The Death Knell for ID?

So...nothing new from intelligent design then.
Just some vague claims without any evidence to support them.
/golfclapYou spend so long trying to prove real science wrong that you forget that you are meant to be doing your own science.
Where is all this research that ID should have produced? What are the predictions?
To put it bluntly: what is the point in your ID science? It produces NOTHING (except maybe a warm fuzzy feeling as you lie to yourself that there is evidence of your christian god).Oh, and welcome to the forum. {abe} This is probably off-topic, so just consider them to be rhetorical questions.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Obviously you know nothing about US jurisprudence. The ignorance of this statement is astounding. Also obviously it meant alot. If you want to argue it meant nothing we can make this a third point and you could provide some sort of evidence, but you seem to just have assertions.Oh yeah
Welcome

I have promoted IDScience's thread proposal: Best Evidence Macro-Evolution. Please take discussion of macro evolution to that thread.This thread is about a claim that some recent research represents the "death knell for ID." See Message 1 for details. My view of the current consensus in this thread is that the research neither supports nor contradicts ID.

When speaking about Intelligent Design "bitter" is certainly not a word that comes to mind; pity maybe or disdain or contempt or derision might be appropriate.Frankly it's hard to imagine a Death Knell for something that was still born and is nothing but another dishonest attempt by the CCoI to market Creationism in a new package.If and when Intelligent Design ever actually presented evidence of the Designer or the model/method used by that asserted Designer used to influence evolution then and only then could Intelligent Designer be considered something more than a pitiful little attempt to once again try to con the public.

What is it with you guys and your speling. That is hilarious.Miss statement on Sternberg. Smythsonian tried to force him out not standing guard and censoring Meyers paper. Apauling behaviour for so called scientists.
http://www.richardsternberg.com/smithsonian.php?page=summary
http://www.scribd.com/...Discredited-Souder-Sternberg-ReportDarwin's finches:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/6/l_016_01.htmlNow, I am not going to write a book for you. I am sure you are aware of the issues I am talking about. If not, do a little more of your "research" and get back to me.

Thanks, I will follow up on any more at that link. Cheers, Edited by idscience, : No reason given.

We do not debate links here. Either put it in your own words or move along. Anyone can post links. If you cannot show an understanding of the subject matter move along.
EvC Forum: RulesLook at #5

Well, maybe you can persuade them to appeal. We could use the entertainment.It's not merely the trial outcome. The testimony from ID advocates on their view of science was devastating for the ID movement.And welcome to evcforum. You could always open an introduction topic in the Coffee House.

Evolution is a scientific endeavor, and could only be killed by scientists; ID was a political maneuver, and since its whole purpose was to provide a cover for creationism sufficiently opaque that it could be smuggled past a judge, the fact that it failed in this purpose does seem to kinda wrap it up for ID.And may I wish you guys the very best of luck with your next attempt to rebrand the same ol' crap.

"Speling"? Are you doing this deliberately?As to what it is with "us guys", I guess we just like being right about things. That's why we do it so often.You should try it yourself. I don't mean, heaven forbid, that you should be right about important things, such as biology. But if you managed to acquire a superficial veneer of competence, even intelligence, then it might take people longer to figure out that you are fundamentally a bleedin' idiot. If you're not prepared to back up any of your own nonsense, that's fine by me.

What we are aware of are the constant mischaracterizations of the whole Sternberg Affair on the part of creationists. Were you aware that Sternberg resigned as editor at the journal before anyone was aware that Meyer's paper had been published? Were you aware that Sternberg was not a paid employee at the Smithsonian, and that the entire department had to change offices, not just Sternberg? You are looking for a witch hunt that never happened. All you are demonstrating is how pathetic ID really is in that they have to falsely play the Persecution Card. Outside of whining, they have nothing else to talk about.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

I have been annoyed by this problem for a long time,so thank you for your post, it is really useful for me.
__________________________________
share love,share happy,share useful information about a girl who loves spam.Edited by AdminPhat, : No reason given.