Rick Reuben wrote:

Mark Hansen wrote:Rick, is that really the best you can do?

It's what I was asked to do: provide a quote by an atheist who says that an inability to see evidence of ID means there is no ID.

hansen wrote:theories regarding these things give an incomplete answer.

Well done. Glad I could be of help.

Believe me, I thought this long ago, with no help from you.

Rick Reuben wrote:I am declaring current science unqualified to rule on theories that attempt to explain the origins of life.

Pseudo means false. The limits of current science that I am describing are very real.

The argument you are describing is commonly used in pseudoscience.

Maybe you should refrain from commenting on matters of science. It's clearly not your forte.

One more thing:

Where has this argument gotten you? Well, it has gotten the rest of us to admit that the "intelligent design" hypothesis -- remember, the *hypothesis*, not the cabal of hucksters -- cannot be either proven or disproven by garnering any amount of scientific evidence.

Okay. Now, the burden is on the folks who still want to believe in God to tell us why the fact that God's existence can't be *disproven* gives their belief any more validity than any other belief that is totally groundless and which carries no evidence.

Okay, okay. Ricky's right. Current science can't explain the origin of life. It's got a pretty good idea but has failed to concoct any thus far. I'm not sure that's such a good rationale for embracing ID but his fevered liberal brain is burdened by the same evolutionary baggage as the rest of us and he has trouble grasping the notion of infinity and a vastness that reduces even his ego to the inconsequential. The universe is big, cold and scary and who can blame him for wanting the fuzzy security that ID offers? The man is scared, okay? He's scared.

Clearly things are not working out for Mr. Reuben in this life and he is angry, no bitter. To deny him that something better may exist, to close that door to a greater beyond is cruel. Let's let him keep it open a sliver.

I'm not sure what this power structure is that he prattles on about but I can only surmise that it is an excuse to inflate pointless ramblings to pointless significance and provide an outlet for his anal petulance and brattiness. Perhaps he has a small penis and/or trouble attracting an acceptable mate and derives self-worth from belittling others.

He is man of mystery. He offers no useful model for a better world and is content to merely mock. What kind of man is this Ricardo Reuben? I think this thread would be better served by indulging in what Ricardo Reuben has taught us, argumentum ad hominem. Let us put on our prettiest profiler hats and try to describe Ricardo, physically, occupationally, emotionally, mentally. Take into account what he's written so far and give it your best shot.

His parents got run over by a flouride truck, so he took a job in the federal reserve to pay the bills. Thus giving up his life long dream of becoming a man of the cloth.

He resembles Napoleon, only with a large conk which causes him romantic difficulties. He believes this unfortunate trait to be genetic.

Rick Reuben wrote:I am declaring current science unqualified to rule on theories that attempt to explain the origins of life.

No. Science (current, past, or present) is qualified to rule on theories that explain the origins of life, if those theories are scientific. If those theories make predictions that can be tested by observation, then the theory can be ruled on once the means to make those observations is available. Intelligent design, though, is unqualified to be called a scientific theory, because it provides no suggestion as to how it could be tested. The problem is not that we lack the means to test the claims made by ID - the problem is that, whatever means exist, ID cannot tell us what result we would expect to find if its claims were true. Of course science can't examine the evidence for ID when the ID'ers can't even tell us what would constitute evidence for ID.

Mark Van Deel wrote:

Rick Reuben wrote:I am declaring current science unqualified to rule on theories that attempt to explain the origins of life.

No. Science (current, past, or present) is qualified to rule on theories that explain the origins of life, if those theories are scientific. If those theories make predictions that can be tested by observation, then the theory can be ruled on once the means to make those observations is available. Intelligent design, though, is unqualified to be called a scientific theory, because it provides no suggestion as to how it could be tested. The problem is not that we lack the means to test the claims made by ID - the problem is that, whatever means exist, ID cannot tell us what result we would expect to find if its claims were true. Of course science can't examine the evidence for ID when the ID'ers can't even tell us what would constitute evidence for ID.

Since we all know the ID-ers' answer rhymes with "Todd," it essentially unveils ID as a blatantly religious movement (for the 2% who still don't have a clue), not a scientific one, and certainly not an "interdisciplinary" one, since science is pretty much out the window.

ID is pure religion, plain and simple. Should it be taught? Absolutely, in the humanities department alongside every other major world religion's creation myths.

FuzzBob wrote:we all know the ID-ers' answer rhymes with "Todd,"

And even that answer doesn't come close to making ID science. It's remarkable. Even if we could actually prove, 100% beyond a shadow of a doubt, that God exists, ID doesn't suggest how we could demonstrate that He designed life. God could appear to everyone on Earth at once, and tell us that yes, in fact he did design life, and ID 'theory' still couldn't tell us whether he was telling the truth or not. ID doesn't suggest how we could rule out life being a happy accident that God took credit for after that fact.

Rick Reuben wrote:

Mark Van Deel wrote: Science (current, past, or present) is qualified to rule on theories that explain the origins of life, if those theories are scientific. If those theories make predictions that can be tested by observation

Observation of what? Are you going to call the creator on the hot phone and request a ticket to observe his work?

Bob, if we could call God up and ask for a free demonstration of his remarkable skills, even that wouldn't necessarily show that he was our intelligent designer - he could just be copying from a chance process that he never intended to happen.

This is why ID is unscientific - It has nothing at all to do with the limitations of current science. For a theory to be scientific, two of the things that it has to do are i) Suggest that something is true (ID does this), ii) Suggest what we would see if it were true (ID does not do this). If it doesn't meet that second criteria, it is not science.

Rick Reuben wrote:Atheists are the ones mistakenly using current science toclaim that they have proven a negative, by claiming that, "If science can't see it, it isn't there."

For shame Rich Reuben, you a slipping.