From: rokimoto557@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/4/2025 11:02 AM, sticks wrote:   
   > On 11/4/2025 10:44 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.   
   >   
   >   
   > Sorry, forgot the link   
   >   
   >    
   >   
   >   
   >   
      
   No ID science on this link either.  Just claims that there might be   
   something.  Can you point to anything that the Google summary was wrong   
   about there being any ID science.  Can you confirm that any legitimate   
   ID science exists?  It is laughable that they claim support in the   
   scientific literature when you likely can't find a single peer reviewed   
   article in a legitimate scientific journal that presents any valid ID   
   science.  Even Meyer's retracted paper did not contain any ID science   
   just Cambrian explosion gap denial that even other ID perps can't stand.   
      
   Even the ID perps did not claim that their Top Six god-of-the-gaps   
   arguments were scientific evidence for the ID scam.  This web page is   
   just wrong about that.  The ID perps understand that the "Key Scientific   
   Arguments" listed on this web page are not scientific arguments.  The ID   
   perps only claimed that they are the best evidence for their nonsense.   
   The ID perp's Top Six were the Big Bang, fine tuning, the origin of   
   life, irreducible complexity, the Cambrian explosion, and gaps in the   
   human fossil record.   
      
   Dembski had retired from the ID scam as an abject failure before they   
   put out the Top Six and his complex specified information (CSI) or   
   specified complexity (SC, actually first proposed by Thaxton) was not   
   included in their Top Six evidences supporting the ID scam.  No such ID   
   science was ever really attempted let alone accomplished.  It never   
   amounted to anything but the claims that it might be something to   
   consider.  Dembski admitted that his proposed scientific test for his   
   junk was not a valid test for anything.  Dembski even resorted to   
   claiming that there was a new law of thermodynamics that would support   
   his nonsense, but he could never demonstrate that such a law existed.   
      
   This web page lists irreducible complexity, but Sewell (a fellow ID   
   perp) dropped irreducible complexity out of the top Six and like this   
   web page dropped the Cambrian explosion from the Top Six.  Neither one   
   supports Biblical creationism.  If any such ID science really existed it   
   would be more science for Biblical creationists to deny.  Sewell   
   understands that.  You likely should too.  Just think what it would mean   
   to have some non Biblical god designing IC systems among micro organisms   
   over a billion years ago, long before land plants existed, or that   
   diddled with multicellular life forms during a 25 million year period to   
   create all those sea creatures a couple hundred million years before   
   creating the land plants that were supposed to be the first lifeforms   
   created on earth.   
      
   Like this web page Miller (another fellow ID perp) dropped the Big Bang   
   out of the Top Six list because it is one of the subjects that IDiotic   
   creationists have wanted to remove from public school science standards   
   and does not support their Biblical creationist beliefs.   
      
   So your web page literally lies about having any scientific arguments,   
   and some of the best arguments would just be more science to deny by   
   Biblical creationists if any such valid ID science existed.  They don't   
   even list all the best god-of-the-gaps arguments that the ID perps claim   
   are most important to the ID creationist scam.  If any valid ID science   
   had existed YEC ID perps like Nelson would have never joined up to   
   support the creationist Wedge strategy.  For Nelson if any of the Top   
   Six had been valid ID science it would just have been more science to   
   deny.  Even the old earth creationists at Reason to Believe gave up on   
   the ID scam after the Top Six were put out in the order in which they   
   must have occurred in this universe.  That order is not Biblical and did   
   not fit in with their creation model.  These god-of-the-gaps arguments   
   were first used by the YEC scientific creationists, and were always   
   meant to be used as fire and forget creationist denial arguments.  They   
   were never meant to be developed into anything worth building a   
   scientific theory of intelligent design with.  Each is meant to be   
   forgotten before moving on to the next gap denial argument.  Sewell   
   tried to put the genie back in the bottle by removing the worst   
   offenders and putting the rest out of temporal order in order to keep   
   using them to fool the rubes.   
      
   Ron Okimoto   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)