Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

This has been done. Now that you have tried to enlighten people on Intelligent Design, perhaps you could now study evolution (and it's many schools of thought) so that you yourself don't make so many generalized and erroneous comments as to that subject.

As I understand ID, the core of the belief is that given the mind-blowing complexity of the universe--not just living things, though they are at the pinnacle of complexity--but given this incredible complexity, all the constants, the laws, everything working together: the idea that this all occured randomly is even more mind-boggling than the universe itself.

If ours were the only universe, this argument would carry a lot of weight.

The thing is, there is a great deal of theoretical work--with potential for experimental validation--which strongly suggests (not proves) that ours is not the only universe. Theoretically, there may be an infinite number of universes, most with different laws, most without life. But, given an infinite number of opportunities, sooner or later you are gonna get a universe that functions as ours does. We are here simply because our universe allows for life, for us to be here, to think, to wonder. It's a numbers game, pure and simple.

Again, one can say, "Well, there is no proof of multiple universes, so why accept that over God?"
First of all, testing for the existence of other universes--ie, acquiring empirical evidence--is theoretically possible. We may not have the technology yet for generating the energies required, but the theories appear sound.
Secondly, if we operationally define God as a spiritually/supernaturally transcendent being, then even theoretically we can't empirically test for His existence. Advantage: other universes. And if we define God based on his physical, immanent properties, then how do we separate the workings of God from the workings of nature? If you say they are equivalent, well, then, all we did is rename. And it still leaves open the question of God's spiritual/transcendent quality, which, IMO, is what most people are looking for.

For what it's worth, I personally feel God can be tested for scientifically, but not empirically. I've always felt that Science is defined by Method, not by nature of proof, therefore if one uses the proper tools and collects the proper data, God and Science can mesh. In other words: if God is Spirit/Supernature/Transcendent, the tools used and data collected should be appropriate, which means, at least in part, nonempirical.

But that is a discussion for another thread.

Occam's Razor demands we go for the simple and straightforward first. And that means we seek empirical evidence for empirical phenomena before delving into esoteria.

I just feel like telling that little story - if you had enough monkeys chained to enough typewriters for long enough probability says they will eventually write the entire works of Shakespeare.

Complicity, logical patterns - might be foreboding but they are far from knock out punches that win a debate for ID.



That just seems odd. It makes it sound as if evolution has sat unchallenged as the explanation for a long time, when that is quite untrue. Creationism of various forms did that and when the first tentative steps of the theory of evolution were taken it faced considerable opposition from these "traditional lobbies". It has only really been accepted to a greater extent in the last century or so - as science is building upon it's validity as we come to understand more about the natural world and it's formation. I for one haven't seen droves of science turning from evolution in horror saying "how could we have been so wrong?"

Curses, double post for some reason!

Originally posted by KharmaDog
..so that you yourself don't make so many generalized and erroneous comments as to that subject.


Yes all of my positions that contradict any form of naturalistic philosophy are erroneous and generalized. Is it just me, or did Karmadog just contradict himself by making a generalization about another individual making generalizations..

Well I guess I'll go ahead and make another generalization from the generalization that you've just made. That generalization being, that you know very little about molecular biology & modern probability theory, thus possess very little ability to comment on how they've essentially disproved the possibility of "macro - evolution" existing.

Any more comments on ID or generalizations of generalizations that anyone feels the need to add?

As I understand ID, the core of the belief is that, given the incredible, mind-boggling complexity of our universe--not just living things, though they are at the pinnacle of complexity--but given the complexity of our universe, its constants, its laws, everything working together; that this all occurred randomly is even more mind-boggling than the universe itself.

This argument will carry a lot of weight IF our universe proves to be the only one.

There is a great deal of theoretical work, and potential for experimental validation--basically in the field of M-theory--which strongly suggests (not proves) that ours is not the only universe. Theoretically, there is an infinite number of universes, most with different physical laws, most without life. However, given an infinite number of universes, that means an infinite number of opportunities for all kinds of universes to exist, which means sooner or later you're gonna get one which functions as ours does, with our combination of laws, such that, you get life and consciousness. We are here simply because our particular universe allows for us to be here. It's a numbers game, pure and simple.

Now, why accept the idea of multiple universes over God if there is (currently) no proof for either?
First of all, testing for the existence of other universes is theoretically possible. We may not yet have the technology for generating the energies theory requires, but the possibility for acquiring empirical evidence of other universes is on the table.
On the same token: if we define God as a spiritually/supernaturally transcendent being, then even theoretically we can not empirically test for God's existence. Advantage: other universes. One can say, we will test for God's physical/immanent qualities, but how do we separate the workings of nature from the workings of God? And certainly, if we say they are the same thing, then all we've done is rename, not prove. Besides, the spiritual/transcendent aspect of God is, IMO, what most people are after.

For what it's worth, personally I feel God can be scientifically tested for, but not empirically. IMO, Science is defined by Method, not nature of proof, and if we are defining God as nonempirical, then the tools used and data collected should reflect the domain being studied.

But this is a topic for another thread.

Occam's Razor demands we go for the simple and straightforward explanation first. That means, we test empirically before we delve into esoteria.

Sorry for the double post. I had a glitch in my computer and didn't realize the first one went through.

Like one genetleman so eloquently put it- saying that the world as we have it is so complex it could never happen is akin to saying that the 13 randomly picked bridge cards in your hand aren't really there. (And the probability of drawing any thirteen bridge cards is into the billions. But point being, we'd be foolish to say it doesn't exist because there's a low probability of it existing randomly).

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Yes all of my positions that contradict any form of naturalistic philosophy are erroneous and generalized. Is it just me, or did Karmadog just contradict himself by making a generalization about another individual making generalizations..

Well I guess I'll go ahead and make another generalization from the generalization that you've just made. That generalization being, that you know very little about molecular biology & modern probability theory, thus possess very little ability to comment on how they've essentially disproved the possibility of "macro - evolution" existing.

Any more comments on ID or generalizations of generalizations that anyone feels the need to add?

Let's take a quick look here.

I said, "perhaps you could now study evolution (and it's many schools of thought) so that you yourself don't make so many generalized and erroneous comments as to that subject."

You chose to focus only on the point ," so that you yourself don't make so many generalized and erroneous comments as to that subject.' and then proceed your retort with,"Yes all of my positions that contradict any form of naturalistic philosophy are erroneous and generalized."

Once again you respond to a comment that wasn't there to try and post a diatribe that only impresses yourself an has little to do with anything.

And I did not contradict myself, if I had of said, "everything that you say is a generalization" then I myself would have made a generalization myself.

What is truly ironic is that you ignored everyone else's posts in order to respond to mine and derail your own thread. Why do you choose that avenue Whob?

Intelligent Design is the concept that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process."

In this sense, Intelligent Design is less of an explanation of complexity and order in the universe and in living things, than it is an argument for the existence of an Intelligent Designer.

Moreover, Intelligent Design is not even science; it is not empirically testable, is not correctable, is not falsifiable, does not generate predictions, violates the principle of parsimony, and so on.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
I just feel like telling that little story - if you had enough monkeys chained to enough typewriters for long enough probability says they will eventually write the entire works of Shakespeare.


You know you're just supporting ID with the quote above when you insinuate that a certain level of "intelligence" is necessary to write a fictitious work on par with Shakespeare...

Anyway as the old saying goes.. give the monkeys a couple hundred million years, and eventually they'll be able to do it.


Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
That just seems odd. It makes it sound as if evolution has sat unchallenged as the explanation for a long time...

You are correct sir. We all know that many transitionals have been found supporting macro-evolution over the years, which completely invalidate ID as being a plausible scientific theory.

Or maybe I'm wrong. Yeah I'm definitely wrong. Scientist's just recently claimed that they had found a "missing link" several days ago.

So does that now mean that all of the other transitional fossils found in prior years were in actuality not missing links at all?

the thing about this subject is........

the proponents of intelligent design are not referring to intelligence, they are referring to a creator, a god. If they simply stated, "intellegent" design........then I would have no problem at all agreeing with them.

what we humans refer to as intelligence is a completely natural occurance. We human beings ourselves have intelligence. The existence of naturally occuring intelligence has never been in doubt nor debated. Why don't these intelligent design proponents simply take the position that our universe itself has an underlying intelligence to it? It has certainly been around long enough to attain intelligence. Our human intelligence is some how derrived from the interaction between chemicals, electrical impulses and tissue. All 3 are certainly known to exists in almost infinite abundance in our universe. Doesn't this seem to be the best arguement for intelligent design? After all, not only can we prove the universe itself exists......we can also prove that the pre-requisites for intelligence exist in infinite abundance within it.

The thing is....these guys aren't actually arguing intelligent design. They are arguing "creator" or "god". They use the serious study or our sciences to progress their religious beliefs, which by very definition of belief, is unsubstantiated. These people don't want to hear about real intelligent design.......... intelligent design does not give them the feeling that someone is looking over their shoulders, judging others with different morals than their own and punishing them for not believing as they do. They want a god, not intelligent design. As previously stated, all the elements for intelligence exists naturally in our universe in abundance.........they are real, they can be studied. There is even periphrial evidence to bolster the claim.......such as the quantum spooky affect at a distance......which is also being studied......not to mention very real and known universal intelligences like mathmatics. Yet these guys want something that is completely irrational, illogical......an invisible man with his own erector set running people's lives, watching and judging.

ID is a way for some extremist Christians to confuse the issue of evolution by creating a scientific sounding theory that promotes Christianity. ID is not good science because it is subject to interpretation. Depending on how you view the intelligence, the theory would fit well with several creation stories. So, if school have to teach ID, then they should teach more then just the Christian creation myth, but the Hindu, the native Americans, the Norse, the Greek and others.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
You know you're just supporting ID with the quote above when you insinuate that a certain level of "intelligence" is necessary to write a fictitious work on par with Shakespeare...

Anyway as the old saying goes.. give the monkeys a couple hundred million years, and eventually they'll be able to do it.

Just like if you give, oh I don't know, a certain species of prehistoric fish a couple hundred million years during which its habitat changes significantly leading to many micro-evolutionary changes so it can survive, changes that accumulate to the point where it is genetically no longer the fish it began as. Or a fish at all.



While genetic designs or something like that have been found that invalidate evolution? Personally I will wait with baited breath for the day when I can go to a museum to see the "blue prints" of life.



First of all, fossils that qualify as "missing links" are not common, though I guess your being sarcastic. However even if hundreds of different transitional fossils had been discovered, or are to be discovered it is no problem. Why? Because the massively diverse array of life means there might very well have been hundreds, if not thousands of "transitory" species, while many others will have undergone such gradual change there is will be no single "link" - and once a link is found, and verified as such, well, it's not called a "missing" link anymore, is it? At least not in the evolutionary path of that species.

since nobody has replied to my last post.......I feel like pointing this out from the original post in this thread.



there is a major flaw in this theory based soly on the fact that you say anything complex cannot happen through random circumstance, it must be intelligently designed. Intelligence itself must arrise from random circumstance otherwise intelligence itself would need and intelligent designer..........and so the neverending cycle of bullshit begins. There is nothing more complex than intelligence. If it was not arrived at via naturally occuring random circumstance, then it would have to be intelligently created........yet where did the intelligent creator get his intelligence?.....where did his intelligent creator get it's intelligence? where did his intelligent creator get it's intelligence? etc. etc. etc.

Originally posted by whobdamandog

1. Natural Theology; or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, 12th edition Paley. Pg. 3.

2. Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution.Behe.
Free Press, 1996, pg. 39.

3. Review of Whilliam Dembski Intelligent Design the Bridge Between Science and Theology. Korthoff. World Wide Web, 2002. http://www.home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/kortho44.htm

4. Review of Whilliam Dembski Intelligent Design the Bridge Between Science and Theology. Korthoff. World Wide Web, 2002. http://www.home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/kortho44.htm.

5. Review of Whilliam Dembski Intelligent Design the Bridge Between Science and Theology. Korthoff. World Wide Web, 2002. http://www.home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/kortho44.htm.

1. First off, this guy was an author in 1802 and he is a Creationist, whose views are not based on anything close to the scientific method. His words are basically shit now as far as science goes. But anyway, Richard Dawkins refutes him with 'The Blind Watchmaker'. Check it out.

2. Michael Behe has been refuted multiple times, even by a fellow Christian scientist, Kenneth Miller. Ironic how that one works. Even other Christians don't believe his crap.

3. You cite this source 3 times. Doesnt really make it any more credible. Besides, the link doesn't work. Dembski has a degree in mathematical philosophy, not science. His arguments are based on statistical speculation, not the scientific method. As for statistics, even if something has a 0.000001% chance of happening, the chance still exists.

And these 'scientists' you refer to early in your post aren't scientists at all. They get their degrees in theology and philosophy from Christian institutions.

ID isn't a science. A few reasons why: http://www.naturalism.org/science.htm#whyintelligent

Your sources are garbage, which means the "facts" in your argument are based on garbage, which makes your argument garbage.

why the hell don't these christian nuts reply to my posts? why are they dodging me?

Originally posted by Evil Dead
why the hell don't these christian nuts reply to my posts? why are they dodging me?

I find that happens to me and others quite a bit, regardless of thread topic or who I'm hoping will respond. I think what happens is that sometimes participants are just very focused on other posters or points they wanna make.

It's frustrating but, IMO, don't take it personally.

Except, of course, for those who are ignoring on purpose.

Oh, and in response to a previous post, and bringing in something I had said earlier: 20^200 is nothing compared to infinity. You might as well be talking about the number 1.

Originally posted by Mindship
Oh, and in response to a previous post, and bringing in something I had said earlier: 20^200 is nothing compared to infinity. You might as well be talking about the number 1.

Word, and over millions of years, the opportunity of that 20^200 chance happening grows immensley.

It hurts my eyes everytime I read someone citing Michael Behe. He should come with a surgeon general's warning.

since we are calling the feces that is intelligent desing a "scientific" theory. Perhaps we should have a serious scientific discussion about other obviously scientific and credible theories like Physiognomy and phrenology.
Tell me whob, does your face more resemble a wolf, a pig, or a duck? and how wide is your brow compared to your brain pan?

phrenology!

it just urks me a bit that the very basis of this post was the user basicly stating, "hey...don't dissparage intelligent design based on all those nutty christians, let's talk about it scientificly"........

I then point out how the fundamental claim of his theory, that extreme complexity can not arrise from random circumstances..it must be intelligently designed, is completely flawed in it's very idea. Somewhere there has to be a method other than intelligent design to allow the very first instance of intelligence to come into being in the first place. He replies with nothing...........

so what exactly was the purpose of this thread? He wanted to handle this subject scientificly without the religious undertones.........we try to do so and he ignores us.

This is yet another trolling thread by Whob.

Yup, I don't know why I read them anymore, except for a quick laugh.
He come in, posts some utter crap, then waits for someone to rebutte him and says some assinie thing that has no bearing on anything, uses a smilie icon thing, declares himself the winner and leaves.
Wash rinse repeat.

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
As for statistics, even if something has a 0.000001% chance of happening, the chance still exists.


Don't ever go to Vegas kid..


Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
ID isn't a science. A few reasons why: http://www.naturalism.org/science.htm#whyintelligent

Your sources are garbage, which means the "facts" in your argument are based on garbage, which makes your argument garbage.





Naturalism is a religion my friend. The concept of "science" itself is nothing more than sophisticated philosophy, seeing as how it offers nothing more than theory to explain natural phenomena.

There is no way of proving scientific theory as being true, other than through empirical means. What can not be proved through means of empiricism, is often accepted as being true by "faith" alone.

The real question needed to be asked when attempting to validate a sciences credibility is not which philosophy qualifies as a science, but rather which philosophy is more logical and has more empirical evidence supporting it.

Intelligence can be observed throughout nature. When a Spider craft's a web, it utilizes some form of intelligence to do so. As does a Beaver when it builds a dam. As does sperm when it fertilizes an ovum. As does a man when he builds a house...As does..do I really need to go on?

Ambiogenesis has been proved to be statistically impossible due to modern advances in molecular biology, which attests to single cells being infinitely more complex then originally thought to be during Darwin's lifetime. This is not just theory, this is fact fellas. You can ridicule Behe all you like, but no respected Biologist disagrees with the overall complexity and apparent "design" that a single strand of DNA contains. Hell even hardcore evolutionists like Francis Crick, after understanding the structure and complexity of DNA, had to acknowledge some sort of intelligent agent in the start of life's creation.

Now please explain to me, where the testable hypothesis is for the concept of "macro evolution." Has it been observed? Can it be tested? Does the fossil record support it?

We all know the answers to these questions fellas. And sad to say, unless tangible/credible evidence and a testable hypothesis is presented within the near future supporting "macroevolution", the theory of ID will quickly become the driving force behind modern scientific philosophy.

whob's at it again. showing us the horizons of human stupidity.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
whob's at it again. showing us the horizons of human stupidity.

Definately.

It's amusing to read Tptmanno1's last post and then to see that Whob lived right up to Tptmanno1's expectations.

And by 'amusing' I meant 'pathetic in a slightly humorous way'.

Whob, when was the last time you observed the intelligent designer designing the world? You can SEE a spider make a web. You can SEE the infamous watch maker make a pocketwatch. But empirically, you cannot SEE or witness any intelligent designer. In assigning one, you violate Occam's Razor and descend into foolishness.

Wait, you were already there.

partly true. I would agree 100% except you used the word faith. Faith is a belief in the absense of evidence.......not belief with credible evidence lending support to it. By the way, the very word "theory" in scientific theory is an indicator that it is not accepted as fact. You are telling us nothing new with this. It's not like scientists have been trying to misrepresent theories as facts.



you are FOR intelligent design aren't you? You are ruining your arguement. You are listing numerous examples of naturally occuring forms (more or less) of intelligence..........ruling out the necessity of a creater. Nobody ever argued the existence of intelligence. That IS everybody's arguement against you...........intelligence naturally exists through billions upon billions of years or universal processes trial and and error. If the spider naturally builds a web of it's own.........why then does your side of the debate think there needs to be some outside intelligence telling the spider how to build a web? You're just digging your own hole man......




here's one.....

2+2= 4. There you go.

Macro-evolution is merely a series of micro-evolution.

micro-evolution + micro-evolution = macro-evolution. To admit micro-evolution occurs you admit macro-evolution can occur.

test all you want.......2+2 will always equal 4.

now are you going to keep dodging my previous 2 posts or are you going to reply to them?

ps.



I love the way you post to another user as "kid" while you yourself refused to put your birthdate in your profile out of fear of age-discrimination in intellectual matters.

ED, we can see he's a failed child actor. So he's at least in his thirties. And STILL making bad judgment calls.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Don't ever go to Vegas kid..

People win in vegas everyday. What it has to do with anything is anyone's guess.



Hey, good job not even reading the site. "Hey, look, naturalism is the website's name! let me go look up the definition of that word and then i'll look smart."

What the hell does your intelligence bit have to do with ANYTHING that I posted?

Refute that an event that has a 0.0000000001% chance of happening will NEVER happen, ever. You can't, and will never be able too. The simple fact that the percentage is not 0.00 means that it can happen.

You aren't even arguing what I posted! I proved your sources to be complete shit, unaccepted by not only the scientific community, but other christian scientists, and you ignore that to attack the name of a website.

Go away. You don't have anything here.

Originally posted by Evil Dead
I then point out how the fundamental claim of his theory, that extreme complexity can not arrise from random circumstances..


Sorry Evil Dead, but all you've really done is just present another twisted-fallicious-evolutionary argument. Used by Carl Sagan and many other Atheists of yesteryear.

Complexity is a sign of intelligence, however, the creation of the concept of "complexity" can't be used to define the one that created it. Doing so, would commit the logic fallacy of circular definition, seeing as how it would be illogical to use a word/concept to define the same word/concept.

I can't use the word "man" to define what makes up a "man"

Nor can I use the word "car" to define what makes up a "car"

I can however use mans' ability to make a car, to describe the inherent intelligence that man possesses.

Originally posted by Janus Marius
Whob, when was the last time you observed the intelligent designer designing the world? You can SEE a spider make a web. You can SEE the infamous watch maker make a pocketwatch. But empirically, you cannot SEE or witness any intelligent designer. In assigning one, you violate Occam's Razor and descend into foolishness.

Wait, you were already there.

Did you pass this post when you were busy lightning up whatever it is you're smoking, Whob?

what in the world are you talking about? complexity does not mean intelligent........nor vice versa. I am however glad that you see the fallacy in your claim........as your claim itself attempts to use circular logic, the creater designed the created.....which allowed for the creator to exist in the first place.

now......you state that anything complex must be intelligently designed. Nothing can happen by random circumstance. So an intelligence created the universe and everything in it........what created the intelligence? c'mon hot shot.......

Originally posted by KharmaDog
It's amusing to read Tptmanno1's last post and then to see that Whob lived right up to Tptmanno1's expectations.

And by 'amusing' I meant 'pathetic in a slightly humorous way'.

What's even more amusing is when an individual has little to no knowledge of the topic at hand, and they use one liner's and slander in order to damage the credibility of the much stronger opponent.

I'm not trying to Pic with you or anything Karma, it's just that I a door your knowledge of posted subject, as well as the ability you've demonstrated to present rationale arguments relating to the topic at hand.

Though you demonstrate a lack of intellectual ability, you more then make up for in tenacity and maliciousness. Well done my friend.

Fin

rational is the adjective you were looking for............rationale is a noun.

Originally posted by Evil Dead
you are FOR intelligent design aren't you? You are ruining your arguement. You are listing numerous examples of naturally occuring forms (more or less) of intelligence..........ruling out the necessity of a creater. Nobody ever argued the existence of intelligence.
That IS everybody's arguement against you...........intelligence naturally exists through billions upon billions of years or universal processes trial and and error.

If the spider naturally builds a web of it's own.........why then does your side of the debate think there needs to be some outside intelligence telling the spider how to build a web? You're just digging your own hole man......


I don't follow your argument Evil, it seems to me that you're alluding to it taking billions of years for a spider to create a web..

Anyway as I stated before, the complexity of an object/organism alludes to the likelihood of some form of "intelligence" creating it. That's the ID argument in a nutshell my friend.

Unless of course you believe that the spider webs, beaver dams, and cars create themselves.


Originally posted by Evil Dead
rational is the adjective you were looking for............rationale is a noun.


Thank you for pointing out my minor typographical error. It's quite obvious you're an English major based on this post and all of the other ones you've posted within this thread. (sic)

Your next assignment is to look up the word "coherency" in the dictionary and encyclopedia. Study it for a week, and then come back and post some more. And you wonder why I didn't respond....



Fin

Originally posted by whobdamandog
What's even more amusing is when an individual has little to no knowledge of the topic at hand, and they use one liner's and slander in order to damage the credibility of the much stronger opponent.

At which you excel. And you have shown that you have a very limited understanding of evolution in various threads. You quote outdated data or "modify" information to further your own arguments. I don't need to damage your credibility, you have none.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
I'm not trying to Pic with you or anything Karma, it's just that I a door your knowledge of posted subject, as well as the ability you've demonstrated to present rationale arguments relating to the topic at hand.

It's not "a door" it's "adore". If you are going to try and be witty, yet berate my intelligence, stop making so many errors. You just look even more silly.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Though you demonstrate a lack of intellectual ability, you more then make up for in tenacity and maliciousness. Well done my friend.

Fin

Yes, attack my intelligence and observation regarding your debating technique and avoidance rather than defending your position against what others have posted against your arguments.

It is not that I can't debate such topics with you whob, it's just that it's pointless. You are unable to have an intelligent debate or conversation. You choose to talk at people as opposed to conversing or debating with people. You ignore points, try to distort what others have written or just outright try to deceive others. That is your way.

Your opinion of me matters not, for by stating more of your opinions you just further to solidify the forum's generally low opinion of your behaviour. But please, continue to focus your attention on me instead of trying to support your original post, in so doing you just confirm that the original post was merely bait and that you really didn't have anything of value to say from the beginning.

explain. I'm sure you remember mathmatics class........show your work. If you make a statement, be sure to back it up with something tangible and real......we call this evidence.

and no.....the ID argument in a nutshell is simply god. I proposed a much better ID argument earlier but for some reason or another......you declined to comment on it. Gee.......I wonder why. Here, I'll re-post it.





my pointing out of your misuse of words was merely an ironic reply to your post directly before it which appeared to me that you were mocking somebody else's typos in this post somewhere......while making your own mistakes at the very same time. You posted the following, all bolds included:



seriously kid, how old are you? you remind me of this 12 year old kid who called himself chibi boy we had in here last year. When somebody refuses to put thier age in their bio.......just seems to me there's a reason they're hiding it. Perhaps they know that nobody of sane mind wants to engage in intelligent debate with a 14 year old kid.

Originally posted by Janus Marius
Whob, when was the last time you observed the intelligent designer designing the world? You can SEE a spider make a web. You can SEE the infamous watch maker make a pocketwatch. But empirically, you cannot SEE or witness any intelligent designer. In assigning one, you violate Occam's Razor and descend into foolishness.

Wait, you were already there.

Whob, you can address this post ANY time now.

And try not to act like this guy:

http://img78.imageshack.us/img78/757/headupass8zp.png

Oh wait... hold on...



There's my obligatory retarded smilies.

And here's my witty finish:

FIN

Originally posted by KharmaDog
At which you excel. And you have shown that you have a very limited understanding of evolution in various threads. You quote outdated data or "modify" information to further your own arguments. I don't need to damage your credibility, you have none.




Yes Molecular Biology is outdated. As is Modern Probability Theory. Do you mind describing the validity of this position Karma?


Originally posted by KharmaDog
It's not "a door" it's "adore". If you are going to try and be witty, yet berate my intelligence, stop making so many errors. You just look even more silly.


Actually its "ador"...lol in reference to this little character.



Someone's definitely living up to their namesake today...


Originally posted by KharmaDog
Yes, attack my intelligence and observation regarding your debating technique and avoidance rather than defending your position against what others have posted against your arguments.


Thus far Karma you've done little else other than state my apparent lack of knowledge of evolutionary theory, instead of showing your ability to present your abundance of knowledge regarding it. I would think if one was so comfortable in their abilities and position, they wouldn't resort to trying to discredit their opponents knowledge on said subject. With that being stated Karma, I'd like to view a rational rebuttal presented in your own words, regarding the original post in this thread.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Yes Molecular Biology is outdated. As is Modern Probability Theory. Do you mind describing the validity of this position Karma?

When I stated that you, "quote outdated data or "modify" information to further your own arguments" it was in reference to the occasions where you have attacked evolution argued against it by finding faults or pointing out inconsistencies with outdated theories of evolution. You reference older studies and material in hopes to sway the argument to your side. In fact, I made no reference as to Molecular Biology or Modern Probability Theory being outdated, though I sure that there are theories in each discipline that were pursued in the past that are no longer applicable or have been built upon. Much as what has happened with various theories of evolution.

And let us not forget when you have outright manipulated information in the ID vs. Evolution thread. Yes that was a classic whob moment.


Originally posted by whobdamandog
Thus far Karma you've done little else other than state my apparent lack of knowledge of evolutionary theory instead of showing your ability to present your abundance of knowledge regarding it.

I never claimed to be an expert in evolutionary theory, and I did not realize that holding a PHD was necessary to argue for or against an issue here at KMC. Your arrogance has you fooled that you are an expert but your arguments suggest otherwise. As for arguing for evolution, I have had this argument with you (as have others) in other threads and see it pointless to continue.

And pointing out your lack of knowledge regarding evolution is a fairly important point as it shows that you maniacally attack evolution while not really taking the time to understand it, or worse ignore or manipulate information in order to reaffirm your own beliefs.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
I would think if one was so comfortable in their abilities and position, they wouldn't resort to trying to discredit their opponents knowledge on said subject.

Anyone reading this (other than you) is laughing at the hypocrisy.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
With that being stated Karma, I'd like to view a rational rebuttal presented in your own words, regarding the original post in this thread.

The problem with that is two fold:

The first problem is one can not rationally argue a point to an irrational person.

The second problem is contained in the following passage in your initial post:


Intelligent Design is rooted in the belief of a superior being (i.e. God) creating life. This is not a scientific theory, it is a faith based belief. Being a faith based belief makes it a moot point to argue with any scientific validity.

why didnt anyone tell me its picture time???

check out k-dog sporting his vintage denim vest:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/PVS/whobowneddog.jpg

Originally posted by sithsaber408
BOLLOCKS and BULLSHIT.

What were you thinking Whob?




Exactly! "The Scientific Theory of Intelligent Design" is an oxymoron.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
Anyone reading this (other than you) is laughing at the hypocrisy.

Haha, pointed out very well.

Until sithsaber comes in.

Originally posted by Janus Marius
Whob, when was the last time you observed the intelligent designer designing the world?




We can indeed observe and study the "design" in the structure of DNA. We can also use the scientific method to study all types of processes found throughout nature. For example..one can..

Originally posted by Janus Marius
SEE a spider make a web.


This complex natural processes is indeed observable and testable.

So to clarify, ID is not testing the existence of an intelligent designer, rather, it's demonstrating the inherent intelligence found within natural world.


Whatever philosophical or religious conclusions one wants to draw from the inherent "intelligent designs" found within nature is left up strictly to that individual.


Now you answer my questions..

When was the last time you've witnessed "Ambiogenesis?"(Ambiogenesis = primordial soup creating life)

When was the last time you've witnessed a reptile transform into a bird?

Let me guess your response, it takes "billions" of years for such a thing to happen, and although you don't have any proof from the fossil record to support such a claim, it's logical to assume that it can still happen, even though biotechnological microbiology has proved such a process impossible on a cellular level, and modern probability theory has proved such a process to have a...

. 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000001 % chance of occurring...


Oh yeah one more thing..you've just been owned.

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e359/damandog/owned.jpg



Fin

Originally posted by Mindship
Occam's Razor demands we go for the simple and straightforward first. And that means we seek empirical evidence for empirical phenomena before delving into esoteria.

Nicely put. I think that's all a thread with such an oxyrmonic title like this one needs (and deserves).

EDIT: I see ol' Capt Fant got there first, so think of my remark as a reinforcement of such a blatant observation.

Intelligent design is NOT a scentific theory.
It is a religious hypothesis.

http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/not-science.html

I'm pretty open to ideas. Maybe some alien race engineered our entire existance. Maybe we formed out of a puddle of goop and evolved. Maybe an alien raced engineered our puddle of goop and let it ride. Who knows really. Maybe we're all pets to feline and k-9 anthropomorphs and this is one of our crazy dreams! Or maybe I'm weird and have too much time on my hands.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
http://img242.imageshack.us/img242/9258/unsupportedass6ke5jg.jpg

"Look, it's my Bible!"^



Fin

Unfortunately, you failed to see the ridiculousness of the claim YOU made that I addressed: you said that the world was made by intelligence. You then went on to say that spiders make webs, watchmaker makes watches, etc. But what you failed to realize is that you made a

False Analogy

You were griping about evolution not being empirical because we don't observe it in an instance, and yet you can even SEE this fabled intelligent designer (Read: fanboy's God) make the world! You can SEE spiders make webs. You can SEE watchmakers make watches. You cannot see this intelligent designer at all.

But I did like the irrelevant misdirection on your part simply because I picked out one point (Out of your entire megapost of bullshit) and undid it.

Hold on... obligatory smilies...



And for that witty, know-it-all finish...

FIN

Originally posted by Janus Marius
Unfortunately, you failed to see the ridiculousness of the claim YOU made that I addressed: you said that the world was made by intelligence. You then went on to say that spiders make webs, watchmaker makes watches, etc. But what you failed to realize is that you made a

False Analogy

You were griping about evolution not being empirical because we don't observe it in an instance, and yet you can even SEE this fabled intelligent designer (Read: fanboy's God) make the world! You can SEE spiders make webs. You can SEE watchmakers make watches. You cannot see this intelligent designer at all.

But I did like the irrelevant misdirection on your part simply because I picked out one point (Out of your entire megapost of bullshit) and undid it.

Hold on... obligatory smilies...



And for that witty, know-it-all finish...

FIN

HAHAHA fanboys of god! I liked that damnit, fanboys are everywhere, we can't get rid of them!

Yeah, I bet in Whob's world Jesus could take Galactus.

Originally posted by Janus Marius
Yeah, I bet in Whob's world Jesus could take Galactus.

I am still waiting for him to explain how Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory when it is not testable, correctable, falsifiable, and does not make any predictions.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I am still waiting for him to explain how Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory when it is not testable, correctable, falsifiable, and does not make any predictions.

You don't think that these guys take science classes, do you?

If Galactus wasn't pretending when he got "drunk" with Hercules I'd say Jesus could at least get him drunk then draw wangs on Galactus' face and shave his eyebrows then take pictures of it.

That's kind of a win. Sort of.

Does Galactus have eyebrows?

Galactus has whatever he wants.

But seriously, no clue. He's got that weird ability to appear in a form recognizable to the race he's about to devour.

I don't really recognize anything that eats entire planets as having eyebrows. No need, really. How is he going to sweat in the vacuum of space? That's what eyebrows are supposively for, right?

Indeed. He did come from a human-like alien race though. Like all almost all comic aliens. I've seen no scans of him as Galan though.

Galactus used the power cosmic to completely derail this thread.

Originally posted by whobdamandog


tip 1: a good comedian never laughs at their own jokes.

tip 2: you're not funny anyway, so strike tip 1 and end yourself

Evolution - life began from the laws of physics and then became better and better due to new things and changes.

Creationism - god did it.



Science?

Before reading whob's following response to my post, refer to my first quote from whob in this post.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Karmadog's post initially translated by whobdamandog

I have no idea what the fuuck I'm talking about, just as I have demonstrated in the other evolution thread.

In order to make it look as though I have a point and I'm not afraid to respond to the initial post due to my lack of knowledge on said subject, I will keep on posting, in hopes that nobody realizes that I have not attempted to respond to the original subject matter.

**PM's PVS: hey sweetcheeks..come over to this new whob thread and start swinging on my nuts like you always do in these forums. Post some owned pics. That way I'll look like I know what I'm talking about, and whob will look silly. We got him at his own game this time..don't we sweet "P"..he..he..he..me so clever..love you baby..bye..bye..wink


Wow, way to make yourself look not only like a total hypocrite, but like a functioning idiot as well!


I told you that trying to debate with you is useless, I make some good points and point out your hypocrisy and you type garbage (that isn't even funny) to try and look witty and smart.

I can see that not only does it bother you that I and others make you feel stupid (and that you yourself must feel stupid as exemplified your resulting behavior) but that it also frustrates you when I (or others) make an observation about you that others find amusing or humourous while you have to laugh at your own pathetic jokes in order to let us know that you are trying yet another attempt at humor.

By the way, by posting your own "owned pics", smilies, ignoring the facts and points of others and reinterpreting what others have typed you have lived up to every character cliche and stereotype that people accuse you of being. All you have to do is lie and you've hit the Whob jackpot!

Not only are you deluded and sad, you aren't even entertaining any more.

So post some more pics, smilies and pathetic comment that derail your own thread so that you can try to hid behind attempt wit instead of intelligently facing the points and positions of others, your not fooling anyone, but maybe it makes you feel better about yourself.

intelligent design would be a decent theory if it weren't for one thing...that there is absolutely no evidence of any form of intelligence that "designs" all living and non living things on the earth

so the intelligent design theorists argue on exaclty the same front as creationists...they dont actually show any evidence to back up their own theory...the simply try and pick holes in the giant and ever increasing amount of evidence that supports evolution

Originally posted by jaden101
intelligent design would be a decent theory if it weren't for one thing...that there is absolutely no evidence of any form of intelligence that "designs" all living and non living things on the earth

so the intelligent design theorists argue on exaclty the same front as creationists...they dont actually show any evidence to back up their own theory...the simply try and pick holes in the giant and ever increasing amount of evidence that supports evolution

Exactly. They think of they can put a reasonable doubt into the theory of evolution suddenly it proves ID.

Why do you even try?
Evolution has a rousing victory. If you even want to call this pathetic excuse to undermine the truth.
Fine Whob, destroy my usage of the word truth, but deny it all you want its true. You can close your eyes and believe all you want that the sky is green but it doesn't change the truth that when you open them and look up, its blue.
Your idiotic, nonsensical psudo-intellect has anyone with a real brain baffled on how you can actually function if you live in this little world you have created for youself.
I'm obvioulsy con't going to convince you otherwise, and you obviouly arn't going to convince the entire world, scientific, education and governmental institutions included of your little delusion. It doesn't matter what you think. There are some very strange people, and you happen to be one of them. So from now on I am considering you and your argument a simple conspiracy theroy, because if you break it down, thats what it is. That the government and the scientific community have falsified all this evidence and come up with these outrageous stories to try to pull the wool over our eyes, but you, the special one, the so called enlightened one can see through all this reaming pile of bullshit and have taken it upon yourself to educate the world of you absurd conspiracy story.
Go talk to Deano, you are two of the same.
So from hear on out, I banish you and all your ideas, to the ignorable and laughable realm of "Conspiracy Theroy"
So go soak your head.

Originally posted by Tptmanno1
...Go talk to Deano, you are two of the same...

Hey! Deano dose not deserve that.

Hey, I don't make him post shit about the lizards that are running our government or whatever.

Originally posted by Tptmanno1
Hey, I don't make him post shit about the lizards that are running our government or whatever.

I know, he is a but other then that, he's a good guy. whob, on the other hand, has some real hate issues.

But don't take me too seriously.

Two scientists often cited by defenders of ID are Michael Behe, author of Darwin's Black Box (The Free Press, 1996), and William Dembski, author of Intelligent Design: The Bridge between Science and Theology (Cambridge University Press, 1998). Dembski and Behe are fellows of the Discovery Institute, a Seattle research institute funded largely by Christian foundations. Their arguments are attractive because they are couched in mathematical or scientific terms and backed by what seems to be scientific competence. However, their arguments are identical in function to the creationists' arguments: rather than provide positive evidence for their own position, they mainly try to find weaknesses in natural selection. As already noted, however, even if their arguments are successful against natural selection, that would not increase the probability of ID.

http://skepdic.com/intelligentdesign.html

Just like with Creationism ID commits the fallacy of thinking, that IF they can find any weakness in evolution (which they can't) that somehow prooves ID.
I can NEVER prove claim A by disproving claim B.

its simply not enough to say that because something in nature is complex that it must have been designed...

yes there are complex mathematical elements that occur in the simplest of items...take this variety of cauliflower...

http://mkeadle.org/uploads/0101_028.jpg

fractals and the fibonacci sequence...but just because people discovered these things and humans are supposed to be intelligent doesnt actually mean that it was intelligence that brought these things about

life has had billions of years to evolve the most efficient ways of perpetuating...in fact that is the whole driving force of evolution...a species that has an efficiency over its predecessor will flourish while its predeccessor will die out

try something simple...standing under a tree in the middle of the summer and looking uppp...very little direct sunlight gets through because the leaves has evolved to spread out to achieve maximum photosynthesis...its not a design...it just happens that way because its efficient

http://www.mcs.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/R.Knott/Fibonacci/fibnat.html

Fractals are one thing, but that can't be cauliflower! It's green, and looks intelligently designed!

Originally posted by The Omega
Intelligent design is NOT a scentific theory.
It is a religious hypothesis.

http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/not-science.html

How is it a religious hypothesis, what religion does it conform to?

Edit: The problem with ID is identifying the designer.

Originally posted by jaden101


life has had billions of years to evolve the most efficient ways of perpetuating...in fact that is the whole driving force of evolution...a species that has an efficiency over its predecessor will flourish while its predeccessor will die out



How can something random lead to efficiency, this is my problem with evolution.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
How is it a religious hypothesis, what religion does it conform to?

Edit: The problem with ID is identifying the designer.



How can something random lead to efficiency, this is my problem with evolution.

the mutations themselves maybe random...but the characteristics that they lead to have an effect on whether a single animal can survive to pass on its mutation

every living thing needs energy to survive in whatever form it derives that energy...directly from the sun or by eating other living things or however it gets it

the species that utilises its energy source most efficiently has a far better chance at survival...even within a species when a mutation occurs which gives an animal/plant an advantage over others of its own species then it has a better chance of survival and passing on its own characteristic that made it more successful...hence driving evolution

many mutations occur, obviously, that dont give favourable results and these organisms die young and in many cases (especially in mutations in humans) arent even born at all

this can give the impression that because only improved characteristic carry on and less favourable ones die off, that it is somehow done so through a form of intelligent choice...not so...its merely NATURAL SELECTION

Originally posted by jaden101
the mutations themselves maybe random...but the characteristics that they lead to have an effect on whether a single animal can survive to pass on its mutation



It still hasn't been proven mutations create new characteristics I don't have to remind you of that, and let's say they did how can they handle survival traits when one random mistake means extiction.Ironically a mutation generally is a mistake, yet accidently created complex systems?

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
It still hasn't been proven mutations create new characteristics I don't have to remind you of that, and let's say they did how can they handle survival traits when one random mistake means extiction.Ironically a mutation generally is a mistake, yet accidently created complex systems?

you're missing the point entirely

one unfavourable change in a single animal means that single animal dies off because it has a less chance of passing on its DNA...

one favourable change in a single animal allows it to pass on its DNA (and the subsequent favourable change)

look at many of the species on the planet that have social systems that allow only the alpha male to mate with the females...if that alpha male has a genetic change that gives him an advantage over the other males then its his characteristics that are passed on

proof of mutation causing the passing on of traits is well documented and in the case of bacterial species, in very short time scales

take MRSA...its merely a mutated version of staphylococcus aureus but because a mutation occurred that gave it resistance then all those non resistant bacteria die and the resitant strain in allowed to flourish because of lack of competition

that about as much of an influence of intelligence has had on a species...namely human intelligence showing its utter lack of said intelligence in helping artificially select super bugs






you said that earlier on...and you're completely wrong

how about starting with proving that there even is a designer before trying to identify who that designer is

any evidence at all for a designer other that the completely ridiculous

"its complex therefor it must have been designed" ..or the even better argument of "mathamatics says there is only a small chance"

They found the missing link anyway... the whole in the proof has been filled in... This is like arguing that gravity doesn't exist... we are living in it.

Originally posted by jaden101


take MRSA...its merely a mutated version of staphylococcus aureus but because a mutation occurred that gave it resistance then all those non resistant bacteria die and the resitant strain in allowed to flourish because of lack of competition


Right, but these bacteria never become an entirely different species,Antibiotics are "killer molecules" that are produced by micro organisms to fight other micro organisms. Yes there are bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics but it doesn't prove evolution; The mechanism works like this, A large proportion of the bacteria that are subjected to antibiotics die, but some others, which are not affected by that antibiotic, replicate rapidly and soon make up the whole population. Thus, the entire population becomes immune to antibiotics.There exist two reasons for this and none of them constitute evolution.


1) The transfer of resistance genes already extant in bacteria.

2) The building of resistance as a result of losing genetic data because of mutation.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Right, but these bacteria never become an entirely different species,Antibiotics are "killer molecules" that are produced by micro organisms to fight other micro organisms. Yes there are bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics but it doesn't prove evolution; The mechanism works like this, A large proportion of the bacteria that are subjected to antibiotics die, but some others, which are not affected by that antibiotic, replicate rapidly and soon make up the whole population. Thus, the entire population becomes immune to antibiotics.There exist two reasons for this and none of them constitute evolution.


1) The transfer of resistance genes already extant in bacteria.

2) The building of resistance as a result of losing genetic data because of mutation.

you seem to think that evolution needs to happen within an entire species within a generation...and with that kind of thinking its no wonder you dont think that evolution happens but the fact remains that it does and there is a mountain of evidence to support it

now instead of trying to make spurious points against evolution...i suggest you actually post some evidence FOR intelligent design

the fact is that you cant...because there is none, which makes the fact that you believe in it despite the fact that there isn't a shred of evidence all the more bizarre

as for your issue about resistance genes being passed on...those resitance factors come about through mutation be it from a radiation source, a chemical mutagen or whatever...

thats the way it works

what doesn't happen is that some almighty being waves his big ol' hand and bellows "I MAKE THIS BACTERIA RESISTANT TO ANTIBIOTICS THROUGH MY OWN DESIGN"

do you see how utterly ridiculous that concept is?

Originally posted by jaden101
you seem to think that evolution needs to happen within an entire species within a generation...and with that kind of thinking its no wonder you dont think that evolution happens but the fact remains that it does and there is a mountain of evidence to support it


No, my problem is I don't get how people accept speculation as solid evidence, saying "We cannot witness it because it takes millions of years" Doesn't prove it happens, speculation is not evidence.

Originally posted by jaden101



as for your issue about resistance genes being passed on...those resitance factors come about through mutation be it from a radiation source, a chemical mutagen or whatever...

thats the way it works



A mutation that removes a trait, not add one like you evolutionist claim.

Originally posted by jaden101

what doesn't happen is that some almighty being waves his big ol' hand and bellows "I MAKE THIS BACTERIA RESISTANT TO ANTIBIOTICS THROUGH MY OWN DESIGN"

do you see how utterly ridiculous that concept is?

Right, "An almighty being waves his hand" why do evolutionist believe that every concept of "GOD" is the same, it makes you sound ignorant when you post something like that.

Originally posted by jaden101

the fact is that you cant...because there is none, which makes the fact that you believe in it despite the fact that there isn't a shred of evidence all the more bizarre




ID argues, complexity and purpose prove well ID, It's a simple logic
take the circulatory system it's purpose is to supply blood to various organs in the body, that's it's purpose. If something is created with a purpose then it has one, according to evolution the first cell (despite being extremely complex)was created by accident and these accidents stayed consistent with random mutations which created more complex organisms, now how can accident's with no purpose create systems with definite purpose that depend on other systems. that's like a tornado appearing in a junk yard and creating a bus with the purpose of transportation. does that make sense?

EDIT: Futhermore these systems change little by little and become more efficient, yet have no purpose in the first place.

there is documented evidence of short term evolution in larger species...ive given several examples...i suggest you take some time to actually look up the facts before making incorrect claims...simply because you're ignorant of these facts doesn't mean they aren't true





so its adding the trait of antibiotic resistance...the resistant strain survives because it has changed (evolved) through a mutation

so how you see the addition of a resistance factor to be the removal of a trait i just dont know




why?...given that there is absolutely no evidence for the existance of a god never mind what that god might look like then my guess is as good as anyone elses...so if you're accusing me of being ignorant of what God looks like if he exists then i guess i and so are you along with everyone else on the planet





but its a flawed argument...complexity doesn't prove anything...particularly in nature...look at the examples i gave only 2 days ago...simply because something has an apparently complex mathamatical pattern and just because humans had the intelligence to notice and give a name to these patterns, doesn't actually prove anything





now you're showing complete ignorance of the chemistry involved in the creation of proto-cells

and as i've already stated...while mutations and there results are random (seeing as no-one can forsee how a mutagen will affect a segment of DNA) the forces on the organisms that dictate whether it's mutation is helpful or not aren't random...

it's quite simple and i've stated it several times...if the change is beneficial then the organism has a better chance of survival and passing on the change...and life has had billions of years and many different enviroments which act on life forms to dictate which changes are better suited to those enviroments

and i'll ask once again...show me some EVIDENCE FOR INTELLIGENT DESIGN

any piece of evidence will do

show me any evidence of say a single insect being designed by a higher intelligence...preferably on earth and not on starship troopers

Originally posted by jaden101
there is documented evidence of short term evolution in larger species...ive given several examples...i suggest you take some time to actually look up the facts before making incorrect claims...simply because you're ignorant of these facts doesn't mean they aren't true


Then post them please.


Originally posted by jaden101





so its adding the trait of antibiotic resistance...the resistant strain survives because it has changed (evolved) through a mutation

so how you see the addition of a resistance factor to be the removal of a trait i just dont know


Because the trait was always there, how else would some bacteria survive. The trait was not added via mutation it is a pre existing trait.

Originally posted by jaden101
a trait i just dont know




why?...given that there is absolutely no evidence for the existance of a god never mind what that god might look like then my guess is as good as anyone elses...so if you're accusing me of being ignorant of what God looks like if he exists then i guess i and so are you along with everyone else on the planet


Again, you sound ignorant read the science and god thread, the term god can be used to describe a concept,the universe or even a dimension.

Originally posted by jaden101

but its a flawed argument...complexity doesn't prove anything...particularly in nature...look at the examples i gave only 2 days ago...simply because something has an apparently complex mathamatical pattern and just because humans had the intelligence to notice and give a name to these patterns, doesn't actually prove anything
I never said it was solid proof, It's speculation but it's still a good theory, I don't see how that's different from "macro evolution taking to long to document" argument you Darwinist are always barking.

Originally posted by jaden101





now you're showing complete ignorance of the chemistry involved in the creation of proto-cells

and as i've already stated...while mutations and there results are random (seeing as no-one can forsee how a mutagen will affect a segment of DNA) the forces on the organisms that dictate whether it's mutation is helpful or not aren't random...

it's quite simple and i've stated it several times...if the change is beneficial then the organism has a better chance of survival and passing on the change...and life has had billions of years and many different enviroments which act on life forms to dictate which changes are better suited to those enviroments

Yet despite all that,these random mutations that create species cannot be duplicated in a lab, despite the fact artificial selection is better at bringing out variety amongst a species than natural selection and the mutation rate can be increased. No mutation has been documented to create new traits. Let's not forget these mutations are random yet bring out more efficient forms with no purpose yet increase the organisms chances of survival for the purpose of living, how does that make sense.

Ignorant? What's that, like uneducated?

Observed instances of speciation
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

29+ evidences for macroevolution
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Some Questionable Creationist Credentials
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html

So there is alle the evidence you need in the world in support of evolution.
NOW - let's see some evidence to support an intelligent designer.

Originally posted by The Omega
NOW - let's see some evidence to support an intelligent designer.


ummmm? Because...I said so? And I heard it from my mom, and she's always been right.

Originally posted by The Omega
Observed instances of speciation
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

29+ evidences for macroevolution
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Some Questionable Creationist Credentials
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html

So there is alle the evidence you need in the world in support of evolution.
NOW - let's see some evidence to support an intelligent designer.

I've been to that sight before, but thanks anyways.

EDIT: Doesn't the thread pretty much explain.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
ummmm? Because...I said so? And I heard it from my mom, and she's always been right.

I bow before your superior wisdom. There is NO arguing such a point...

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
I've been to that sight before, but thanks anyways.

EDIT: Doesn't the thread pretty much explain.

That is not proof of Intelligent Design that statement there...

Originally posted by The Omega
I bow before your superior wisdom. There is NO arguing such a point...


I prefer to call it superior intellect, thanks


KHAN!!!!!!

Capt>

29 proof's for macro evolution doesn't say much so far
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/


It talks about theories yet doesn't bother to distinguish between,their theroies and facts Example:
Many organisms have been observed to acquire various new functions which they did not have previously (Endler 1986). Bacteria have acquired resistance to viruses (Luria and Delbruck 1943) and to antibiotics (Lederberg and Lederberg 1952). Bacteria have also evolved the ability to synthesize new amino acids and DNA bases (Futuyma 1998, p. 274). Unicellular organisms have evolved the ability to use nylon and pentachlorophenol (which are both unnatural manmade chemicals) as their sole carbon sources (Okada et al. 1983; Orser and Lange 1994). The acquisition of this latter ability entailed the evolution of an entirely novel multienzyme metabolic pathway (Lee et al. 1998). Bacteria have evolved to grow at previously unviable temperatures (Bennett et al. 1992). In E. coli, we have seen the evolution (by artificial selection) of an entirely novel metabolic system including the ability to metabolize a new carbon source, the regulation of this ability by new regulatory genes, and the evolution of the ability to transport this new carbon source across the cell membrane (Hall 1982).

"Such evolutionary acquisition of new function is also common in metazoans. We have observed insects become resistant to insecticides (Ffrench-Constant et al. 2000), animals and plants acquire disease resistance (Carpenter and O'Brien 1995; Richter and Ronald 2000), crustaceans evolve new defenses to predators (Hairston 1990), amphibians evolve tolerance to habitat acidification (Andren et al. 1989), and mammals acquire immunity to poisons (Bishop 1981). Recent beneficial mutations are also known in humans, such as the famous apolipoprotein AI Milano mutation that confers lowered risk to cardiovascular disease in its carriers."

They don't mention that these traits already exsit and that the ratio of bacteria that a resistent simply change due to natural selection.

Also it doesn't do a good job of explaining how mutations create traits.

mmm..perhaps you missed this



they're only a few pages from the end in the evolution...not that hard to find if you're not to blinded by bizarre faith in ID to bother




if the trait always existed then the bacteria would have always been resistant to antibiotics...given that we both know they haven't then it can be easily surmised that you are talking rubbish again




ok...swap the word god for "intelligent designer" and at least show me some proof for his/hers/it's existance...unless you're arguing that it is the universe itself that is the intelligence then in which case show me some evidence for that




no its not a "theory" and to describe it as such merely shows blatent ignorance to what a scientific theory is and how it differs from a hypothesis

macro evolution does take place on a massive time line....you are most likely aware of the analogy that if the earth's existance was 1 day long then human life has existed for less than a second


the only criticism that can be levied against evolution is that we haven't discovered everything yet...we are probably still to discover geological events that changed life on the planet

but there is more and more evidence apprearing every day to support evolution...where as there is not a tiny shred to support either creationism or intelligent design






how many times are you going to miss the simplest of points

yes a mutation is random....but given that many mutations in offspring result in them not being born then those mutated traits aren't likely to survive are they?

but when a mutation results in a trait that gives it an advantage over others of its species then that trait gets passed on

and you're harping about no mutation causing traits is just gibberish..it documented fact...in fact its the dictionary definition of a mutation

Originally posted by jaden101


if the trait always existed then the bacteria would have always been resistant to antibiotics...given that we both know they haven't then it can be easily surmised that you are talking rubbish again

Rubbish, have you heard of dominate and recessive traits, you do know some traits can exsit in your genepool without being active.

Originally posted by jaden101

ok...swap the word god for "intelligent designer" and at least show me some proof for his/hers/it's existance...unless you're arguing that it is the universe itself that is the intelligence then in which case show me some evidence for that

The proof is in the creation, the complexity of life is what ID argues to be evidence of an itelligent creator.

Originally posted by jaden101
how many times are you going to miss the simplest of points

yes a mutation is random....but given that many mutations in offspring result in them not being born then those mutated traits aren't likely to survive are they?

but when a mutation results in a trait that gives it an advantage over others of its species then that trait gets passed on

Again no proof that mutations create traits.

Originally posted by jaden101



and you're harping about no mutation causing traits is just gibberish..it documented fact...in fact its the dictionary definition of a mutation

Then you should have no problem, posting something that show a mutation creating a new trait, not a pre exsisting one.

lets not forget that while the complex mathematics that humans defined in equation existed in nature before we made them mathematically complex

in actuallity it is simply the most efficient way of performing a certain function...as i gave examples earlier with tree leaves being spread in in a fibonacci sequence in a tree to achieve maximum sun exposure...to ensure its survival

in which case the only argument you can really put forward for that being designed by intelligence is that the tree had the intelligence to spread its leaves out itself...hell at least you can prove that the tree actually exists...



yes...there is...and not matter how mant times you say that there isn't...you're still wrong





i already have...several times...you just lack the ability to understand it

and once again...i ask for some proof for ID

anything....anything at all

Yes, please.
Let's see some proof of ID and Creationism, Blue Nocturne. Or some proof the facts presented on the sites I gave you are false.

Proof with links, thank you, to articles written by scientists (real scientists, not self-proclaimed scientists.) http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html

Originally posted by jaden101
lets not forget that while the complex mathematics that humans defined in equation existed in nature before we made them mathematically complex

in actuallity it is simply the most efficient way of performing a certain function...as i gave examples earlier with tree leaves being spread in in a fibonacci sequence in a tree to achieve maximum sun exposure...to ensure its survival

in which case the only argument you can really put forward for that being designed by intelligence is that the tree had the intelligence to spread its leaves out itself...hell at least you can prove that the tree actually exists...



And like I said, there are many perspectives of God.

Originally posted by jaden101



yes...there is...and not matter how mant times you say that there isn't...you're still wrong
i already have...several times...you just lack the ability to understand it

And you lack the ability to differentiate, your example of bacteria like I said is an example of genetic variation, No new traits were added to the gene pool the ratio of antibiotic bacteria simply changed.

Originally posted by The Omega
Yes, please.
Let's see some proof of ID and Creationism, Blue Nocturne. Or some proof the facts presented on the sites I gave you are false.

I just gave proof, the complexity in nature advocates intelligence

Originally posted by The Omega

Proof with links, thank you, to articles written by scientists (real scientists, not self-proclaimed scientists.) http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html

Why does it matter if I post links, so if prof. Whoever says something it's true ?if I'm wrong it can be debunked with simple test.

Blue Nocturne is at it again.

How many times have I pointed you in the right direction, to DNA and copying errors and mutations??

Holy shit man. You just ignore anything that may prove you wrong. Just like a creationist...

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
Blue Nocturne is at it again.

How many times have I pointed you in the right direction, to DNA and copying errors and mutations??

Holy shit man. You just ignore anything that may prove you wrong. Just like a creationist...

But you never,ever,ever show me any proof of mutations creating new traits. All I get is "It takes millions of years" How is that evidence.

yeah there is...but show me some evidence that actually supports any of them



not it doesn't...especially when the complexity is actually efficiency...which is the whole driving force behind EVOLUTION


i notice you now use terms such as "advocates" and "perspectives" rather than proof

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
I just gave proof, the complexity in nature advocates intelligence

That is not proof.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
But you never,ever,ever show me any proof of mutations creating new traits. All I get is "It takes millions of years" How is that evidence.

you're not paying attention are you?

there is even investigations into a human trait that has been found in different individuals that is the result of a mutation of a gene

the trait is resistance to the HIV virus

http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/1996pres/960926.html

Originally posted by KharmaDog
That is not proof.

One concept is that god is the universe

Then if the universe is complex and efficient then it is intelligent.

Originally posted by jaden101
you're not paying attention are you?

there is even investigations into a human trait that has been found in different individuals that is the result of a mutation of a gene

the trait is resistance to the HIV virus

http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/1996pres/960926.html

No you don't understand some traits make people more susceptible to disease, by not having this trait then they become immune.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
But you never,ever,ever show me any proof of mutations creating new traits. All I get is "It takes millions of years" How is that evidence.

That's a blatant lie and you know it. It actually doesn't take millions of years to see copying errors and genetic mutations in animals. I have shown you at least a dozen articles on this shit man. I'm sure you've seen mutations in animals and humans, didn't take millions of years to get that mutation, did it? An extra finger here, immunity to malaria, extra dense muscle, etc

Genetics man, genetics. I suggest you take a course.

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
That's a blatant lie and you know it. It actually doesn't take millions of years to see copying errors and genetic mutations in animals. I have shown you at least a dozen articles on this shit man. I'm sure you've seen mutations in animals and humans, didn't take millions of years to get that mutation, did it? An extra finger here, immunity to malaria, extra dense muscle, etc

Genetics man, genetics. I suggest you take a course.

Right since we've been around for millions of years


all examples you give me are genetic variation I suggest you take course or mutations removing traits, I suggest you take a course.

The complexity of nature only prooves that there is complexity in nature, nothing else.

Many organisms even show features of appallingly bad design. This is because evolution via natural selection cannot construct traits from scratch; new traits must be modifications of previously existing traits. This is called historical constraint. A few examples of bad design imposed by historical constraint:

In parthenogenetic lizards of the genus Cnemdophorus, only females exist. Fertility in these lizards is increased when another lizard engages in pseudomale behavior and attempts to copulate with the first lizard.
These lizards evolved from a sexual species so this behaviour makes some sense. The hormones for reproduction were likely originally stimulated by sexual behaviour. Now, although they are parthenogenetic, simulated sexual behaviour increases fertility. Fake sex in a parthenogenetic species doesn't sound like good design to me.

In African locust, the nerve cells that connect to the wings originate in the abdomen, even though the wings are in the thorax. This strange "wiring" is the result of the abdomen nerves being co-opted for use in flight. A good designer would not have flight nerves travel down the ventral nerve cord past their target, then backtrack through the organism to where they are needed. Using more materials than necessary is not good design.

In human males, the urethra passes right through the prostate gland, a gland very prone to infection and subsequent enlargement. This blocks the urethra and is a very common medical problem in males. Putting a collapsible tube through an organ that is very likely to expand and block flow in this tube is not good design. Any moron with half a brain (or less) could design male "plumbing" better.

Perhaps one of the most famous examples of how evolution does not produced designed, but "jury-rigged" traits is the panda's thumb. If you count the digits on a panda's paw you will count six. Five curl around and the "thumb" is an opposable digit. The five fingers are made of the same bones our (humans and most other vertebrates) fingers are made of. The thumb is constructed by enlarging a few bones that form the wrist in other species. The muscles that operate it are "rerouted" muscles present in the hand of vertabrates (see S.J. Gould book "The Panda's Thumb" for an engaging discussion of this case). Again, this is not good design.

Originally posted by The Omega
The complexity of nature only prooves that there is complexity in nature, nothing else.



Yet, this complexity is an accident, that's kept in check by a random force

EDIT: which makes it more complex, So how does one futher a concept without intelligence, you guy's are rich.

Blue Nocturne>
29+ proofs of macro-evolution http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Who said it takes millions and millions of years? Aside from you?

Come on: Proof of ID! Proof of ID!

Originally posted by The Omega
Blue Nocturne>
29+ proofs of macro-evolution http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Who said it takes millions and millions of years? Aside from you?

Come on: Proof of ID! Proof of ID!
Can you post what section shows it doesn't take millions of years without posting an entire link for me to search through.

EDIT: Honestly these link wars are pointless I could easily get a link from trueorigins.com and we could debate the credability of the source.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
No you don't understand some traits make people more susceptible to disease, by not having this trait then they become immune.

hahahaha

did you even read the article...its speaks of a mutation of a gene that makes the people who have the rare mutation immune

its not that everyone has resistance and only a minority who have a different genetic make up are suceptible to HIV

and the mutations in the gene have been proven

if you're hypothesis was right then the numbers of people infected would be decreasing and those suceptible to HIV gradually died off

given that HIV numbers are increasing year on year...it shows your idea to be false

even if your idea were true it would still show a mutation making people more suceptible to a disease and hence the emergence of a new trait...and thus you prove something you say there isn't any evidence of

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Right since we've been around for millions of years


all examples you give me are genetic variation I suggest you take course or mutations removing traits, I suggest you take a course.

Do you even read what I post? No, you don't, or else you wouldn't be asking the same stupid ass questions. I just said it DOESN'T take millions of years to see mutations in animals and humans. DUHR I R GOOD AT R3ADIN!

Maybe you don't understand the meaning of the word 'trait'. A human being having eleven fingers instead of ten is a NEW TRAIT. It's NOT NORMAL.

Coincidentally, EVERY animal has nearly identical genepools, only differing in what genes are actually active. All animal cells on the planet earth are made out of the EXACT SAME COMPONENTS.

Or would you like to explain how a human ear can grow on a ****ing RAT.

Proof of ID! Proof of ID!

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
Maybe you don't understand the meaning of the word 'trait'. A human being having eleven fingers instead of ten is a NEW TRAIT. It's NOT NORMAL.


Last I checked 11 fingers was a domonite trait.

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak


Coincidentally, EVERY animal has nearly identical genepools, only differing in what genes are actually active. All animal cells on the planet earth are made out of the EXACT SAME COMPONENTS.


Right I have the trait for wings in my genepool, and if we have the same traits why can't we all interbreed?

Originally posted by jaden101
hahahaha


even if your idea were true it would still show a mutation making people more suceptible to a disease and hence the emergence of a new trait...and thus you prove something you say there isn't any evidence of


How does loss of traits, support the emergence of new traits?

Originally posted by jaden101
hahahaha



if you're hypothesis was right then the numbers of people infected would be decreasing and those suceptible to HIV gradually died off

given that HIV numbers are increasing year on year...it shows your idea to be false

You assume the whole population suffers from HIV, and these traits or lack of traits would have to be active.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Last I checked 11 fingers was a domonite trait.

You're actually right, it is a dominant trait...but compare the number of people with ten fingers to the number of people with eleven fingers. Oh shit, more people have ten fingers!? NO WAI! That would mean I'm still right and having 11 fingers is not normal!



I JUST answered that! We have different traits active! If DNA from the egg and sperm don't match in number of chromosomes and DNA sequence, then it's seen as a foreign body and it's attacked by the immune system. In fact, there are many many cases in which human female's body reject the zygote as a foreign body even though it is completely human.

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
You're actually right, it is a dominant trait...but compare the number of people with ten fingers to the number of people with eleven fingers. Oh shit, more people have ten fingers!? NO WAI! That would mean I'm still right and having 11 fingers is not normal!




You know they usually cut it off.


Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak



I JUST answered that! We have different traits active! If DNA from the egg and sperm don't match in number of chromosomes and DNA sequence, then it's seen as a foreign body and it's attacked by the immune system. In fact, there are many many cases in which human female's body reject the zygote as a foreign body even though it is completely human.

When has the trait for wings been found in the genepool of a human?

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
How does loss of traits, support the emergence of new traits?

so you're arguing that the person hasn't gained resistance to HIV but merely lost suceptibility to it...which is actually the same thing

and given that the trait of resistance has been shown to, in some cases, NOT be passed onto the offspring...then how do you pass on a trait that has been lost

namely that the parent loses the trait of non resistance...yet still manages to pass this non resisitance onto its offspring...despite your argument saying that they no longer have it to pass on

http://images.killermovies.com/forums/moresmilies/smilie_tux.gif

Originally posted by jaden101
so you're arguing that the person hasn't gained resistance to HIV but merely lost suceptibility to it...which is actually the same thing



No, I'm arguing some traits make an organism less susceptible to disease and by not having them via mutation then they are not susceptible. if not having a trait is considered a trait then that is the only time a mutation creates a trait other then that a mutation does not create a new trait that adds information to gene pool that was never there.

well you have the same basic bone structure in your arm as a bat has in its wing...given that they have 2 completely different purposes then why design them to be similar would you

i mean you wouldn't design a hammer shaped instrument to do the job of a needle would you?

Originally posted by jaden101
well you have the same basic bone structure in your arm as a bat has in its wing...given that they have 2 completely different purposes then why design them to be similar would you

i mean you wouldn't design a hammer shaped instrument to do the job of a needle would you?

Similar design structure doesn't mean they are the same, homology is not a fact.

Read what whob posted.

Arachnoidfreak & Jaden101> BN is incapable of grasping genetics. It's ok...
You've offered plenty of proof to support evolution. If he doesn't WANT to understand, there is nothing you can do.

Ask, instead, that he proves ID.

Blue Nocturne>
29+ proofs of macro-evolution http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Who said it takes millions and millions of years? Aside from you?

Come on: Proof of ID! Proof of ID!

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
You know they usually cut it off.

Yes I do know. Which leaves a scar. Throw them in the mix with the eleven finger guys and I'm still right. If having eleven fingers was normal, they wouldn't be getting cut off in the first place.




First of all, the human genome has not been completely researched yet, and we've spent decades on disecting it. Which should give you an idea of how complex it is.

Secondly, human beings have the necessary biological materials to create wings, yes, but our DNA structure does not permit it. We have the biological ability to develop nearly ANY organ or limb(because we have all the necessary biological components), but we have the traits that we do because we evolved that way. We had the best traits to survive in our enviroment(mostly our large brains).

There are human babies born with tails, with bones in them. So they are actual tails and not just skin. They aren't quite the wings you are looking for, but I think they are close enough to prove my point.

Originally posted by The Omega
Arachnoidfreak & Jaden101> BN is incapable of grasping genetics. It's ok...
You've offered plenty of proof to support evolution. If he doesn't WANT to understand, there is nothing you can do.



Right, I don't understand I ask you to name one instance where mutations are observed adding new traits and you keep linking me to talk origins, maybe you should take a lesson in your own thread art of debating.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
No, I'm arguing some traits make an organism less susceptible to disease and by not having them via mutation then they are not susceptible. if not having a trait is considered a trait then that is the only time a mutation creates a trait other then that a mutation does not create a new trait that adds information to gene pool that was never there.



so your saying that in order for a trait to be considered a trait...then the absence of the trait must also have been a trait?...otherwise its not a new trait

that makes no sense really does it?

lets simplify it for you

most people have the normal gene...most people aren't immune to HIV

a small amount of people have a mutated gene that is different from the majority....they ARE immune

that seems like a perfectly clear example of a trait of immunity being caused by a non normal change in DNA (a mutation)

http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=4471

BLue Nocturne: Im going to ask you again, even though you completely ignored it the first time...

How do you explain growing a HUMAN ear on a RODENT if what I am saying is false?

have already...many times...i know...you know...and he/she knows...that he/she cant

Stuff happened that I don't understand and can't explain, therefor ID is true.

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
Im going to ask you again, even though you completely ignored it the first time...

How do you explain growing a HUMAN ear on a RODENT if what I am saying is false?

Geeze I dunno, genetic manipulation, forcing traits into the genepool of another.

Originally posted by jaden101


so your saying that in order for a trait to be considered a trait...then the absence of the trait must also have been a trait?...otherwise its not a new trait

that makes no sense really does it?


http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=4471

No I'm saying in order for a trait to be new it can't have exsited in the first place within the species.




Originally posted by jaden101
:
most people have the normal gene...most people aren't immune to HIV

a small amount of people have a mutated gene that is different from the majority....they ARE immune

that seems like a perfectly clear example of a trait of immunity being caused by a non normal change in DNA (a mutation)



Have you heard of malaria and sickle cell anemia look it up, certian traits are mutate causing them to be immune.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Geeze I dunno, genetic manipulation, forcing traits into the genepool of another.

Sweet, you ignored (or missed) the post I made on the last page, with the human tails.

Also, did you know that human nails and hair is made out of the exact same thing that makes up the wings of the common housefly(keratin)? Or that our fat is the same as a whale's fat, only the whale has much much more of it. Maybe you'd like to explain how the teeth, which are not actually bone, but made of a denser material, are made of the same material in every mammal?

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
Sweet, you ignored (or missed) the post I made on the last page, with the human tails.

Also, did you know that human nails and hair is made out of the exact same thing that makes up the wings of the common housefly(keratin)? Or that our fat is the same as a whale's fat, only the whale has much much more of it. Maybe you'd like to explain how the teeth, which are not actually bone, but made of a denser material, are made of the same material in every mammal?

It's called homology I'll debate you on that some other time.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
It's called homology I'll debate you on that some other time.

No, it's called the ****ing answer you are looking for. There's no such thing as new information popping up spontaneously and that's what you want. Science doesn't claim that that is what happens AT ALL. A new trait in science is something that is not present in the majority of the species. What you want is for us to show you that a bunny will turn into an eight legged dragon with a slinky for a tail. Not going to happen, science doesn't proclaim any such thing.

Still no proof of ID?