From: rokimoto557@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/4/2025 10:58 AM, erik simpson wrote:   
   > On 11/4/25 8:44 AM, sticks wrote:   
   >> On 11/4/2025 9:36 AM, RonO wrote:   
   >>> I asked Google: "Is there any legitimate scientific support for the   
   >>> Discovery Institute's alleged intelligent design science?"   
   >>>   
   >>> The Google response was short and concise.   
   >>   
   >> I have been following this group and am beginning to get a better   
   >> handle on it.  Before I spend any time debating your point of view, I   
   >> would simply give you a link to another AI that is a little more   
   >> balanced, and less biased by "consensus", in its answer.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> I'm sure you'll love my sig   
   >>   
   > Personally, I wouldn't rely on Google as the ultimate arbitrator of   
   > anything.   
   >   
      
   Since Google started using their AI to answer questions I have found   
   their responses to be partially incorrect multiple times, but you can   
   check that by looking at the links that they also provide with their   
   response.  In this case, what they put up is pretty spot on.  Even the   
   ID perps have never demonstrated that they had produced any real ID   
   science.  The best that they have done is that people mention their   
   efforts in relation to things, that do not support their IDiotic claims.   
     Just imagine if Meyer really had the scientific evidence to support   
   that some designer diddle farted around with lifeforms within a 25   
   million year period over half a billion years ago.  YEC ID perps like   
   Nelson would have never joined the ID scam.  Behe and Minnich did their   
   best to prevaricate about there being any ID science, but it was just   
   prevarication.  Behe's testimony has even been proposed to be perjury   
   for his claim that ID was a scientific theory, but under cross   
   examination he had to admit that it was only a scientific by his   
   personal opinion.  He claimed that other scientists had the same notion   
   of science, but he could not name any such scientists (he could have   
   named the other ID perps but what good would that have done?).  His   
   initial lie was obviously meant to fool the court about the scientific   
   nature of the ID creationist scam.   
      
   Both Behe and Minnich admitted that there were no peer reviewed   
   scientific articles supporting the ID scam, and their work had been   
   listed as peer reviewed scientific literature supporting the ID scam by   
   the Discovery Institute.  So both of them understood that such a list   
   was lying about scientific support for ID.   
      
   Ron Okimoto   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)