Argument for the Argument of ID

[Onceler]

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!

That's a lie? You're a train wreck.

I'll find the post. We'll let the rest of the gang see if my paraphrase is a "lie" that "discredits" me so dramatically.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

That's a lie? You're a train wreck.

I'll find the post. We'll let the rest of the gang see if my paraphrase is a "lie" that "discredits" me so dramatically.

:lmao: The Gang? You mean the rest of the liberal pinheads here? Yeah, I am sure I will get a fair trial! LOLOLOL

For the record, you posted in quotes, what you CLAIMED were my comments, then you admitted it was paraphrased and not my exact comments, which is what the quote marks are supposed to indicate. You essentially admitted you lied, which discredits you, and the fact you are a piece of shit, goes without saying.

So you run along and find where I was unable to debate an issue and resorted to petty insults and put downs instead, and refrain from posting in quotes when you aren't absolutely certain it is the words of the person in question.

 

[Onceler]

"So you run along and find where I was unable to debate an issue and resorted to petty insults and put downs instead, and refrain from posting in quotes when you aren't absolutely certain it is the words of the person in question."

Quite a lecture, coming from someone who routinely puts words in my mouth.

Here's a good recent example:

You don't care about fixing the problem of the national debt, you can't even comprehend the difference between the wealthy and those who pay tax! I've had to point it out in this thread, over and over, repeatedly... and no sooner than I post it in 96pt bold type, some liberal comes along and posts some comment about my plan to give rich people more votes!

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?t=12972&highlight=fuck&page=11

Now, if you go over that thread, you will find that I didn't say anything that you had attributed to me; you just took the words of other lefties & put them in my mouth, something which you have a habit of.

Save your lectures; you're easily, hands down, one of the most dishonest posters on this board, on a consistent basis.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

:lmao: ....So I take it, you couldn't even find the inaccurate quote you paraphrased?

And please highlight for me, the place in the thread you posted, where I put quotation marks around something and attributed it to you? Because, I can't find where I did something that dishonest. I try to make a point of QUOTING exact words, not paraphrases.

 

[Onceler]

"So I take it, you couldn't even find the inaccurate quote you paraphrased?"

Actually, I couldn't.

You edited it out, didn't you, Dix? You lying, paper-shredding loathsome motherf**ker. Very Cheney-esque; if there is no paper trail, it didn't happen.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

"So I take it, you couldn't even find the inaccurate quote you paraphrased?"

Actually, I couldn't.

You edited it out, didn't you, Dix? You lying, paper-shredding loathsome motherf**ker. Very Cheney-esque; if there is no paper trail, it didn't happen.

Actually I didn't personally edit it out. I had Karl Rove and Dick Cheney hack Damo's server, and make the necessary changes as soon as you posted my inaccurate quote. Bwaahahahahahahaaaa!

 

[Mott the Hoople]

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...

This ought to be a hoot!

1.) The repeating and predictable pattern of life and life cycles.

Really? What are those repeating and predictable patterns of life and how do they demonstrate, intelligence, a design or an intelligent design? You've provided none.

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

If the laws of physics indicate Intelligent Design in living systems, what theorom do you have to demonstrate this? What formula? What observations can you make to me that I can reproduce by myself? You've provided none

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

Explain to me what those tenets of science are and how ID meets those tenets. I've demonstrated that it meets none of the tenets of science and listed those tenets. You've demonstrated nothing of the kind.

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

That's complete nonsense and shows you don't understand statistic as much as you don't understand science. Applying the laws of probability to an event which has all ready occurred is a misapplication of the laws of probability. The law of probability states that "In order to determine the probability of an event occurring all possible outcomes must be known." In this case the outcome is all ready known. That is the development of a vast variety of species.

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

What the hell does that have to do with science? Nothing. You're proving me right again. You don't know what science is. Essentially what you are claiming is that because people believe they are created is evidence that they were created. That's complete nonsense.

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.

You numbered em and I knocked em down so fast that it was easier than shooting fish in a barrel.

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,

And again your demonstrating that you don't know what a scientific theory is. You keep using it in the vernacular sense and not by it's scientific definition. In order for Intelligent Design to be considered a theory you must first do three things. #1. You must demonstrate, in a manner that can be independently verified by others, that living systems were designed and #2. You must demonstrate in the same terms who or what this intelligent designer is and #3. That both this intelligence and it's design have a natural causation. No such thing has ever been done and you have not provided the least little scrap of evidence to the contrary. No ID supporter has.

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.

I have closed my mind to no possibility. Using reason and logic and a knowledge of what is science and the scientific method I have drawn the conclusion that ID is not valid as science and does not, in any meaningful manner, model living systems or explain their structure and function. You even make my case for me by heaping scorn on one of the most basic tenets of the scientific method, publication and the peer review process.

However I will close in stating it is not I that cannot see a valid purpose or use for ID rather it is you who have failed to show me how this so called "information' can be used in any meaningful manner to model living systems.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

This ought to be a hoot!



Really? What are those repeating and predictable patterns of life and how do they demonstrate, intelligence, a design or an intelligent design? You've provided none.

Essentially every aspect of life, how it forms, grows, and thrives, as well as dies. It is predictable to a fault in almost every aspect. So is math, so is physics, so is chemistry, so is science. We know that 1+1=2, and it will equal 2 tomorrow and the next day, it doesn't change, it is predictable and consistent and not random. We know that Dogs will reproduce Dogs and not Monkeys, they will do this next week and next year, it is predictable and never changes, it is not random. We know two parts Hydrogen and one part Oxygen is Water, and it will be today, tomorrow, and next year, it is predictable and not random.

Predictable patterns as opposed to random chance, denote intelligence at work. I gave a previous analogy of discovering 9 symmetrically square blocks arranged in 9 rows on the surface of Mars. It is evidence of likely intelligence and not random chance, because predictable patterns denote intelligence, not randomness.

If the laws of physics indicate Intelligent Design in living systems, what theorom do you have to demonstrate this? What formula? What observations can you make to me that I can reproduce by myself? You've provided none

Kindly give me the formulas I can reproduce myself to demonstrate evolution between species.

Explain to me what those tenets of science are and how ID meets those tenets. I've demonstrated that it meets none of the tenets of science and listed those tenets. You've demonstrated nothing of the kind.

I already have.

That's complete nonsense and shows you don't understand statistic as much as you don't understand science. Applying the laws of probability to an event which has all ready occurred is a misapplication of the laws of probability. The law of probability states that "In order to determine the probability of an event occurring all possible outcomes must be known." In this case the outcome is all ready known. That is the development of a vast variety of species.

Misunderstanding of what I said. It is highly improbable that all the things which had to happen in specific order, at specific points in time, and to specific degrees, all happened exactly as they needed to, randomly. There are something like 127 basic things that had to happen, for life as we know it to come into existence, if any one of them happened out of order or didn't happen when it needed to, we would have never seen life emerge.

What the hell does that have to do with science? Nothing. You're proving me right again. You don't know what science is. Essentially what you are claiming is that because people believe they are created is evidence that they were created. That's complete nonsense.

Psychology is a Science, that is what it has to do with it. I am not claiming evidence is simply people believing something. I am arguing the strong profound connection human beings have psychologically, with the concept of a creating entity, is present in man for a reason, otherwise we would have discarded this attribute long ago.

You numbered em and I knocked em down so fast that it was easier than shooting fish in a barrel.

Well, yes, of course you did. You aren't interested in having a debate, you are interested in being right and hooting me down. Did you think I expected anything less? You are a closed-minded fool, why would you suddenly start thinking rationally and with an open mind? That makes no logical sense.

And again your demonstrating that you don't know what a scientific theory is. You keep using it in the vernacular sense and not by it's scientific definition. In order for Intelligent Design to be considered a theory you must first do three things. #1. You must demonstrate, in a manner that can be independently verified by others, that living systems were designed and #2. You must demonstrate in the same terms who or what this intelligent designer is and #3. That both this intelligence and it's design have a natural causation. No such thing has ever been done and you have not provided the least little scrap of evidence to the contrary. No ID supporter has.

I most certainly understand Scientific Method, but theories are theories. There is no "proof" of a theory. You can't show me "proof" of Evolution Theory! I can't do an experiment to "prove" Evolution Theory! You can't tell me how ET explains the millions of life forms on the planet, but that doesn't stop it from being a theory. You can't explain why some species of life has clearly mutated, adapted, and evolved, and other species are seemingly unchanged from their prehistoric state.... it doesn't negate the theory of evolution! Just because all of your questions can't be answered about ID, doesn't negate it as a theory.

I have closed my mind to no possibility. Using reason and logic and a knowledge of what is science and the scientific method I have drawn the conclusion that ID is not valid as science and does not, in any meaningful manner, model living systems or explain their structure and function. You even make my case for me by heaping scorn on one of the most basic tenets of the scientific method, publication and the peer review process.

That's the problem in a nutshell... you have used Science to do what Science is not intended to do... DRAW A CONCLUSION!

However I will close in stating it is not I that cannot see a valid purpose or use for ID rather it is you who have failed to show me how this so called "information' can be used in any meaningful manner to model living systems.

How can ET be used in any meaningful manner to model living systems?

 

[Diuretic]

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.

Firstly, thank you for taking the time to respond to my post.

Secondly, isn't ID really just an argument from design? If it is then it's not a scientific theory and it belongs in a philosophy class and not a science class.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Firstly, thank you for taking the time to respond to my post.

Secondly, isn't ID really just an argument from design? If it is then it's not a scientific theory and it belongs in a philosophy class and not a science class.

You are exactly right. That's just what ID is. A rehashing of William Paley's argument from design.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Essentially every aspect of life, how it forms, grows, and thrives, as well as dies. It is predictable to a fault in almost every aspect. So is math, so is physics, so is chemistry, so is science. We know that 1+1=2, and it will equal 2 tomorrow and the next day, it doesn't change, it is predictable and consistent and not random. We know that Dogs will reproduce Dogs and not Monkeys, they will do this next week and next year, it is predictable and never changes, it is not random. We know two parts Hydrogen and one part Oxygen is Water, and it will be today, tomorrow, and next year, it is predictable and not random.

Really, then how do you explain mutation? Genetic cross over? Meiotic division from diploid to haploid numbers? How do you explain non-ordered tissue structures like myelin? how do you explain cascade systems like compliment and blood clotting? Ever hear of entropy? Besides, the evidence you site, how is that a causal link to this "Intellegince" and you still have not demonstrated who or what this intelligent designer is.

Predictable patterns as opposed to random chance, denote intelligence at work. I gave a previous analogy of discovering 9 symmetrically square blocks arranged in 9 rows on the surface of Mars. It is evidence of likely intelligence and not random chance, because predictable patterns denote intelligence, not randomness.

They do no such thing. I can give you all sorts of examples of predictable patterns that occur in nature were there is no indication of an intelligence at all. crystollography for example. You're drawing a conclusion you can't support.

Kindly give me the formulas I can reproduce myself to demonstrate evolution between species.

I can't you stubburn nitwit because for the umpteenth time that I've stated, Evolutionary Theory makes no such prediction as evolution between species.

But if you want theoroms and formulas to support Evoltuion? Fine.

Theorems;

#1. All species produce progeny which resemble them closely. This is called "The Law of Inheritance". One only has to look at ones own children to observe this fact.
#2. All species produce progeny that with slight variations from their parents. This is called "The law of variation". Again, one only has to look at their children to observe this fact.
#3. All species produce more progeny then will survive to reproductive adulthood. This is called "The law of superfecundancy."

These three facts form the basis of evolutionary theory.

Formula's

How about these formulas to support evolutionary theory;

Kimura's two-parameter model of nucleotide substitution.

Lyubich's single locus autosomal polyploid populations formula

Amino acid difference formula.

Population Genetics formula.

Genetic distance formula.

Genetic variability formula.

I already have.

No you most certainly have not

Misunderstanding of what I said. It is highly improbable that all the things which had to happen in specific order, at specific points in time, and to specific degrees, all happened exactly as they needed to, randomly. There are something like 127 basic things that had to happen, for life as we know it to come into existence, if any one of them happened out of order or didn't happen when it needed to, we would have never seen life emerge.

No, you don't understand calculating probabilities. It doesn't matter how many events would have had to occur if they have all ready occurred. The probability is then known. It would expressed as a probability of 1.0 (unity). The probability factor of many forms of complex life developing on earth is 1.0 (that is 100% or unity as it has all ready occurred.)

Psychology is a Science, that is what it has to do with it. I am not claiming evidence is simply people believing something. I am arguing the strong profound connection human beings have psychologically, with the concept of a creating entity, is present in man for a reason, otherwise we would have discarded this attribute long ago.

Get real. Psychology is a social science and not a natural science.

Well, yes, of course you did. You aren't interested in having a debate, you are interested in being right and hooting me down. Did you think I expected anything less? You are a closed-minded fool, why would you suddenly start thinking rationally and with an open mind? That makes no logical sense.

This is not a debate Dixie. I have challenged you to defend ID by the standards of science and you have failed completely. You have not met one standard of science in supporting ID.

I most certainly understand Scientific Method, but theories are theories. There is no "proof" of a theory. You can't show me "proof" of Evolution Theory! I can't do an experiment to "prove" Evolution Theory! You can't tell me how ET explains the millions of life forms on the planet, but that doesn't stop it from being a theory. You can't explain why some species of life has clearly mutated, adapted, and evolved, and other species are seemingly unchanged from their prehistoric state.... it doesn't negate the theory of evolution! Just because all of your questions can't be answered about ID, doesn't negate it as a theory.

Again, you're showing you don't know what a scientific theory is. A theory must have a factual basis and must model natural phenomena and must be tentative and it must make testable predictions. No theory can be proven "absolutely" because all theories are tentative and can, in principle, be falsified. All theories though must have proofs (facts) that have a high degree of probability of being correct. In this respect I can provide facts for evolutionary theory with a very high degree of probability of being correct where as ID can do no such thing.

For example. Modern evolutionary theory is stated as "A change in allele frequency within a population over time.". This is a fact and has been demonstrated and observed invitro and invivo at both a genotypical and phylogenetic level with a very high degree of probability and only an uninformed fool would deny these facts. So yes you can do experiments that demonstrate evolution otherwise the zillions of applications of evolutionary theory would not be valid and there are to many applied branches of applied evolutionary theory to list here but to name just a few;

Phylogeny
Genetics
Cell Biology
Molecular Biology
Embryology
Histology
Microbiology
Immunology
ecology
bioinfomatics
pathology

If your right, then all these sciences (and scientist) are wrong.

That's the problem in a nutshell... you have used Science to do what Science is not intended to do... DRAW A CONCLUSION!

and you don't know what your talking about. Drawing conclusions based on empirical observations and by testing predictions (experiments) is one of the most fundamental concepts of science that's taught to elementary schools students. You must have played hookie that day! LOL

How can ET be used in any meaningful manner to model living systems?

It models genetic variation. It models tissue differentiation, it models zoological speciation, it models genetic inheritance, it models protein synthesis, it models organ specialization, it models cellular structure and function, it models adaptation, it models the disease process, it models developmental processes....and I could go on and on. But were not talking about Evolutionary Theory were talking about ID and you keep avoiding the fundamental question I keep asking you.

How can ID be used in any meaningful manner to model living systems?

If you cannot answer this question then you fail in your defense of ID as science.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Really, then how do you explain mutation? Genetic cross over? Meiotic division from diploid to haploid numbers? How do you explain non-ordered tissue structures like myelin? how do you explain cascade systems like compliment and blood clotting? Ever hear of entropy? Besides, the evidence you site, how is that a causal link to this "Intellegince" and you still have not demonstrated who or what this intelligent designer is.

I don't have to show you, or prove to you, who the intelligent designer is to theorize intelligence is responsible for origin of life. If I could do that, it would no longer be a "theory" at all, it would be a definitive proven fact. Why can't you get that through your head? You continue to demand I "PROVE" my theory!

They do no such thing. I can give you all sorts of examples of predictable patterns that occur in nature were there is no indication of an intelligence at all. crystollography for example. You're drawing a conclusion you can't support.

Crystallography depends on specific mathematical and chemical inputs to define a pattern, they do not randomly generate pattern. You can give NO example of predictable patterns occurring randomly, because predictable patterns are defined by intelligence. In the case of Crystallography, the intelligence of the math and chemistry involved in the crystals.

I can't you stubburn nitwit because for the umpteenth time that I've stated, Evolutionary Theory makes no such prediction as evolution between species.

Then how the fuck did we all get here? All billions of life forms on the planet? How in the hell did this happen if there has been no cross-species evolution? If the planet were inhabited by a single life form, humans, then evolution theory may be a plausible explanation for origin, but that is not the case. The planet is literally covered with living organisms, each of them unique and most of them complex, with a specific function, purpose, and requirement to live. Without cross-species evolution, there is no logical way to explain origin with the theory of evolution. Thanks for making that point abundantly clear!

But if you want theoroms and formulas to support Evoltuion? Fine.

Theorems;

#1. All species produce progeny which resemble them closely. This is called "The Law of Inheritance". One only has to look at ones own children to observe this fact.
#2. All species produce progeny that with slight variations from their parents. This is called "The law of variation". Again, one only has to look at their children to observe this fact.
#3. All species produce more progeny then will survive to reproductive adulthood. This is called "The law of superfecundancy."

These three facts form the basis of evolutionary theory.

All good and well, and I have not disputed ET, I just do not support ET as an explanation for origin. You keep reiterating that ET doesn't address origin, so I really don't know why you continue to argue with me. We seem to agree. I have presented an argument for the argument of ID, and that deals with origin, not evolution. Many people who support ET, also think it explains origin, which is the fundamental point of contention with ID theory, they simply will not accept something contrary to their belief that evolution explains origin of life. So far, I am not hearing any reasonable explanation for how life originated, do you have an opinion on this? What is YOUR theory? Because ET sure as hell doesn't explain it, or even begin to.


F

ormula's

How about these formulas to support evolutionary theory;

How 'bout get it through your thick head, I am not arguing against Evolution Theory! I understand there are formulas and theorems which suggest evolution is a valid theory. I have not disputed this anywhere in the thread, and you continue to act as if I have. ET is a theory, not a fact. It has substantial evidence to support it as a theory, not a fact. I believe the theory to be true in most instances, but not a fact. Nothing about ET has anything to do with the origin of life on the planet, so why are we discussing this theory?

No, you don't understand calculating probabilities. It doesn't matter how many events would have had to occur if they have all ready occurred. The probability is then known. It would expressed as a probability of 1.0 (unity). The probability factor of many forms of complex life developing on earth is 1.0 (that is 100% or unity as it has all ready occurred.)

I know, I don't understand how to tie my fucking shoes according to you! Get this through your head, I am a college educated person with a degree in the Science of Psychology, as well as a couple of other things. I am articulate and fairly intelligent in most of the things I discuss. This constant insidious assault on my intellectual character is getting old, and if you can't have a grown up conversation without resorting to these sophomoric retorts, let's just end this here and now.

You apparently didn't comprehend what I said. It has nothing to do with calculating probabilities! It is about randomness vs. predictability. In order for life to have originated on this planet, a number of fairly complex things had to first happen, and not only did they have to happen, they had to happen in precise order, in a precise manner, and to a precise degree. If any of these had happened out of sequence, or in too much or not enough degree, or in a different manner, life as we know it, would simply not exist. It is the equivalent of throwing a deck of playing cards in the air, and them all landing face up, in their numeric order, separated by suit and color. My argument is, this is virtually impossible, and intelligence must be responsible, your argument is, this just so happened to be how the cards landed. Granted, there is probably some way to calculate the remotest of possibilities of this happening randomly with the deck of cards, but it is very highly unlikely and improbable. It is much more likely, an intelligent force was involved.

Get real. Psychology is a social science and not a natural science.

It is the scientific study of human behavior, it is a science as much as any other science, and it does have relevance when discussing human existence and origin. We have a deep and profound human connection with spiritual belief, often involving the belief in a power greater than ourselves. This has been existent in mankind for all of mankind's existence, as best as we can tell. Your theory is, this is just man's way of being secure from fear, or explaining the unknown. My argument coincides with Darwin's theory, that desirable attributes are retained for a reason.

This is not a debate Dixie. I have challenged you to defend ID by the standards of science and you have failed completely. You have not met one standard of science in supporting ID.

I have presented plenty of tangible evidence to support the theory. I can't prove ID, if I could, we wouldn't be having this debate. You continue to want to see proof of something that is a theory. For whatever reason, you believe that things are not actual until they've been published in some magazine, but that isn't the case. Before Isaac Newton discovered gravity, it was still present... things didn't suddenly start falling to earth as soon as he had his theory published! (IF he even had his theory published in some pinhead science journal.)

Again, you're showing you don't know what a scientific theory is. A theory must have a factual basis and must model natural phenomena and must be tentative and it must make testable predictions. No theory can be proven "absolutely" because all theories are tentative and can, in principle, be falsified. All theories though must have proofs (facts) that have a high degree of probability of being correct. In this respect I can provide facts for evolutionary theory with a very high degree of probability of being correct where as ID can do no such thing.

That's the whole problem here, you believe a theory is a fact, it has factual basis, therefore it is an irrefutable fact. I believe a theory is a theory, an idea, a concept. It must be rooted in rational and reasonable logic, and have evidence to support it, and it doesn't become a fact, it is still just a theory.

I have given you the needed evidence to support a theory of ID. You continue to want to have a debate over ET, which doesn't even deal with origin, so it is not a valid theory to explain origin or refute ID. So far, there is MY theory of ID, and there is nothing else presented. How can you "win" a debate, when you've presented NO logic argument to contradict mine?

For example. Modern evolutionary theory is stated as "A change in allele frequency within a population over time.". This is a fact and has been demonstrated and observed invitro and invivo at both a genotypical and phylogenetic level with a very high degree of probability and only an uninformed fool would deny these facts. So yes you can do experiments that demonstrate evolution otherwise the zillions of applications of evolutionary theory would not be valid and there are to many applied branches of applied evolutionary theory to list here but to name just a few;

Phylogeny
Genetics
Cell Biology
Molecular Biology
Embryology
Histology
Microbiology
Immunology
ecology
bioinfomatics
pathology

If your right, then all these sciences (and scientist) are wrong.

You bash me over the head repeatedly with the fact that ET doesn't explain or address origin of life, and then you come at me with this shit? I have not refuted ANY of those sciences, and ET has absolutely NOTHING to do with what we are debating here, so why do you continue to argue from that point of view?

and you don't know what your talking about. Drawing conclusions based on empirical observations and by testing predictions (experiments) is one of the most fundamental concepts of science that's taught to elementary schools students. You must have played hookie that day! LOL

Yes, I know. It is Darwin's theory which suggests that mankind has a legitimate and valid reason for believing in a creator. It is also Darwin's theory which, if true, refutes the possibility of origin by random chance.

It models genetic variation. It models tissue differentiation, it models zoological speciation, it models genetic inheritance, it models protein synthesis, it models organ specialization, it models cellular structure and function, it models adaptation, it models the disease process, it models developmental processes....and I could go on and on. But were not talking about Evolutionary Theory were talking about ID and you keep avoiding the fundamental question I keep asking you.

Right... it DOESN'T model ORIGIN OF LIFE!

How can ID be used in any meaningful manner to model living systems? If you cannot answer this question then you fail in your defense of ID as science.

Things do not have to "model" something to be considered valid science. When Galileo discovered the Earth rotated around the Sun, it had no practical use, and didn't "model" anything, and I'm sure there were skeptics at the time, who thought he was out of his mind to suggest something so radical and in contradiction to conventional wisdom. Did he "fail" at science as well?

You see, the problem with your demand is, we have a limited knowledge and understanding of our universe. You can certainly "claim" my theory has no practical purpose, but do you know and understand everything there is to know and understand? Unless you do, making such a determination is not only foolish, but flies in the face of science and scientific principles. My only argument is, the evidence suggests intelligence in design, regarding the origin of life. Everything about life and the cycle of life, is contrary to randomness, and supportive of predictability and design. Everything about physics, math, and science, is contrary to randomness and supportive of predictability and design, and everything about the behavioral characteristics of mankind for all the ages, suggests... in theory... that we were indeed, intelligently designed.

 

[a11n]

there's a certain understanding to how the tides come in and out,how the continents drift about and how life is there, evolution is evermore piling on the evidence

 

[Mott the Hoople]

there's a certain understanding to how the tides come in and out,how the continents drift about and how life is there, evolution is evermore piling on the evidence

That's true but what's frustrating about this debate with Dixie is that it Evolution even be coming up here. Were supposed to be debating the merits, or lack there of, of ID.

I have to apologize for the lengthy rebutals but I feel compelled to refute Dixies brand of psuedoscience.

 

[Thorn]

That's true but what's frustrating about this debate with Dixie is that it Evolution even be coming up here. Were supposed to be debating the merits, or lack there of, of ID.

I have to apologize for the lengthy rebutals but I feel compelled to refute Dixies brand of psuedoscience.

I appreciate your answers. Unfortunately, logic is futile when applied to Dixie, as you know if you've seen his "1/3" argument.
The simple answer is that ID is based on assumptions that cannot be tested and that alone excludes it from scientific theory. I like your answers better, though.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I appreciate your answers. Unfortunately, logic is futile when applied to Dixie, as you know if you've seen his "1/3" argument.
The simple answer is that ID is based on assumptions that cannot be tested and that alone excludes it from scientific theory. I like your answers better, though.

Thank you.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I appreciate your answers. Unfortunately, logic is futile when applied to Dixie, as you know if you've seen his "1/3" argument.
The simple answer is that ID is based on assumptions that cannot be tested and that alone excludes it from scientific theory. I like your answers better, though.

Well, my highly-touted "argument" about 1/3 is very simple... 1/3 is a division problem, it is one divided by three, which produces a remainder of one. Nothing more complicated than that, really, but for some reason, a large number of posters here, simply don't comprehend this basic math problem, and want to argue to the contrary. To the tune of over 1500 posts, at last count! It's a testament to just how far pinheads will go to "refute" something I have said.


ID is NOT based on "assumptions" and I have presented valid scientific evidence in this thread, I can't make you read and comprehend the evidence, that is entirely up to you, if you want to pretend I haven't posted anything, or made any of the brilliant points I made, that is fine, I am used to it here.

ID is a theory dealing with the origin of life, it is not a contradiction to ET, which can be "tested" to derive theoretical analysis. ET only explains the changes life has undergone, it doesn't explain how life originated. There is not a "test" you can do on a theory of origin, regardless of what your theory may be, which by the way, has not yet been presented by anyone arguing against ID. In order to 'validate' the theory of ID, you can look at any number of scientific facts that indicate 'intelligence' as opposed to 'randomness' concerning the origins of life.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I don't have to show you, or prove to you, who the intelligent designer is to theorize intelligence is responsible for origin of life. If I could do that, it would no longer be a "theory" at all, it would be a definitive proven fact. Why can't you get that through your head? You continue to demand I "PROVE" my theory!

I'm not demanding that your prove your theory. I'm asking me to even show me that you have one. ID doesn't even amount to a testable hypothesis.

Crystallography depends on specific mathematical and chemical inputs to define a pattern, they do not randomly generate pattern. You can give NO example of predictable patterns occurring randomly, because predictable patterns are defined by intelligence. In the case of Crystallography, the intelligence of the math and chemistry involved in the crystals.

Obviously you never studied physics or entropy. Nature can provide all sorts of examples of systems with a high level of randomness developing a greater degree of order. It only needs to be an open system with energy input from outside.

Snow flakes forming from water for example. For that matter any change of physical state from low order/high entropy to a highly ordered low entropy system (gas to liquid, liquid to solid, solid to plasma). No intelligence is needed, just the input of energy into an open system. Conversely the opposite is true too. Crystals are a perfect example. A certain level of disorder is required in the starting system (seed crystal) before crystal formation can occur. What you are calling evidence of intelligence is in fact evidence of the changes of energy in a system (thermodynamics).

Then how the fuck did we all get here? All billions of life forms on the planet? How in the hell did this happen if there has been no cross-species evolution? If the planet were inhabited by a single life form, humans, then evolution theory may be a plausible explanation for origin, but that is not the case. The planet is literally covered with living organisms, each of them unique and most of them complex, with a specific function, purpose, and requirement to live. Without cross-species evolution, there is no logical way to explain origin with the theory of evolution. Thanks for making that point abundantly clear!

We evolved. That's how we got here. Individual organisms evolved and so did populations. Two differant species never looked at each other and said "Hey! Let's get together and form a new species". There is no such thing as "cross-species evolution" and evolution models no such behavior. That argument is a strawman. You are right. There is no logical way to explain origins from evolution, but evolution does not nor ever has modeled the origins of life. So it is even more illogical of you to claim that there's no logical explanation for something which evolutionary theory does not nor ever has tried to explain. The only thing that's abundantly clear is that you don't understand evolutionary theory. I defy you to name one Biologist, just one, who claims there is such a phenomena as cross-specie evolution.

All good and well, and I have not disputed ET, I just do not support ET as an explanation for origin. You keep reiterating that ET doesn't address origin, so I really don't know why you continue to argue with me. We seem to agree. I have presented an argument for the argument of ID, and that deals with origin, not evolution. Many people who support ET, also think it explains origin, which is the fundamental point of contention with ID theory, they simply will not accept something contrary to their belief that evolution explains origin of life. So far, I am not hearing any reasonable explanation for how life originated, do you have an opinion on this? What is YOUR theory? Because ET sure as hell doesn't explain it, or even begin to.

Well I'm glad to hear you don't support evolutionary theory as an explanation for origins cause to the best of my knowledge, as a biologist, I've never heard even one biologist claim that it does. But what the hell does that have to do with ID and the question with which I have challenged you with which you so diligently avoided? How does ID model living systems?

The issue here, which you keep avoiding with your strawmen arguments, is ID science? You've provided no evidence that it is. You have not only not met even the most fundamental tenets of science, you've made it clear that you don't have a sound understanding of what science is.

How 'bout get it through your thick head, I am not arguing against Evolution Theory! I understand there are formulas and theorems which suggest evolution is a valid theory. I have not disputed this anywhere in the thread, and you continue to act as if I have. ET is a theory, not a fact. It has substantial evidence to support it as a theory, not a fact. I believe the theory to be true in most instances, but not a fact. Nothing about ET has anything to do with the origin of life on the planet, so why are we discussing this theory?

Dixie, only a person who is ignorant of science and what a scientific theory is would say something as absurd as "it's just a theory not a fact.". If a scientific theory does not have a factual basis then it is simply not a scientific theory. End of argument. In science, a fact is something which can be observed or measured and in science a theory is an explanation which correlates and/or interprets those facts. No facts, no theory and that's the problem with ID as science. It has no facts which can be observed or measured.

I know, I don't understand how to tie my fucking shoes according to you! Get this through your head, I am a college educated person with a degree in the Science of Psychology, as well as a couple of other things. I am articulate and fairly intelligent in most of the things I discuss. This constant insidious assault on my intellectual character is getting old, and if you can't have a grown up conversation without resorting to these sophomoric retorts, let's just end this here and now.

I'm not insulting your character. Based on your own comments and my own knowledge of Biology, in which I have a graduate degree and which happens to be the topic were discussing (not psychology), I've drawn the objective observation that your understanding of "what science is" is deeply flawed and I am not alone in making that observation.

You apparently didn't comprehend what I said. It has nothing to do with calculating probabilities! It is about randomness vs. predictability. In order for life to have originated on this planet, a number of fairly complex things had to first happen, and not only did they have to happen, they had to happen in precise order, in a precise manner, and to a precise degree. If any of these had happened out of sequence, or in too much or not enough degree, or in a different manner, life as we know it, would simply not exist. It is the equivalent of throwing a deck of playing cards in the air, and them all landing face up, in their numeric order, separated by suit and color. My argument is, this is virtually impossible, and intelligence must be responsible, your argument is, this just so happened to be how the cards landed. Granted, there is probably some way to calculate the remotest of possibilities of this happening randomly with the deck of cards, but it is very highly unlikely and improbable. It is much more likely, an intelligent force was involved.

Dixie, what the hell do you think probabilities are? It's an expression of to what degree a random event, like flipping a coin, is predictable.

It is the scientific study of human behavior, it is a science as much as any other science, and it does have relevance when discussing human existence and origin. We have a deep and profound human connection with spiritual belief, often involving the belief in a power greater than ourselves. This has been existent in mankind for all of mankind's existence, as best as we can tell. Your theory is, this is just man's way of being secure from fear, or explaining the unknown. My argument coincides with Darwin's theory, that desirable attributes are retained for a reason.

Were not discussing Psychology. Were supposed to be discussing ID as science for which you have not provided one shred of evidence.

I have presented plenty of tangible evidence to support the theory. I can't prove ID, if I could, we wouldn't be having this debate. You continue to want to see proof of something that is a theory. For whatever reason, you believe that things are not actual until they've been published in some magazine, but that isn't the case. Before Isaac Newton discovered gravity, it was still present... things didn't suddenly start falling to earth as soon as he had his theory published! (IF he even had his theory published in some pinhead science journal.)

You've provided no evidence what so ever, let alone tangible evidence. Show me something about ID that I can reach out and touch or observe or measure in any way.

That's the whole problem here, you believe a theory is a fact, it has factual basis, therefore it is an irrefutable fact. I believe a theory is a theory, an idea, a concept. It must be rooted in rational and reasonable logic, and have evidence to support it, and it doesn't become a fact, it is still just a theory.

Now your putting word in my mouth. I've never stated that evolutionary theory is irrefutable. I've just refuted your refutations. Evolutions is easily falsifiable and is as tentative as any scientific theory. Modern evolutionary theory has changed dramatically since Darwin first postulated his theory reflecting new knowledge about living systems, such as genetics and DNA, which Darwin new nothing of but successfully predicted their discoveries.

I have given you the needed evidence to support a theory of ID. You continue to want to have a debate over ET, which doesn't even deal with origin, so it is not a valid theory to explain origin or refute ID. So far, there is MY theory of ID, and there is nothing else presented. How can you "win" a debate, when you've presented NO logic argument to contradict mine?

You have provided no evidence at all and continuously repeating that mantra does not make it true.

You bash me over the head repeatedly with the fact that ET doesn't explain or address origin of life, and then you come at me with this shit? I have not refuted ANY of those sciences, and ET has absolutely NOTHING to do with what we are debating here, so why do you continue to argue from that point of view?

Because in order to hide the fact that you cannot provide evidence that supports ID as science you have mischaracterized and misrepresented evolutionary theory from which all those sciences I listed are applied versions of. If you're mischaracterizations were true, these disciplines would not be valid.

Yes, I know. It is Darwin's theory which suggests that mankind has a legitimate and valid reason for believing in a creator. It is also Darwin's theory which, if true, refutes the possibility of origin by random chance.

You're grasping at straws now. Evolutionary theory has nothing to say about what you or anyone believes in about a creator. It don't have a dog in that fight. And your wrong about origins. Evolution cannot refute the possiblity of the origins of life by random chance because evolutionary theory has nothing to say on that subject. Nothing!

Right... it DOESN'T model ORIGIN OF LIFE!

Well now your starting to make sense. Maybe I am getting through to you.

Things do not have to "model" something to be considered valid science. When Galileo discovered the Earth rotated around the Sun, it had no practical use, and didn't "model" anything, and I'm sure there were skeptics at the time, who thought he was out of his mind to suggest something so radical and in contradiction to conventional wisdom. Did he "fail" at science as well?

Jesus H. Christ Dixie. You don't know what you're talking about. Galileo's discovery provided a heliocentric model of the universe. A literal model with the sun in the middle and all the planets orbiting around it. Just about every natural history museum has an example of his model. It's one of the best examples there is of how a theory models nature.

You see, the problem with your demand is, we have a limited knowledge and understanding of our universe. You can certainly "claim" my theory has no practical purpose, but do you know and understand everything there is to know and understand? Unless you do, making such a determination is not only foolish, but flies in the face of science and scientific principles. My only argument is, the evidence suggests intelligence in design, regarding the origin of life. Everything about life and the cycle of life, is contrary to randomness, and supportive of predictability and design. Everything about physics, math, and science, is contrary to randomness and supportive of predictability and design, and everything about the behavioral characteristics of mankind for all the ages, suggests... in theory... that we were indeed, intelligently designed.

You are right. I do have a limited knowledge of the universe and I am perfectly aware that there are many mysteries in this universe that nature/science can not provide explanations for. I'm very open minded about that. But I do know what science is and ID is not science and you've provided no evidence that it is.

 

[a11n]

You are right. I do have a limited knowledge of the universe and I am perfectly aware that there are many mysteries in this universe that nature/science can not provide explanations for. I'm very open minded about that. But I do know what science is and ID is not science and you've provided no evidence that it is.

No, science can prove everything

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I'm not demanding that your prove your theory. I'm asking me to even show me that you have one. ID doesn't even amount to a testable hypothesis.

And no theory of ORIGIN is testable.

Obviously you never studied physics or entropy. Nature can provide all sorts of examples of systems with a high level of randomness developing a greater degree of order. It only needs to be an open system with energy input from outside.

Snow flakes forming from water for example. For that matter any change of physical state from low order/high entropy to a highly ordered low entropy system (gas to liquid, liquid to solid, solid to plasma). No intelligence is needed, just the input of energy into an open system. Conversely the opposite is true too. Crystals are a perfect example. A certain level of disorder is required in the starting system (see crystal) before crystal formation can occur. What you are calling evidence of intelligence is in fact evidence of the changes of energy in a system (thermodynamics).

Snowflakes and crystals are the same thing, with the same dynamics happening. Each snowflake is unique, no two are alike, there is no predictable pattern for a snowflake or a crystal. The geometric symmetry in the patterns of snowflakes and crystals, are determined by the characteristics 'creating' them.

We evolved. That's how we got here. Individual organisms evolved and so did populations. Two differant species never looked at each other and said "Hey! Let's get together and form a new species". There is no such thing as "cross-species evolution" and evolution models no such behavior. That argument is a strawman. You are right. There is no logical way to explain origins from evolution, but evolution does not nor ever has modeled the origins of life. So it is even more illogical of you to claim that there's no logical explanation for something which evolutionary theory does not nor ever has tried to explain. The only thing that's abundantly clear is that you don't understand evolutionary theory. I defy you to name one Biologist, just one, who claims there is such a phenomena as cross-specie evolution.

Okay, so your theory of origin is, all of the millions of life forms on the planet came to exist following the cooling period after the Big Bang? That is even more amazing and improbable of random chance than everything evolving from a single cell organism. What you are saying is, not only did all of the various elements to form life come together at the right place at the right time, but they actually came together is a way to form numerous life structures, which all happened to serve a fundamental purpose to one another in the food chains, and enabled each other to exist, thrive, grow, and evolve into what we have now. Suddenly, instead of throwing one pack of cards in the air, you are throwing literally thousands of packs in the air, and expecting me to accept that they all happened to land face up, in exact order, by suit... and it "just so happened" this way. I am sorry, I can't accept your premise.

Well I'm glad to hear you don't support evolutionary theory as an explanation for origins cause to the best of my knowledge, as a biologist, I've never heard even one biologist claim that it does. But what the hell does that have to do with ID and the question with which I have challenged you with which you so diligently avoided? How does ID model living systems?

Well it doesn't matter what biologist you've known, have to say. There are a stunning number of people who honestly think ET explains origin of life. ID doesn't model living systems, it is a theory about origin of life, not evolution, so it has no fundamental need to model living systems. How does gravity model living systems? How does relativity model living systems? Something doesn't have to model living systems to be a valid theory, there are numerous theories which can be offered as an example.

The issue here, which you keep avoiding with your strawmen arguments, is ID science? You've provided no evidence that it is. You have not only not met even the most fundamental tenets of science, you've made it clear that you don't have a sound understanding of what science is.

I have a Science degree, I think I understand science. You are asking me for something that is not required for ID to be a valid theory. I have provided evidence to support the theory. The evidence, again, is Science itself, Math, Chemistry, Biology, Evolution, etc. The evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of "intelligence" over "randomness" in the design of life as we know it and the universe we understand.

Dixie, only a person who is ignorant of science and what a scientific theory is would say something as absurd as "it's just a theory not a fact.". If a scientific theory does not have a factual basis then it is simply not a scientific theory. End of argument. In science, a fact is something which can be observed or measured and in science a theory is an explanation which correlates and/or interprets those facts. No facts, no theory and that's the problem with ID as science. It has no facts which can be observed or measured.

Well I am just as sorry as I can be that you believe theories are facts, they simply are NOT facts. If something is theorized and determined to be a definitively proven fact, it becomes a "law" and is commonly referred to as such. You can argue about this all you like, go look up the fucking word in a dictionary if you don't believe me, a THEORY is not a FACT!

I'm not insulting your character. Based on your own comments and my own knowledge of Biology, in which I have a graduate degree and which happens to be the topic were discussing (not psychology), I've drawn the objective observation that your understanding of "what science is" is deeply flawed and I am not alone in making that observation.

No, you have a couple of your Atheist buddies to slap you on the back and tell you what a good job you're doing, and a couple of pinheads who stay pissed off at me all the time, weighing in to lend you support here, but that doesn't make me wrong and you right. I do have a clear understanding of science, scientific principle, and scientific laws and principles, and the difference between them. You apparently are stuck in a reality where theory becomes fact. Given that is your perception, it is no wonder you can't accept a theory of origin based on intelligence, it hasn't been proven to be a fact yet.

Dixie, what the hell do you think probabilities are? It's an expression of to what degree a random event, like flipping a coin, is predictable.

If you took 50,000,000 coins and flipped them all at once, how many would land on heads? How many would land with the top of the coin facing north? Figure that up, Mr. Wizard, and let me know the results. To explain origin of life without the possibility of intelligence, all the coins would have to land face up, with tops facing north.

Were not discussing Psychology. Were supposed to be discussing ID as science for which you have not provided one shred of evidence.

Psychology is a part of Science, and the evidence I presented is valid Scientific evidence. Again, if you want to argue something so ineptly stupid, go find a fucking dictionary and look up "Psychology" and tell us what it says! If the dictionary defines it as not being a science, I will apologize for calling you a moron.

You've provided no evidence what so ever, let alone tangible evidence. Show me something about ID that I can reach out and touch or observe or measure in any way.

Well this is what...the fourth time you've claimed I have provided no evidence? I am sorry you are unable to comprehend basic logic and lack the ability to understand basic terms and definitions, but that doesn't mean I haven't provided plenty of evidence.

Now your putting word in my mouth. I've never stated that evolutionary theory is irrefutable. I've just refuted your refutations. Evolutions is easily falsifiable and is as tentative as any scientific theory. Modern evolutionary theory has changed dramatically since Darwin first postulated his theory reflecting new knowledge about living systems, such as genetics and DNA, which Darwin new nothing of but successfully predicted their discoveries.

Well, yes you have pretty much said that ET is irrefutable, that is what it means when something is a FACT and not a THEORY! Are you going back on that now?

You have provided no evidence at all and continuously repeating that mantra does not make it true.

5th time.... will he go for 6?

Because in order to hide the fact that you cannot provide evidence that supports ID as science you have mischaracterized and misrepresented evolutionary theory from which all those sciences I listed are applied versions of. If you're mischaracterizations were true, these disciplines would not be valid.

Yes! He goes for a 6th attempt at claiming no evidence provided!
Could he be going for a new world record here?

You're grasping at straws now. Evolutionary theory has nothing to say about what you or anyone believes in about a creator. It don't have a dog in that fight. And your wrong about origins. Evolution cannot refute the possiblity of the origins of life by random chance because evolutionary theory has nothing to say on that subject. Nothing!

The evolution that the Evolution Theory suggests, does indeed indicate intelligence in design. It certainly disputes randomness.

Well now your starting to make sense. Maybe I am getting through to you.

I doubt it.

Jesus H. Christ Dixie. You don't know what you're talking about. Galileo's discovery provided a heliocentric model of the universe. A literal model with the sun in the middle and all the planets orbiting around it. Just about every natural history museum has an example of his model. It's one of the best examples there is of how a theory models nature.

Wow that didn't last long! What "practical" purpose was it used for when he discovered it? That is what you want me to provide before you will even consider my theory... didn't he have to adhere to the same criteria? Didn't he have to provide some asshole pinhead some evidence to show a practical use for his theory?

You are right. I do have a limited knowledge of the universe and I am perfectly aware that there are many mysteries in this universe that nature/science can not provide explanations for. I'm very open minded about that. But I do know what science is and ID is not science and you've provided no evidence that it is.

Well, if you accept that you don't know everything and science can't explain everything, and you really have no alternative theory as to how life originated, how can you "conclude" that it wasn't through Intelligent Design? I have given you scientific evidence to suggest that it is possible, not "proof" that you demanded, but evidence to suggest the possibility, and it is valid.