From: rokimoto557@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/5/2025 5:01 PM, sticks wrote:   
   > On 11/4/2025 1:51 PM, RonO wrote:   
   >  > 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.   
   >   
   > I'm probably not going to get into a debate about what is considered   
   > "science" with you when you won't recognize any of it anyway.  The big   
   > difference between the Google and Grok response is that Google goes by   
   > the consensus opinion that anything ID related is pseudoscience.  Grok   
   > doesn't do that.  For example, you would not consider any analysis of   
   > work done by the EV people from an ID proponent valid, simply because it   
   > requires the supernatural.  Yet, that is one of the big things happening   
   > in ID right now, and it gets worse with the more revelations science and   
   > research has done.  You would call this God of the Gaps, I suppose.  Of   
   > course, your religion, Darwin of the Gaps, does the exact same thing.   
   > Where the ID scientist might say here's why we believe this is   
   > impossible, the EV scientist would say we just have to keep looking.   
      
   Grok accepts the lies.  They have been known to be lies for decades.  If   
   they were not lies ID would already be legally taught in the public   
   schools.  The ID perps routinely note (since the ID scam was linked to   
   scientific creationism by the Of Pandas and People fiasco) that even if   
   ID is creationism that the Supreme court ruled that if any legitimate   
   creation science was ever produced that it could be taught in the public   
   schools.  They run the bait and switch, but keep claiming that they have   
   some real ID science.  You can look it up, and the Top Six   
   god-of-the-gaps IDiotic denial arguments were all used by the scientific   
   creationist, and were ruled to be no scientific support for creationism.   
     Instead the ID perps decided to run a stupid bait and switch scam on   
   their own creationist support base.  Zero IDiotic creationists have ever   
   gotten any ID science from the ID perps because no such science exists.   
      
   I'm a Christian and creationist, but I know the difference between a   
   stupid bait and switch scam and real science, and like Saint Augustine I   
   gave up on using the Bible as a science textbook before I was baptized   
   (our Methodist Church was averse to baptizing children, and I was   
   baptized as an adult)  It is the IDiotic creationists that lack the   
   faith to support their religious convictions.  The scam claim by the ID   
   perps is that they could do the same science as everyone else to support   
   their Biblical views.  That turned out to not be true.  Most of the   
   IDiots left posting on TO quit the ID scam after the Top Six best   
   evidences for ID were put out in the order in which they must have   
   occurred in this Universe.  It turned out that none of them had wanted   
   the ID perps to ever succeed in producing any valid ID science because   
   it does not support their Biblical beliefs.  The Reason to Believe old   
   earth creationists used to claim to support the ID scam.  They just   
   claimed that they never had wanted to teach the junk in the public   
   schools, but that they were using it to support their Biblical creation   
   model.  The Top Six do not support that creation model, and the Reason   
   To Believe creationist no longer claim to be IDiotic creationists.   
      
   If the ID science actually existed most Biblical creationist would not   
   support the ID scam because it would just be more science for them to   
   deny.  It turned out that IDiotic creationists supported the ID scam   
   because they wanted to be lied to about reality.   
      
   >   
   > We differ in that we encourage your/all research, while you mock it. For   
   > me personally, the question is why?  While you call anything an ID   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)