Argument for the Argument of ID

[ib1yysguy]

Well, Assclown posts almost daily to convince us all he is "moral" and has his own non-spiritual based definition of morality to back that up. Other Atheists have done the same thing over the years, it's not new, I am sure you have noticed this.

The point is, even to an Atheist, there is a fundamental need to be seen as "moral", which in of itself, denotes some level of obligation to something other than self.

That "something other than self" is society.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

"Uhmm.. look around you... Many people do indeed organize their entire lives around worship, sacrifice and tribute to a higher power or God. Religion is very much interwoven with government and everything else about societal organization. This is the world we now live in, what is it like on your planet?"

Most people go to church once a week. You don't understand history if you don't know what religion used to mean to people & civilizations that existed previously.

Actually, there are probably LESS people attending regular church services than before, but that is not how you define human spirituality. I am fully aware of history, and I am also full aware that mankind has always had a profound connection to spiritual belief. You have not refuted this point.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

That "something other than self" is society.

Well, whatever you want to call it. The point is, it is just as fundamentally important for an Atheist to be perceived as "moral" as it is for any other human.

WHY?????? That is the fundamental question! WHY is this the case? Not just why are Atheists this way, but why are ALL humans this way? What causes the human being to be concerned with their "morality" or aware of moral social codes, and why are these fundamentally important to man? Why is mankind fearful of death or the unknown, what difference does it make, and why aren't other living organisms consumed with the same fear and concerns?

When you start to answer these questions, you will understand, it is not an easy thing to explain and remain in confirmation of Darwin's theories, because the attributes, if meaningless, would have 'evolved' out of mankind a long time ago, so there is a fundamental importance to why, of this we can be certain.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

OH I don't see why I do this. It's like beating your head up against the wall going over the same inane comments and arguments from ignorance.

Practical value? Since when did this become the criteria for determining a theory valid? Why must it be "of practical use" to you? And what makes you think you are superior in intelligence enough to understand or comprehend a practical value at this time? The suggestion that we all evolved from a single organism following a big bang, is of no practical value to me, I can't use this theory in any practical sense. There are no experiments I can run, or tests I can do to prove or disprove it. We simply have a theory of something, it need not have "practical use" to us, in order to be a scientific theory.

A theory must have practical value in that it must model a natural phenomena from which scientifically useful predictions can be made. That has always been a criteria for science.

I have a very clear understanding of science, and I am well aware it doesn't "prove" things. This is why I have a difficult time accepting the altruism of evolution to explain origin of all life. It seems some people "believe" in ET, not as a theory, but as a true and proven fact. This is incorrect, and there is no evidence to support that belief. It amounts to having the same faith you have in "theist evolution".

altruism of evolution? What the fuck are you talking about? Get it in your thick Alabama head. Evolution is in no way shape or form a theory on the origins of life. That is an argument from ignorance.

Science can't prove things, so why am I suddenly burdened with supplying "proof" to confirm my theory? Where is your proof that cross-species evolution has ever occurred? Where is your proof that ET explains origin of life? Seems to me, there isn't any, and when questioned about it, you maintain that Science doesn't "prove" things.

You are playing with words. Science does not provide absolute proofs. It provides proofs with a high degree of probability of being correct. Since ID provides no evidence, it has an extremely low probability of being correct, as science.

Intelligence doesn't necessarily mean Supernatural. Perhaps our ability to understand the nature of the intelligence is not currently available or attainable by mankind, at this particular juncture? Maybe it is something that is simply beyond our capability to understand, like black holes and anti-matter.

No shit clueless, but how the hell are we supposed to know who or what this intelligence is if you won't show it to us? This is just another argument from ignorance. Just because we don't understand does not automatically provide it with scientific credibility. That's a laughable notion.

But again, you don't have definitive proof, just a theory or "speculation" as to why there was a Cambrian explosion. In order for ET to explain origin of all life on the planet, there simply has to be some resolution of the vast number of various species of life which have evolved... 95% of them, no longer inhabiting the planet. You can't really say ET explains origin, without showing some evidence to explain the billions of life forms through some form of cross-species evolution. Granted, some people just accept that ET explains this, and believe it as a fact along with ET. But it hasn't been demonstrated or supported by any evidence.

Again your showing your ignorance of science as you clearly don't understand what a theory is. It is not a "speculation" and you keep going back to origins. How many times do I have to tell you that Evolution does not model the origins of life? You're clearly ignorant of evolutionary theory. You also keep getting away from our point. We're not talking about evolutionary theory were talking about Intelligent Design and your obligation to demonstrate that, as a theory, it meets the tenets of the scientific method. You've provided exactly didly squat and have failed in your obligation.

I'll also ask you again, How does ID model the Cambrian explosion? (Forget about Evolutionary Theory as were not discussing that, were discussing ID!)

Oh that's right. I know, The Intelligent Designer designed it that way (Science Stopper Alert!).

Again, you approach science and theory as a means to "explain" (i.e.; prove) something. It doesn't matter how ID would explain the Cambrian explosion, it doesn't have to explain it in order to be valid as a theory of origin. Besides, you just offered an explanation for the Cambrian explosion, how would ID negate you theory? Remember, ID is not a contradictory or opposing view to ET, both (or neither) theory is also possible. The intelligence that designed life, also designed evolution, as a process to adapt the formed life to its environment.

You got to be kidding me? Now you're redefining science. Who cares how ID negates Evolutionary Theory? How the hell does it model the Cambrian explosion is what science is concerned about? If you can do that adequately then you don't have to concern your self with Evolutionary Theory. Fact is, you can't.

Correct, so how does ET predict or theorize "origin of life?" It doesn't. In fact, in only offers a theory about how life changes over time to adapt to the surroundings, environment, or conditions. To me, this is just another testament to, and example of, the amazing intelligence which designed life.

Well on a philosophical level I agree with you. But what the hell does that have to do with science?

ET does not explain speciation. There is no evidence of cross-species evolution, it has never been observed or discovered. Outside of the same biological family, man can't replicate any type of cross-species reproduction. Now, it is obvious we have millions of life forms, and dozens of unique groups of life, but no answer as to how and why these various forms of life originated. We can argue a theory as to why some of these life forms changed and adapted, but we can't explain how so many vibrant life groups came to be. No evidence of cross-speciation, palnts do not turn into cold-blooded animals, and cold-blooded animals don't turn into warm-blooded animals, etc. There is no aspect of ET that explains this, or even attempts to explain it. Again, I think it is an amazing testament to ID, that we have many various types of life that are not interchangeable or related, yet they have adapted and changed with time.

How many times do I have to tell you that this is not a prediction of evolutionary theory. Your "Dog-Cat" argument is an argument from ignorance. There is no such phenomena as "cross-species" evolution. In fact, the term in an oxymoron. This is just another argment from ignorance. How many times do I have to make this point?

Nothing about ID stops science. It is just a theory. It is no different than ET stopping science by definitively answering the questions of origin.

That is neither objective or honest. Everything about ID stops science. I've demonstrated that time and time again with my science stopper alerts.

Right, and short of being able to explain why there are dozens of types of life, and none are interchangeable with each other, you can't really hold ET up as evidence for origin of life. ET only predicts how life may have evolved, within the confines of its own category of life. Again, evidence of intelligence in design.

How many times do I have to repeat that Evolutionary theory does not model the origins of life. You are being willfully obtuse!

No, you can listen to the arguments and read the posts by the believers of ET, they firmly believe ET dispels ID and explains origin of life. This is the crux of my argument, we don't know how or why life originated. My theory points to intelligence, because repeating patterns, non-random laws of physical principles, and elements of organization and design are found in life. These attributes would seem to denote intelligence as opposed to randomness. In order for randomness to be responsible, it would have to be the equivalent to rolling the same number on the dice millions of times in a row, and that is all but virtually impossible.



Oh, but I do understand scientific method and principles. Which is precisely why I chose to debate the argument for the argument here. Science is not supposed to draw conclusions of fact, it makes predictions and theorizes, but for some reason, when it comes to ET, some people accept science as a proven fact, and being that ET is viewed as "proven fact" and not the theory it is, this automatically dispels any alternative theories or views, like ID. It is precisely my understanding of science and the scientific method, which enables me to examine the possibility of ID seriously, without simply dismissing it in favor of a false belief in ET as an explanation for origin.




FOURTH TIME.... THEN HOW CAN IT POSSIBLY EXPLAIN OR EVEN ADDRESS THE ORIGINS OF LIFE ON THIS PLANET?



Well, if we had evidence of cross-species evolutions, it may explain the vast array of life forms inhabiting our planet. It would go a long way in explaining how we may have all evolved from a single cell organism, following the Big Bang. Clearly, we do exist. Clearly, there are dozens of various forms of life that do exist. ET is a theory for how these various forms may have mutated and changed to adapt to their environment, but this is not an adequate explanation for origin of all life, never has been, and never will be. Therefore, it can't refute or negate theories which do attempt to explain origin, like ID.

It's like yelling down a well and hearing your own echo "Evolution does not model the origins of life" and "Evolution makes no such prediction of an oxymoron like cross species evolution". I keep saying it over and over and over and keep getting the same tired old rhetoric which our poor readers must plow through while the whole time you have not provided one shred of evidence to support ID. Not one.

Then maybe, you are beginning to understand my point. We don't have all the answers, we don't have all the information to make conclusions. Short of having these answers and information, we are left with theories and ideas. To simply dismiss ID because you see no practical value, is analogous to the example I gave earlier about the cavemen discovering a computer. The fact that they would find no "practical use" for such a device, the fact that they wouldn't be capable of understanding such a device, or use the device to advance themselves in any real way, does not negate the possibility of such a device, it simply means they don't yet understand or comprehend its potential.

Oh Dixie, you're obtuseness is frustrating and is a waste of my time. I'm only responding here with no intent to convince you of anything but rather to demonstrate to the readers what the standards of science are and pointing out how you avoid them. Next your going to say something scientifically illiterate like "It's just a theory and not a fact" and I'm going to groan. A Theory must have practical value (not practical use) in that it must explain or model adequately some form of "natural" phenomena. If it cannot do that it has no practical use as science and that very much is a standard of science.

Since when does being published in some pinhead Science rag equate to validity or evidence of support for a theory? What you are essentially telling me is, science means absolutely nothing, all that matters is a bunch of pinhead scientists concur on something, that is all we need to verify or confirm theory into fact. That is utter and stupid bullshit.

Again, more testament to your lack of understanding of science. Being published proves nothing it only communicates to the scientific community what you have learned in your research. Unless you publish, other scientist cannot independently verify and duplicate your research. Peer reviewed publication does mean that your research has been independently verified and this has long been a tenet of science.

Again, having practical predictive use to you, is not a criteria needed to render a theory valid. Do you know everything there is to know? Do you understand and comprehend everything in our universe and how/why it works? If not, how can you determine there is no practical use? You are the caveman forming an opinion about this strange and mysterious machine you've found with lots of buttons. It holds amazing powers that you simply aren't capable of understanding, and probably never will be. That doesn't make it useless, that doesn't mean it should be destroyed or dismissed.

More arguments from ignorance. There not science Dixie.

ID doesn't attempt to predict how living systems function. You keep wanting ID to replace ET and that is not the intent of ID. How does ANY theory help you further understanding of something, unless you assume the theory is a fact?

What? Then what fucking use is ID to me as a biologist? Assuming theory is a fact? GROOOOAAAAANNN!!!! Oh God I knew that was coming? You've just proved beyond a doubt that you are scientifically illiterate. That statement proves you don't know what a theory is.

ET does not explain anything, it is a theory, not a fact. Using the theory, you can suggest how certain species of life may have emerged and others died out. That is about the only useful purpose in the theory. It doesn't explain or address origin of life, however, many "believers" of ET are almost fanatical zealots about how it "proves" origin of life, in refutation of ID.

What a waste of time on my part. I'm arguing with a neophyte who does not understand even the most basic aspects of science, like what a scientific theory is. How can I answer your comments other than to say "You don't know what a scientific theory is."

Not here to debate the practical applications of ET, or to argue against ET.
Also not here to debate "practical application" we may not yet be capable of understanding or comprehending, it has no effect on validity of theory.

That is correct, were here to debate ID's validity as a scientific theory. So far you've provided no evidence or facts or even a semblence of understanding the scientific method. You've not advanced ID's cause one iota.

In most cases, this is the fundamental reason ID is refuted. Anti-religious zealots will hear "ID" and automatically equate it with "God" and that immediately means it has to be combated and quashed. I maintain, "Intelligence" simply means intelligence, no "god" required there, no "religious beliefs" involved, just the simple concept of intelligence in the design of life as we know it, and indeed, the universe we understand. I make no assumptions as to the source of this intelligence, that is a different debate. I merely see the evidence to suggest intelligence in the design of life and our universe, and I think it is a valid and legitimate theory, regardless of religious viewpoints.

Dixie, I defy you to seperate ID from it's Creationist antithesis. But putting that aside. WHAT Evidence for ID? You've shown none. Please enlighten us. What evidence to you have that not even the Discovery Institute has been able to publish?

Audience? HAHAHAHAH.... Who? Waterhead, Assclown, and Wiseguy? My comments are logical, you can't discredit ID as science without discrediting Laws of Physics, Laws of random odds, and your own theories on evolution as well. They all indicate and suggest intelligence in design and predictability as opposed to randomness.

You're arguments are unclear, illogical, lack evidence, are contradictory, are based almost wholly on phallacies and have done absolutely nothing to advance the notion of ID as science. Not one little thing! ID is discredited as science because it does not even pass even one of the tenets of the scientific method and when asked to do so, you attack the merits of other theories. It's completely irrational.

Our readers? Again, who? A bunch of heathen Atheists who are all hell-bent on refuting anything perceived as having to do with God?

So let me get this straight, you are not interested in my perspective, but you think your determinations of what is scientific perspective is somehow relevant to me or this debate? Sorry pal, that's not how "objectivity and open-mindedness" works.

You make a serious error here. The standards of science I stated are not my perspective, These are the time tested tenets of the scientific method which I have learned through difficult and disciplined studies. And why do you bring up this false paradigm that those who disagree with you are atheist or less religious than you? Who's being closed minded now and what does this have to do with ID being science? Again, nothing.

I've already gone over the various indicators for the foundation of ID theory. Repeating patterns denote intelligent design. If we went to Mars and discovered perfectly square blocks of stone, lined up in 9 rows of 9, in a pattern... would we determine this just randomly happened, or would it not be indicative of intelligent design? Certainly there would be a remote chance that such a thing could occur naturally, without intelligent intervention, but from what we understand and know about our universe and laws of odds and physics, it seems highly unlikely. Randomness does not generate predictable patterns, which are found in all living things and life in general, as well as the laws of physics and properties of the universe. The very nature of physics, the predictability and reliability of the laws of physics, are indicative of design by intelligence, and not randomness.

What indicators? What theory? What patterns? What Intelligences? What Design? What desinger? You've not gone over any of these nor given and indication of who or what they are. Just a bunch of rhetoric and psuedo science. You've done absolutly nothing to advance ID as science.

Let me take this opportunity to interject a little more "science" into the debate. There is no disputing, mankind has always had a spiritual connection to a "maker" or "greater power" whatever it has been defined as. As far back as we have dug up ancient civilizations, we see the evidence of this profound belief and connection in man and how he thinks. Biological study indicates, every species which exhibits a fundamental behavior, has some reason or purpose for such behavior, or it wouldn't exist. Darwin's theory of natural selection addresses this detail. The fact that human behavior has always centered most fundamentally, on the belief and conviction of a higher power, is relevant in supporting the theory of ID. This is not to say ID is justified by mankind's longstanding beliefs in a higher power, but the human behavior has to be reconciled with scientific knowledge and understanding, that any species retains behaviors which have fundamental purpose, and discards those which don't. ID would certainly offer a suggested explanation for why man has such a profound connection with spirituality, and why it is so fundamental in human behavior.

Ok, go ahead an interject some science into your discussion. I haven't seen any yet. I can be patient but I have a feeling I'm going to have a long hard wait before I see any from you. But go ahead.....I'm waiting.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Perhaps you can show me the experiments we run on ET to determine conclusively, this is how all life originated? Yeah, that's what I thought, you have nothing, right?

Would you like me to dump all the trillions of words that are contained in the scientific papers that collectively point towards this? There is not, however, a single word that justifies ID.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Fear of the unknown doesn't adequately explain human spiritual belief, if it did, we would have discarded these beliefs with black cats and lucky charms.

You are trying to equate two things that aren't equatable. We are able to discard black cats and lucky charms because they are incredibly silly, however, 80% of the world isn't strong enough to discard god. We're getting their though. It used to be 99%.

 

[Good Luck]

I don't think the theory of evolution says anything about the origins of life. But I could be wrong, I'm not knowledgeable in this area. I understand there's some idea of a chemical reaction on ancient Earth or something like that. There's probably some sort of scientific approach developing hypotheses on that.

The origins of life fall under the heading of abiogenesis. While it is not technically part of evolutionary theory, in middle school and high school biology it is often included. Being abiogenesis is based on a number of unproveable, and in some cases unsupported assumptions, it is not considered a valid scientific theory. However, it IS mentioned and full chapters are dedicated in most secondary school biology texts. At this juncture the concept of ID could be given voice.

There are two things standing in the way. First are those hard core science purists who seem to be frightened of anything non-science being mentioned in the science classroom of a public school. "If it isn't science, then it does not belong in the science class" is their narrow minded claim. (Ever hear of the idea that all subjects are inter-related? You think NOTHING but science should EVER be discussed because it is a SCIENCE class?

The second reason is the fact that creationists (and there is a difference between creationism and intelligent design) keep hijacking intelligent design to pass off their own ideas. (Creationism basically wants to interpret the outcomes of observed phenomenon to support a literal or semi-literal interpretation of the Judeo-Christian Bible.) While ID is non-religious and can be included (IMO) harmlessly as a alternate to abiogenesis, creationism IS religion - and as such should not be part of a science curriculum.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

The origins of life fall under the heading of abiogenesis. While it is not technically part of evolutionary theory, in middle school and high school biology it is often included. Being abiogenesis is based on a number of unproveable, and in some cases unsupported assumptions, it is not considered a valid scientific theory. However, it IS mentioned and full chapters are dedicated in most secondary school biology texts. At this juncture the concept of ID could be given voice.

There are two things standing in the way. First are those hard core science purists who seem to be frightened of anything non-science being mentioned in the science classroom of a public school. "If it isn't science, then it does not belong in the science class" is their narrow minded claim. (Ever hear of the idea that all subjects are inter-related? You think NOTHING but science should EVER be discussed because it is a SCIENCE class?

The second reason is the fact that creationists (and there is a difference between creationism and intelligent design) keep hijacking intelligent design to pass off their own ideas. (Creationism basically wants to interpret the outcomes of observed phenomenon to support a literal or semi-literal interpretation of the Judeo-Christian Bible.) While ID is non-religious and can be included (IMO) harmlessly as a alternate to abiogenesis, creationism IS religion - and as such should not be part of a science curriculum.

Giving out ID in science class is like giving out Rush Limbaugh in Math class.

You're silly argument that it's "narrowminded" to only teach science in a science class notwithstanding, no other attempt at a scientific theory has EVER gone straight from its thinker to classrooms before. You always go through the scientific community. Why do the ID guys think they're special, and they don't have to actually prove their claims? Because its creationism in disguise, and they know they can get religious reich parents to agree to it much faster than scientists.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

The origins of life fall under the heading of abiogenesis. While it is not technically part of evolutionary theory, in middle school and high school biology it is often included. Being abiogenesis is based on a number of unproveable, and in some cases unsupported assumptions, it is not considered a valid scientific theory. However, it IS mentioned and full chapters are dedicated in most secondary school biology texts. At this juncture the concept of ID could be given voice.

That's kind of funny, because that wasn't in my textbooks.

It's incorrect to label it 'abiogenisis", because that refers to a very old theory that was disproven centuries ago (that flies come from dead meat), and it has little to do with modern beginning of life hypothesis's. That notwithstanding, it's not part of evolutionary theory.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Mott, I am not going to bother quoting your last post and responding to it, because you essentially repeated yourself from the previous post, and obviously didn't read what I posted. You continue to insist that I show you proof to support ID, and tell you who the designer is, or you refuse to accept the theory as valid. I have given you several scientific aspects to ID... 1.) The repeating and predictable pattern of life and life cycles. 2.) The predictable and consistent mechanics of physics and "laws" of physics. 3.) The predictable and defined tenants of Science in general. 4.) Improbability of randomness as an explanation for origin. 5.) Human psychological behavior which is irrefutably tied to the belief we are created, which has been present in mankind forever. There, I numbered them for easy reference. Now, unless you want to refute these things, and render science and physics completely meaningless and irrelevant, you have to accept they are legitimate predictors of intelligent design.

If I could define the intelligent designer, I would not require a "theory" and we would probably not be having a debate on the subject, it would be commonly accepted as the Universal Law of Creation, if that were the case. I have merely established an argument for the argument here. You have completely closed your mind to the possibility and rejected any consideration of it because; A.) It is not published in some pinhead Science rag, where other pinhead scientists have blessed it and made it a "fact." and B.) Because you can personally see no valid purpose or use in the information. Neither of these things render a theory invalid, or negates its premise.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Originally Posted by Dixie: Perhaps you can show me the experiments we run on ET to determine conclusively, this is how all life originated? Yeah, that's what I thought, you have nothing, right?

Would you like me to dump all the trillions of words that are contained in the scientific papers that collectively point towards this? There is not, however, a single word that justifies ID.

Rather than dumping a trillion words, I would like you to show me one credible scientific finding which concludes life originated through evolution theory. "Point toward this?" WTF is that supposed to mean? Mott is supposedly a scientist, and he has been typing his little fingers off all day to point out that ET doesn't even address origin of life, so how does ET "point to this" in any way, shape or form? Mott, do you see now why I keep reiterating the point? Many idiots believe ET explains origin and not only does it explain it, ET is a proven scientific fact that is irrefutable!

 

[Mott the Hoople]

The origins of life fall under the heading of abiogenesis. While it is not technically part of evolutionary theory, in middle school and high school biology it is often included. Being abiogenesis is based on a number of unproveable, and in some cases unsupported assumptions, it is not considered a valid scientific theory. However, it IS mentioned and full chapters are dedicated in most secondary school biology texts. At this juncture the concept of ID could be given voice.

There are two things standing in the way. First are those hard core science purists who seem to be frightened of anything non-science being mentioned in the science classroom of a public school. "If it isn't science, then it does not belong in the science class" is their narrow minded claim. (Ever hear of the idea that all subjects are inter-related? You think NOTHING but science should EVER be discussed because it is a SCIENCE class?

The second reason is the fact that creationists (and there is a difference between creationism and intelligent design) keep hijacking intelligent design to pass off their own ideas. (Creationism basically wants to interpret the outcomes of observed phenomenon to support a literal or semi-literal interpretation of the Judeo-Christian Bible.) While ID is non-religious and can be included (IMO) harmlessly as a alternate to abiogenesis, creationism IS religion - and as such should not be part of a science curriculum.

That's a bogus argument. First, though abiogenisis is only a hypothesis, it does meet some tenets of science, though not all and it is taught as a hypothesis. Second, Intelligent Design was created by Christian Fundamentalist who literally used the term to replace "creationsim" when teaching creationism was declared unconstitutional. See Judge Jones III ruling in the Dover, PA case.

ID on the other hand meets none of the tenets of Science and, in fact, it is impossible to seperate ID for its reliqious antithesis. That being the case, those who support ID would not really want it taught in a science class room because most persons with a science back ground would teach it as an example of a psuedoscience with no scientific validity.

And let's be clear about another thing. I can't speak for elementary educators but in secondary education abiogensis is usually just mentioned as a hypothesis if at all. I'd like to see the chapters dedicated to it cause I've never seen them.

That's beside the point. The hostility towards ID by biologist, such as myself, is that it is a not so disguised attempt by fundamentalist christians to undermine evolutionary theory which, along with cell theory and genetics are foundational to all of biology.

Evoltuion is sound scientific theory.

Abiogenisis does have merit as a hypothesis.

Intelligent Design meets none of the standards of science and is, in fact, religion disguising itself as science.

 

[Kamala Trump]

Mott, I am not going to bother quoting your last post and responding to it, because you essentially repeated yourself from the previous post, and obviously didn't read what I posted. You continue to insist that I show you proof to support ID, and tell you who the designer is, or you refuse to accept the theory as valid. I have given you several scientific aspects to ID... 1.) The repeating and predictable pattern of life and life cycles.

Repeating patterns don't prove or imply an intelligent design.

2.) The predictable and consistent mechanics of physics and "laws" of physics.

consistent laws of physics don't require an intelligent designer.

3.) The predictable and defined tenants of Science in general.

Are there people living inside science?

4.) Improbability of randomness as an explanation for origin.

Unlikely.

5.) Human psychological behavior which is irrefutably tied to the belief we are created, which has been present in mankind forever.

Got a link?

There, I numbered them for easy reference. Now, unless you want to refute these things, and render science and physics completely meaningless and irrelevant, you have to accept they are legitimate predictors of intelligent design.

If I could define the intelligent designer, I would not require a "theory" and we would probably not be having a debate on the subject, it would be commonly accepted as the Universal Law of Creation, if that were the case. I have merely established an argument for the argument here. You have completely closed your mind to the possibility and rejected any consideration of it because; A.) It is not published in some pinhead Science rag, where other pinhead scientists have blessed it and made it a "fact." and B.) Because you can personally see no valid purpose or use in the information. Neither of these things render a theory invalid, or negates its premise.

Wow. You're stupider than a rock.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Mott, I am not going to bother quoting your last post and responding to it, because you essentially repeated yourself from the previous post, and obviously didn't read what I posted. You continue to insist that I show you proof to support ID, and tell you who the designer is, or you refuse to accept the theory as valid. I have given you several scientific aspects to ID... 1.) The repeating and predictable pattern of life and life cycles. 2.) The predictable and consistent mechanics of physics and "laws" of physics. 3.) The predictable and defined tenants of Science in general. 4.) Improbability of randomness as an explanation for origin. 5.) Human psychological behavior which is irrefutably tied to the belief we are created, which has been present in mankind forever. There, I numbered them for easy reference. Now, unless you want to refute these things, and render science and physics completely meaningless and irrelevant, you have to accept they are legitimate predictors of intelligent design.

If I could define the intelligent designer, I would not require a "theory" and we would probably not be having a debate on the subject, it would be commonly accepted as the Universal Law of Creation, if that were the case. I have merely established an argument for the argument here. You have completely closed your mind to the possibility and rejected any consideration of it because; A.) It is not published in some pinhead Science rag, where other pinhead scientists have blessed it and made it a "fact." and B.) Because you can personally see no valid purpose or use in the information. Neither of these things render a theory invalid, or negates its premise.

Dixie, stay away from science buddy, it just aint your thing. The reason I keep repeating myself, and yes dear god I did read all of your posting, is that you keep mumbling through the same illogical mistakes. You my friend are in serious need of studying science as you are practically illiterate in the subject. In other words, it just aint your thing. Maybe you should leave it to us professionals.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Repeating patterns don't prove or imply an intelligent design.

consistent laws of physics don't require an intelligent designer.

Are there people living inside science?

Unlikely.

Got a link?



Wow. You're stupider than a rock.

Well I wouldn't say that about Dixie, but science just isn't his thing. He's not very good at it, is he?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Dixie, stay away from science buddy, it just aint your thing. The reason I keep repeating myself, and yes dear god I did read all of your posting, is that you keep mumbling through the same illogical mistakes. You my friend are in serious need of studying science as you are practically illiterate in the subject. In other words, it just aint your thing. Maybe you should leave it to us professionals ....science just isn't his thing. He's not very good at it, is he?

Mott, this isn't a discussion of my scientific ability or knowledge, although I do have a degree in Psychology, which is technically a Science. Whenever I am debating something, and my opponent runs to the 'slime bucket of insults and put downs', it always tells me I have made my point well.

Apparently you can't find an argument to counter the evidence I presented, and since this is something your mind is closed to, and you have no intentions of changing it, you have to resort to petty insults and seek support from the peanut gallery. If that makes you feel better, it's fine, I like being the outlet for anger and hate, it gives me a sense of purpose.

As for the theory of ID, it is supported by credible science and I have given you the qualifiers for that. You won't, or can't refute it, so the point is valid.

 

[Onceler]

"Whenever I am debating something, and my opponent runs to the 'slime bucket of insults and put downs', it always tells me I have made my point well. "

This is from the same poster who wrote "Fuck you, you pinhead traitor!", right?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

"Whenever I am debating something, and my opponent runs to the 'slime bucket of insults and put downs', it always tells me I have made my point well. "

This is from the same poster who wrote "Fuck you, you pinhead traitor!", right?

I don't think I ever wrote that. You see it has a double possessive pronoun, which is a grammatical no-no. It's rare for me to make such an error when posting. The proper structure would be simply; "Fuck you, pinhead traitor!" No need to say "you" again, it is already understood you see.

 

[Onceler]

I don't think I ever wrote that. You see it has a double possessive pronoun, which is a grammatical no-no. It's rare for me to make such an error when posting. The proper structure would be simply; "Fuck you, pinhead traitor!" No need to say "you" again, it is already understood you see.

I was paraphrasing. You actually didn't phrase it quite that way, but your post was much more emotional, insulting & vitriolic. You were really in a lather.

Want me to find it?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I was paraphrasing. You actually didn't phrase it quite that way, but your post was much more emotional, insulting & vitriolic. You were really in a lather.

Want me to find it?

No, that's okay, I just wanted to point out what a lying piece of discredited shit you are. Thanks for confirming it! Have a nice day!