The Big Picture on ID and this Forum


(Robert Byers) #25

I am YEC but know iD is the most important intellectual scientific revolution in origin subjects that has happened, well ever. thats why its famous and always but always topic of conversation and why forums like this exist.
it was the energy, intellect, success of iD that was a game changer. IT helps YEC too. We tag along on the wave.

biology is intuitive?! HMMM. i don’t agree. Its complicated. ,ath etc are not. they are simple in framework. If they work/fail its right away shown/proved.
In biology its difficult to figure it out. In origin biology its almost impossible to prove past and gone processes and results.
in fact I see origin biology as just about looking at the last results and guessing how it got there.
Thats why its so open to error. its a study in invisible things. Physics is almost invisible but not as much. They celebrate every discovery EVER in physics as a intellectual cut above.
Yet untrue.
Biology is the most complicated and its source the most brilliant. God or happanchance.
ID is doing fine in dismissing old time evolutionism.
ITS evolutionism that needs to hustle to make its dying case.
It doesn’t matter about numbers. Those in their ranks are just memorizers unrelated to revolutions.
The action really iS on these forums. In the future kids will do projects and use these forums in documentating either the demise of evolutionism/rejection of a creator in nature or the defeat of ID/YEC.
In our time.

.


(George) #26

@Nonlin.org,

Other than the Atheist participants here… can you name a single Christian Neo-Darwinism on this forum?

I don’t think you can.


(George) #27

@Robert_Byers

Yep… such a game-changer, they managed to create a Supreme Court decision contradicting the ID position.


(Bill Cole) #28

I think it needs to spread its wings beyond the discovery institute and possibly do what you are trying which is to move the argument into theology/philosophy discussions.


#29

Then show us all of those revolutionary peer reviewed papers containing original scientific research.


#30

I wholeheartedly agree with this. Inherent in the ID argument is that ID isn’t true unless it is scientific. By struggling so hard to make ID into a scientific theory it creates the appearance that philosophical and religious beliefs are not enough, that they are somehow inferior to scientific theories. This also creates the situation where Christians are led to believe that if evolution is true then God doesn’t exist.


(Robert Byers) #31

It is a game changing in intellectual investigation of origins.
a Supreme court decision contradicting iD is a absurdity of judicial legitimacy.
This is a ID/YEC world today where before it was a evolution/some religious opposition world.
The game has changed and this forums existence documents it.
sure it does.


(Dr. Patrick Trischitta) #32

What world do you live in? I live in an increasingly secular scientific world where Christianity is fading away generationally.


(Robert Byers) #33

ID/YEC is all scientific research. YES is ORGANIZED biblical creationism. iD is about seeing a creator fingerprints in nature and some opposition to evolutionism depending on the thinker.
Peer reviewed papers are not the foundation of modern evolutionism. In sum or part.
Such things are always about very specific points. ID/YEC deals with great concepts, and great evidences dealing with same.
Indeed the famous discussions are the peer review. perr reiew is a old school idea of a few people checking a few people in a world of a few people.
These subjects are reviewed intellectually by a great perrage and great common.
Come folks. ID/YEC is the talk of the town and evolutionism is uniquely a subject under great opposition in science. Even politicians must , often, answer for it.
In Canada university textbooks address with great passion. To dismiss, aye, but no other subjects are likewise treated as such.
This is a revolution in process. A American one or a Russian one. Right or wrong but the origin world is changing. Surely evolutionists here are here because of a important threat worthy to spend their time on.
It was not this way before the 1990’s or so.


(Dr. Patrick Trischitta) #34

This is a rather dubious claim. ID/YEC is pseudoscience to me.


(Robert Byers) #35

Its not about Christianity. i don’t know what a scientific world is but surely unrelated to origin subjects.
Evangelical Christianity is as strong or stronger then ever in North America. The other, false, Christian faiths are the ones losing interest. AS predicted and even desired. Off the record.
anyways for those interested in origin issues there is growing support for opposition to evolution and for a creator behind the glory of creation.


(George) #36

@Robert_Byers

You need to get out more…

Unlike most countries in the world… we have hundreds of denominations… each with their own special belief.

There is no practical way to let any religious position into the public schools… without causing total mayhem with hundreds of denominations who feel slighted!


(Dr. Patrick Trischitta) #37

A scientific world is one in which data and information is the universal commodity that moves between people.
I suppose you can live in the modern world without a computer, smart phone and internet connectivity? Your view of the world is not based on what is happening in the real world around you.


(S. Joshua Swamidass) #38

5 posts were split to a new topic: Atheism and the Arc of Justice


Atheism and the Arc of Justice
(S. Joshua Swamidass) #39

Someone need to explain Ka/Ks ratios someday soon.


#40

Then present the peer reviewed papers so we can discuss them. The rule in science is that if it isn’t published in a peer reviewed journal then it doesn’t exist.

Hate to break it to you, but the foundation of the modern theory of evolution is the research published in peer reviewed papers. Textbooks are simply a distillation of what is found in the peer reviewed papers.


#41

@glipsnort would be the best candidate, but I know that the time he can commit to this forum is very limited. I may start looking for some good references to work from.


(S. Joshua Swamidass) #43

(Robert Byers) #44

No one makes rules in science. if a concept is presented scientifically it doesn’t need anyone else to recommend it. If you were right it would remove all the millions of people who think, study, argue, dream about subjects in science. it would revoke all science shows EVER on tv.
As i see modern evolutionism its mostly argued outside tiny, tiny, circles of peer review.
Sure seems that way and i pay attention.


#45

Hate to break it to you, but people do make rules in science. The scientists are the ones who make the rules. The rule in science is that your research has to pass through peer review before it is considered.

Science shows on TV are for entertainment. Scientists don’t debate science through TV shows.

Also, thinking and dreaming about science is not science. Science is something you do. Science is an activity. Science is using the scientific method to test hypotheses through experiments, not sitting around and thinking about stuff. Science isn’t talking about sciency stuff on TV.

I would agree that the only people arguing against evolution are those outside of the scientific community.