam since. This is the guy that the other ID perps called the
godfather of the ID scam for his efforts to get the ID scam rolling.

http://berkeleysciencereview.com/read/spring-2006/

The article starts on page 31.

QUOTE:
I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design
at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the
Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully
worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s
comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific
people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are
quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove…No
product is ready for competition in the educational world.
END QUOTE:

QUOTE:
For his part, Johnson agrees: “I think the fat lady has sung for any
efforts to change the approach in the public schools…the courts are
just not going to allow it. They never have. The efforts to change
things in the public schools generate more powerful opposition than
accomplish anything…I don’t think that means the end of the issue at
all.” “In some respects,” he later goes on, “I’m almost relieved, and
glad. I think the issue is properly settled. It’s clear to me now that
the public schools are not going to change their line in my lifetime.
That isn’t to me where the action really is and ought to be.”
END QUOTE:

Philip Johnson was a major player and advocate of the creationist ID
scam. He retired from the scam one month after the bait and switch went
down on Ohio in 2002. He was one of the boobs that expected the ID
science to be taught in Ohio, but like Santorum he had the bait and
switch run on him. He came out of retirement to support the Dover
fiasco, and then he gave up for good.

If the ID science didn't show up in Dover, why would any IDiot expect it
to exist? Really, if ID had been determined to be science nothing would
have kept it out of the classroom. We don't exclude globes from the
classroom just because there are some flat earth creationist that might
object and most creationists believe that the earth is not flat. All
the planetary mobiles hanging from classroom ceilings would not be taken
down just because they support heliocentric and not geocentric
creationism. That is why the IDiots requested that the judge rule on
whether ID was science or not. If the ID science really had existed, we
would already be teaching it in the public schools.

So instead of stupid juvenile behavior, why is it not an option to put
up the ID science and demonstrate that it is science? No ID science
showed up at Dover, so you will have to do better than that, or explain
why IDiocy is science when no science appeared to save the IDiots, and
IDiots like Philip Johnson, Mike Gene, and Evoguide understood that the
science was never there.

Ron Okimoto

[Dale]

RonO wrote:

> when over 99%

wouldn't over 99% require one to know 100%?

--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org

[jillery]

On Sat, 28 Nov 2015 16:28:32 -0500, Dale <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote:

>RonO wrote:
>
>> when over 99%
>
>wouldn't over 99% require one to know 100%?

Why, don't you like fractions?
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[RonO]

On 11/28/2015 3:28 PM, Dale wrote:
> RonO wrote:
>
>> when over 99%
>
> wouldn't over 99% require one to know 100%?
>

Dale, when all life on earth becomes extinct it will be 100%.

The ID science likely will not arrive before that happens. The ID perps
are likely praying for the heat death of the universe just so they have
some expectation as to when they will have to stop lying about the issue.

Ron Okimoto

[Dale]

RonO wrote:

> On 11/28/2015 3:28 PM, Dale wrote:
>> RonO wrote:
>>
>>> when over 99%
>>
>> wouldn't over 99% require one to know 100%?
>>
>
> Dale, when all life on earth becomes extinct it will be 100%.
>

yeah, got that backwards

> The ID science likely will not arrive before that happens. The ID
perps
> are likely praying for the heat death of the universe just so they
have
> some expectation as to when they will have to stop lying about the
issue.
>
> Ron Okimoto

never really studied ID except for irreducible complexity, always
thought it was a possibility, the problem I see now is proving a
prediction of coincidence, or why the environment prevails

--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org

[RonO]

On 11/29/2015 11:26 AM, Dale wrote:
> RonO wrote:
>
>> On 11/28/2015 3:28 PM, Dale wrote:
>>> RonO wrote:
>>>
>>>> when over 99%
>>>
>>> wouldn't over 99% require one to know 100%?
>>>
>>
>> Dale, when all life on earth becomes extinct it will be 100%.
>>
>
> yeah, got that backwards

The estimate is based on over 3 billion years of life on earth. Just
think about things like the Permian extinction. What happened to the
entire eco sytem of North America after the last Ice Age when our
current warming trend happened. Do you see any mastodons or mammoths?
That is just within the last 10,000 years. Nearly all the species that
have ever existed are extinct.

>
>> The ID science likely will not arrive before that happens. The ID
> perps
>> are likely praying for the heat death of the universe just so they
> have
>> some expectation as to when they will have to stop lying about the
> issue.
>>
>> Ron Okimoto
>
> never really studied ID except for irreducible complexity, always
> thought it was a possibility, the problem I see now is proving a
> prediction of coincidence, or why the environment prevails
>

The take home message from the creationist ID scam is that their way of
trying to figure out an alternative is bogus and basically dishonest.
You seem to be all over the map trying to get some clue about this
issue, but you never seem to want to try the proven method.

Figure out what you know and work from there. Trying to make junk up
about what you don't know is futile in this case. There has been a 100%
failure rate for God did it claims that we have been able to test so
that method is literally stupid. 100% failure rate is just that, 100%.

If you can't get the answers that you want the way that works, maybe you
should just live with that until reality changes. What do you think
that all the clergy that signed the clergy letter against the ID scam
do? It isn't called faith for no good reason.

Ron Okimoto

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 28 Nov 2015 16:28:32 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Dale <da...@dalekelly.org>:

>RonO wrote:
>
>> when over 99%
>
>wouldn't over 99% require one to know 100%?

No.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Dale]

RonO wrote:

> It isn't called faith for no good reason.
>

I'm agnostic now, I have come to the realization that my criticism of
secular views must be applied to theology as well

I no longer have theological faith, just hopes and wishes like the
golden rule

if my hopes and wishes turn into rants, feel free to remind me

on the secular side, I lean toward being skeptical of cosmological
positions and other large deductive leaps

otherwise back to science after 10-15 years of rants

--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org

[Earle Jones27]

*
Dale:

Good for you!

Back to science is never a bad move.

Remember David Hume:

"A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence."

--David Hume (1711-1776)

Keep it up.

earle
*