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

I have been watching some of these YouTube vids on his new movie and this comment "The path of science leads to killing" just killed me.

ihYq2dGa29M

The path of ignorance leads to stupidity.

What if:

Iran attacked Saudi Arabia, N Korea attacked S Korea and Japan, and China attacked Taiwan... All at the same time?

ummmm... well, at least we aren't using ridiculous hyperbole.

Honestly, it two fold if you include weapons... I think that may be what he means.


I'm trying LOL

War and killing is about making money.

Originally posted by Mark Question
War and killing is about making money.

...and religion is not?

Originally posted by Mark Question
War and killing is about making money. Originally posted by Shakyamunison
...and religion is not?

they both are, and both can be viewed as businesses. what makes better cash than sex, religion and war?

Religion actually has the right way of going about it though. They don't pay taxes. It's quite the money-making racket if done well. Course, some are stupid about it and live ascetic lifestyles. Points for style, I suppose, but if I was less altruistic I'd probably become a TV evangelist or something and live for free off of the gullible.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Religion actually has the right way of going about it though. They don't pay taxes. It's quite the money-making racket if done well. Course, some are stupid about it and live ascetic lifestyles. Points for style, I suppose, but if I was less altruistic I'd probably become a TV evangelist or something and live for free off of the gullible.

Scientists have been known to convince entire governments to give them billions of dollars so they can do experiments that have a limited chance of telling them anything . . .

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Scientists have been known to convince entire governments to give them billions of dollars so they can do experiments that have a limited chance of telling them anything . . .

and you better be happy about it

Originally posted by inimalist
and you better be happy about it

Or what?

Oh, right . . . the nukes. See! Power corrupts. Scientists make weapons. Weapons can give power. Thus all scientists are evil.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Or what?

Oh, right . . . the nukes. See! Power corrupts. Scientists make weapons. Weapons can give power. Thus all scientists are evil.

Here's a cookie

Cookies are a product of science too! nuts

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Scientists have been known to convince entire governments to give them billions of dollars so they can do experiments that have a limited chance of telling them anything . . .

Then when it doesn't the scientists never get funding again, and that money was for research, not themselves. So they settle down and get a university teaching job so that they don't starve. And the theocrats cut funding to even the stuff that gives results...so that million dollar scientific doo-dads start to seem outrageous rather than a natural extension of our advanced scientific culture, and the media paints them in a negative light and the people who voted for the theocrats yell about how we're spending tax money (which didn't come from religions, mind you).



...I'd much rather be religious.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Then when it doesn't the scientists never get funding again, and that money was for research, not themselves. So they settle down and get a university teaching job so that they don't starve. And the theocrats cut funding to even the stuff that gives results...so that million dollar scientific doo-dads start to seem outrageous rather than a natural extension of our advanced scientific culture, and the media paints them in a negative light and the people who voted for the theocrats yell about how we're spending tax money (which didn't come from religions, mind you).



...I'd much rather be religious.

No one would be in that economic boat if silver tongued scientists hadn't talked governments into pumping billions of dollars into research that needed circular logic just to be rationalized.



I'd rather be capable of turning invisible so I could spy on highschool girls in the locker rooms. But we can't all get what we want (thanks to science taking all the money).

...nah, that's the military budget taking all the money. Science is usually privately funded.

In any case, if anyone is interested in formal debunking and proactive responses to Stein's ludicrous film, the Sketipcs society has devoted a number of podcasts, articles, and space in their latest issue to addressing it. It includes a letter from Richard Dawkins to a man who was influenced by the movie and channeled the anger in inspired within him into a letter to Michael Shermer (editor of Skeptic).

www.skeptic.com

There's some that can be read for free without purchasing the recent issue (which actually focuses on climate studies more so than Stein or religion).

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Or what?

Oh, right . . . the nukes. See! Power corrupts. Scientists make weapons. Weapons can give power. Thus all scientists are evil.

So, before science was mainstream and religion was one of the major principles that governed peoples lives, there wasn't corruption, weapons or war?

...turn on the sarcasm meter Rob...

Originally posted by Robtard
So, before science was mainstream and religion was one of the major principles that governed peoples lives, there wasn't corruption, weapons or war?

Exactly. Where have you been?

the path of evil leads to the dark side...

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
...turn on the sarcasm meter Rob...

I had a feeling, but this place has its share "holy-rollers"; I forget if Symmetrical is one of them. WWJIAD?

Originally posted by BetrayedUnicorn
the path of evil leads to the dark side...

Only the Sith deal in absolutes

Before commenting on the quote above, I'd like to make a statement on an entirely different topic, namely, Ben Stein.

Who cares about Ben Stein?! It seems to me, that Naturalists are more concerned over him than so-called Creationists! Call him a fruit-cake or a genius, I couldn't care less, and I assume most Creationists have mutual feelings, not to mention the majority of Americans; it is the "fanatics," who resort to such nonsense!! They are just like the media covering the presidential campaign: he/she did this, he/she did that (nip-picking BS)!! Change the record, already!!! For crying out loud, the opening of the video posted by Da Pittman, dealt with movie sales/reviews... as if the general population has the smarts (or even cares) to know the truth about the Evolution/Intelligent Design debate clash. 40 Year Old Virgin sold more tickets... get a life!!!! If so much of what the movie entails can be disputed by scientific means, why resort to movie sales/reviews?! Are you kidding me!!! Talk about an agenda!!! Talk about, "setting the mood!!!" Why not stick to the facts?!!!

(grabbing a beer)

Now... about the quote posted by DigiMark007:



With all due respect, the "Skeptics Society" website, presumably having podcasts and articles reaching the Oort Cloud, as you claim, for those "interested in formal debunking and proactive responses to Stein's ludicrous film," has nothing to offer, at least, not directly!

Here are the hard facts, and I present them to open your minds, not to be "Mr. know-it-all," as some have claimed of me:

One of the most successful texts of biochemistry over the past several decades was written in 1970 by Albert Lehninger, a professor of biophysics at Johns Hopkins University, and has been updated several times over the years. On the first page of the first chapter of his first text book, Lehninger mentions evolution. He asks why the biomolecules that occur in virtually all cells appear to be extraordinarily well-fitted to their tasks:

In this chapter, the first in a series of 12 devoted to the structures and properties of the major classes of biomolecules, we shall develop the idea that biomolecules should be studied from two points of view. We must of course examine their structure and properties as we would those of non-biological molecules, by the principles and approaches used in classical chemistry. But we must also examine them in the light of the hypothesis that biomolecules are the products of evolutionary selection, that they may be the fittest possible molecules for their biological function.

Lehninger, a fine teacher, was passing on to his students, the world view of biochemical professionals -- that evolution is important for understanding biochemistry, that it is one of just two "points of view" by which they must study the molecules of life. Although a callow student might take Lehninger's word for it, a dispassionate observer would look for evidence of evolution's importance to the study of biochemistry. An excellent place to start is the book's index.

Lehninger provided a very detailed index in his book to help students readily find information. Many topics in the index have multiple entries, because they must be considered in various contexts. For example ribosomes have 21 entries in the index of Lehninger's first edition; photosynthesis has 26 entries; the bacterium e. coli has 42 entries; and under "proteins" are entered 70 references. In all, there are nearly 6,000 entries in the index, but only two under the heading of evolution under the heading of "evolution." The first citation is in a discussion of the sequences of proteins; as discussed earlier, however, all those sequence data can be used to infer relationships, that cannot be used to determine how a complex biochemical structure originated. Lehninger's second reference is to a chapter on the origin of life in which he discusses proteinoids and other topics that have not stood the test of time.

With just two citations out of 6,000, Lehninger's teacherly advice to his students concerning the importance of evolution to the students is belied by his index. In it Lehninger included virtually everything of relevance to biochemistry. Apparently, though, evolution is rarely a relevant topic.

Lehninger published a new edition of his text in 1982; its index contains just two references to evolution out of 7,000 entries. After Lehninger died in 1986 Michael Cox and David Nelson of the University of Wisconsin updated and rewrote the 1982 text. In the preface the new authors include the following under a list of goals:

To project a clear and repeated emphasis on major themes, especially those relating to evolution, thermodynamics, regulation, and the relationship between structure and function.

Indeed, in the index of the new edition, there are 22 references to evolution out of a total of 8,000, an increase of more than tenfold from the last edition. But when we get past origin-of-life chemistry and sequence comparisons (the two references in Lehninger's earlier text), we find that the new edition uses the word evolution as a wand to wave over mysteries. For example, one citation is to "evolution, adaptation of sperm whales." When we flip to the indicated page, we learn that sperm whale have several tons of oil in their heads which becomes more dense at colder temperatures. This allows the whale to match the density of the water at the great depths where it often dives and so swim more easily. After describing the whale the textbook remarks, "Thus we see in the sperm whale a remarkable anatomical and biochemical adaptation, perfected by evolution." But that single line is all that's said! The whale is stamped "perfected by evolution," and everybody goes home. The authors make no attempt to explain how the sperm whale came to have the structure it has. Nothing else is said!!!!

Point being, do not come off as if the "Skeptics Society" has more to offer, that hasn't already been stated!!!! Evolution has much to offer in the sciences, but Evolutionary theory is incomplete, and that is just being honest!!!!"

Originally posted by ushomefree
Before commenting on the quote above, I'd like to make a statement on an entirely different topic, namely, Ben Stein.

Who cares about Ben Stein?! It seems to me, that Naturalists are more concerned over him than so-called Creationists! Call him a fruit-cake or a genius, I couldn't care less, and I assume most Creationists have mutual feelings, not to mention the majority of Americans; it is the "fanatics," who resort to such nonsense!! They are just like the media covering the presidential campaign: he/she did this, he/she did that (nip-picking BS)!! Change the record, already!!! For crying out loud, the opening of the video posted by Da Pittman, dealt with movie sales/reviews... as if the general population has the smarts (or even cares) to know the truth about the Evolution/Intelligent Design debate clash. 40 Year Old Virgin sold more tickets... get a life!!!! If so much of what the movie entails can be disputed by scientific means, why resort to movie sales/reviews?! Are you kidding me!!! Talk about an agenda!!! Talk about, "setting the mood!!!" Why not stick to the facts?!!!

(grabbing a beer)

Now... about the quote posted by DigiMark007:



With all due respect, the "Skeptics Society" website, presumably having podcasts and articles reaching the Oort Cloud, as you claim, for those "interested in formal debunking and proactive responses to Stein's ludicrous film," has nothing to offer, at least, not directly!

Here are the hard facts, and I present them to open your minds, not to be "Mr. know-it-all," as some have claimed of me:

One of the most successful texts of biochemistry over the past several decades was written in 1970 by Albert Lehninger, a professor of biophysics at Johns Hopkins University, and has been updated several times over the years. On the first page of the first chapter of his first text book, Lehninger mentions evolution. He asks why the biomolecules that occur in virtually all cells appear to be extraordinarily well-fitted to their tasks:

In this chapter, the first in a series of 12 devoted to the structures and properties of the major classes of biomolecules, we shall develop the idea that biomolecules should be studied from two points of view. We must of course examine their structure and properties as we would those of non-biological molecules, by the principles and approaches used in classical chemistry. But we must also examine them in the light of the hypothesis that biomolecules are the products of evolutionary selection, that they may be the fittest possible molecules for their biological function.

Lehninger, a fine teacher, was passing on to his students, the world view of biochemical professionals -- that evolution is important for understanding biochemistry, that it is one of just two "points of view" by which they must study the molecules of life. Although a callow student might take Lehninger's word for it, a dispassionate observer would look for evidence of evolution's importance to the study of biochemistry. An excellent place to start is the book's index.

Lehninger provided a very detailed index in his book to help students readily find information. Many topics in the index have multiple entries, because they must be considered in various contexts. For example ribosomes have 21 entries in the index of Lehninger's first edition; photosynthesis has 26 entries; the bacterium e. coli has 42 entries; and under "proteins" are entered 70 references. In all, there are nearly 6,000 entries in the index, but only two under the heading of evolution under the heading of "evolution." The first citation is in a discussion of the sequences of proteins; as discussed earlier, however, all those sequence data can be used to infer relationships, that cannot be used to determine how a complex biochemical structure originated. Lehninger's second reference is to a chapter on the origin of life in which he discusses proteinoids and other topics that have not stood the test of time.

With just two citations out of 6,000, Lehninger's teacherly advice to his students concerning the importance of evolution to the students is belied by his index. In it Lehninger included virtually everything of relevance to biochemistry. Apparently, though, evolution is rarely a relevant topic.

Lehninger published a new edition of his text in 1982; its index contains just two references to evolution out of 7,000 entries. After Lehninger died in 1986 Michael Cox and David Nelson of the University of Wisconsin updated and rewrote the 1982 text. In the preface the new authors include the following under a list of goals:

To project a clear and repeated emphasis on major themes, especially those relating to evolution, thermodynamics, regulation, and the relationship between structure and function.

Indeed, in the index of the new edition, there are 22 references to evolution out of a total of 8,000, an increase of more than tenfold from the last edition. But when we get past origin-of-life chemistry and sequence comparisons (the two references in Lehninger's earlier text), we find that the new edition uses the word evolution as a wand to wave over mysteries. For example, one citation is to "evolution, adaptation of sperm whales." When we flip to the indicated page, we learn that sperm whale have several tons of oil in their heads which becomes more dense at colder temperatures. This allows the whale to match the density of the water at the great depths where it often dives and so swim more easily. After describing the whale the textbook remarks, "Thus we see in the sperm whale a remarkable anatomical and biochemical adaptation, perfected by evolution." But that single line is all that's said! The whale is stamped "perfected by evolution," and everybody goes home. The authors make no attempt to explain how the sperm whale came to have the structure it has. Nothing else is said!!!!

Point being, do not come off as if the "Skeptics Society" has more to offer, that hasn't already been stated!!!! Evolution has much to offer in the sciences, but Evolutionary theory is incomplete, and that is just being honest!!!!" Stop posting like a 2 year old kid and knock it off with the over sized text.

Too much typing! I failed to mention, the last few paragraphs were taken directly from the book, "Darwin's Black Box, authored by Michael Behe." Obviously, that is not the central theme behind this views. The excerpt, was taken from chapter 9 entitled, "What Does the Box Tell Us: Publish or Perish," on pages 180 through 181.

Why's the box gotta be black?

Racist mutha ****ers.

Eh, I offered a website that had some pertinent discussion and articles. No need to criticize me, or is posting relevant material not encouraged these days?



Anyway, a more proactive approach:

Questions For Ushome.



1. How does God intervene in a physical, causal manner, that affects the evolutionary process?

2. Since it would need to be physical and is thus observable, how do we test for this intervention?

3. What evidence is there to support such intervention?

4. How does your theory account for macrocosmic changes in species?

5. Does invalidating one small aspect of a large, complex theory invalidate the whole theory? If so, why?

...I'll be honest and say I'm not expecting to be wowed with your answers (nor do I expect a response at all, given your track record). Mainly I'm just curious to see what you say when you aren't attacking evolution but have to present arguments for your own theory. Should be a refreshing change of pace from the umpteenth iteration of the "HA! No macroevoultion!" argument. Evolution has produced spades of evidence and processes by which these things take place. So far, to my knowledge, ID has zero.

No Bible verses. Actual science. Go!

evolutionary theory is only incomplete in 2 aspects...that is doesn't explain the initial origin of life (which it has never claimed to do) and it doesn't show all transition species

Intelligent design on the other hand uses spurious analogies about clock makers...the fact remains that if you want to add scientifically viable information about intelligent design....then you have to have some for of evidence directly for a designer....and we all know there is no such evidence

same with creationism...if you claim that God created mankind...then you have to provide evidence for the existence of God

merely attacking the ever decreasing holes in evolutionary theory, which is amassing evidence continually in it's favour, is essentially pointless because, as we all know, you cant prove one theory merely by attempting to discredit another

as for Ben Stein..he was tacked onto this movie to try and give some Jewish credibility to the ridiculous concentration camp scenes in the film as if the world would think..."mmm...well he's Jewish...we better not offend him by telling him his holocaust analogy is complete and total bullshit"

Originally posted by ushomefree
Too much typing! I failed to mention, the last few paragraphs were taken directly from the book, "Darwin's Black Box, authored by Michael Behe." Obviously, that is not the central theme behind this views. The excerpt, was taken from chapter 9 entitled, "What Does the Box Tell Us: Publish or Perish," on pages 180 through 181.
Don't bother quoting from that book, even when I was in elementary school I could tell it was nonsense.

1. How does God intervene in a physical, causal manner, that affects the evolutionary process?

Man--in terms of my understanding--has no view, regarding God intervening in a physical, casual manner, that effects the evolutionary process! Man does have, however, Old and New Testament Scripture, presumably thwarted by God Himself. That, in your view (as well as mine in the context of this discussion), is based on faith. All I can offer is this:

Science proves... time and time again, both through documentation and observation data, that organisms have changed over "X" amount of time (in diversity); however, despite all wishful thinking, genetic mutation, and claims of Complexity Theory, all is limited in scope, Digi! You and I, not to mention the entire scientific world, cannot explain, account, or give examples of organisms developing into "new" organisms, however subtle (or expedient)! And let's not forget the origin of the first simple cell, which contain, by the way, dozens of molecular machines--all having complexity and/or similarities of man-made machines. This is absolutely fascinating!!! Point is, Natural Selection--a beautiful theory "in its time," is completely outdated. I'm sorry, but that is the case. As the media presents, not to mention pop-culture, Christians (and others of religious faith) are not the backbone of Intelligent Design; scientists presented the idea, both of religious and non-religious backgrounds! DO NOT BELIEVE THE HYPE!! Intelligent Design, is not some conspiracy to take over the world and/or scientific works.

2. Since it would need to be physical and is thus observable, how do we test for this intervention?

This questions is unwarranted, at least, almost completely, anyway! Why? Scientists are able to make assumptions/theories based on observational data, namely, the inner workings of the cell (and molecular machines within, carrying a host of duties: reproduction, cellular repair, transport of raw material/information, energetic processes and the like). The cell--and all functions within--are not a free lunch. In other words, Naturalists overlook the details--the example of the Whale for example. Most Naturalists mock the Creationist by saying, "Magic-man did it." Okay... whatever; but let us be honest. Both sides of the view have a piece of the puzzle, and that is all so-called "Creationist Whackos" are trying to make clear. In other words, let's put views/knowledge on the table. It is not a competition for the most superior view, as the media presents it! The media has made, not to mention other venues, a mockery of Intelligent Design regarding the educational system. Intelligent Design has been, for the most part, boiled down to Christian nut-bags attempting to preach the Bible in schools! This, is, absolutely not the case!!

3. What evidence is there to support such intervention?

As the majority of Astrophysicists--I assume would state--I make the following statement directed towards the birth of the cosmos. I use this example, because it is simplistic, and yet, powerful (at the same time)!

And here we go:

Mass, energy, space, and time--dimensionality in which we live, is not possible via means of Evolutionary processes. Simply said, if mass exists... where do you put it, and when (?), and with what!? Mathematics, not to mention "logic," indicates that the Cosmos came into existence at one point in time, simultaneously! Subtract (or off-set) one of the following premises, the entire Cosmos becomes a fairy-tale. The Cosmos collapse, and we--you and I Digi--would not be having this discussion. Period.

If the reader--including you Digi--can render my appeal, as honest, than I congratulate you; honestly, this post contains "updated" scientific knowledge to the best of my ability. I am not here to deceive. Please... pretty please, give me a break.

Take care all! Not to throw Scripture in your face, but I think it has a powerful message. For me, it "compliments" science, not "determines" science! And the passage reads:

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened" (Romans 1:2-21).

What does Astrophysics have to do with it? I fail to see the connection. They are two totally different fields.

Originally posted by BetrayedUnicorn
the path of evil leads to the dark side...
Actually, it's vice-versa.

If Science leads to murder, then Religion lead's to torture. And more people have been killed by Cruxifixion than by the missiles.

Originally posted by Darth Exodus
If Science leads to murder, then Religion lead's to torture. And more people have been killed by Cruxifixion than by the missiles.

Cruxifixion was originally a practice of the government not of any faith.

Bombs/missiles have killed thousands more people.

Originally posted by ushomefree
1. How does God intervene in a physical, causal manner, that affects the evolutionary process?

Man--in terms of my understanding--has no view, regarding God intervening in a physical, casual manner, that effects the evolutionary process! Man does have, however, Old and New Testament Scripture, presumably thwarted by God Himself. That, in your view (as well as mine in the context of this discussion), is based on faith. All I can offer is this:

Science proves... time and time again, both through documentation and observation data, that organisms have changed over "X" amount of time (in diversity); however, despite all wishful thinking, genetic mutation, and claims of Complexity Theory, all is limited in scope, Digi! You and I, not to mention the entire scientific world, cannot explain, account, or give examples of organisms developing into "new" organisms, however subtle (or expedient)! And let's not forget the origin of the first simple cell, which contain, by the way, dozens of molecular machines--all having complexity and/or similarities of man-made machines. This is absolutely fascinating!!! Point is, Natural Selection--a beautiful theory "in its time," is completely outdated. I'm sorry, but that is the case. As the media presents, not to mention pop-culture, Christians (and others of religious faith) are not the backbone of Intelligent Design; scientists presented the idea, both of religious and non-religious backgrounds! DO NOT BELIEVE THE HYPE!! Intelligent Design, is not some conspiracy to take over the world and/or scientific works.

So basically,you don't know,and have to resort to Scripture to justify yourself?

Also,evolution easily accounts for new organisms...that's exactly what the process is. You've just ignored the countless times we've showed you such data.

And again, you've diverted attention away from the lack of explanation for your theory and taken to attacking the oher theory. I'm not surprised.

Originally posted by ushomefree
2. Since it would need to be physical and is thus observable, how do we test for this intervention?

This questions is unwarranted, at least, almost completely, anyway! Why? Scientists are able to make assumptions/theories based on observational data, namely, the inner workings of the cell (and molecular machines within, carrying a host of duties: reproduction, cellular repair, transport of raw material/information, energetic processes and the like). The cell--and all functions within--are not a free lunch. In other words, Naturalists overlook the details--the example of the Whale for example. Most Naturalists mock the Creationist by saying, "Magic-man did it." Okay... whatever; but let us be honest. Both sides of the view have a piece of the puzzle, and that is all so-called "Creationist Whackos" are trying to make clear. In other words, let's put views/knowledge on the table. It is not a competition for the most superior view, as the media presents it! The media has made, not to mention other venues, a mockery of Intelligent Design regarding the educational system. Intelligent Design has been, for the most part, boiled down to Christian nut-bags attempting to preach the Bible in schools! This, is, absolutely not the case!!

The question is unwarranted?! Then how are we to test to see if your theory has ANY merit?

Also, you're very right in saying that scientists often draw conclusions from observational data. What you fail to mention is that the results we have match with the scientists conclusions, or we later develop the means to test the hypothesis in full. If neither of those things happen, the theory is discarded. So "observing" nature and declaring God the answer is only one possible thoery, and so far it has yet to be corroborated with evidence.

If you have a "piece of the puzzle" you have to say why. Attempting to knock down one thoery then inserting your own as the de facto solution doesn't work unless you back it with rational argument.

Originally posted by ushomefree
3. What evidence is there to support such intervention?

As the majority of Astrophysicists--I assume would state--I make the following statement directed towards the birth of the cosmos. I use this example, because it is simplistic, and yet, powerful (at the same time)!

And here we go:

Mass, energy, space, and time--dimensionality in which we live, is not possible via means of Evolutionary processes. Simply said, if mass exists... where do you put it, and when (?), and with what!? Mathematics, not to mention "logic," indicates that the Cosmos came into existence at one point in time, simultaneously! Subtract (or off-set) one of the following premises, the entire Cosmos becomes a fairy-tale. The Cosmos collapse, and we--you and I Digi--would not be having this discussion. Period.

If the reader--including you Digi--can render my appeal, as honest, than I congratulate you; honestly, this post contains "updated" scientific knowledge to the best of my ability. I am not here to deceive. Please... pretty please, give me a break.

Take care all! Not to throw Scripture in your face, but I think it has a powerful message. For me, it "compliments" science, not "determines" science! And the passage reads:

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened" (Romans 1:2-21).

Scripture, as stated before, is an appeal to authority, not a logical argument. It means nothing.

And you make quite a few leaps here. Models of the universe exist that do not require outside intervention. Matter can and does get created rom nothing, as well as destroyed.

And there is mass, so we exist, so there's a God?! A Christian one, at that? Do you see the gigantic leap in logic. Matter, ergo Jesus. It's sloppy, at best. Delusional, at worst. And beyond all that, all you did was come dangerously close to the anthropic argument, and it of course did nothing to present any evidence that God intervenes in the evolutionary process.

Is there a reason I shouldn't consider you response a complete failure? Because at some I hope you realize that you can believe in ID if you want, you're free to do so, but your belief is based on faith, not evidence, because none exists.

Oh, and I'm not here to "argue" either. I present my side of the debate, as do you. You've insulted me repeatedly in the past, then haven't backed down from them, so I have little sympathy at your attempts to gain sympathy by pretending to be entirely benevolent here.

ushomefree:

could you please describe an experiment that could be run which would show unequivocal support for intelligent design? Given ID theory, what predictions would you make about the outcome of the experiment? Why is this outcome mutually exclusive from evolutionary accounts?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Bombs/missiles have killed thousands more people.

i thought that was the case, but didn't want to make the claim.

Though, with modern technology, it wouldn't surprise me if more people were killed in just the combat of ww1 and 2 (not the concentration camps) than in all the combat of previous wars...

Like, how many people would Napoleon have lost in his entire campaign? a million? lol, I could be grossly underestimating this though.

Originally posted by ushomefree
1. How does God intervene in a physical, causal manner, that affects the evolutionary process?

Man--in terms of my understanding--has no view, regarding God intervening in a physical, casual manner, that effects the evolutionary process! Man does have, however, Old and New Testament Scripture, presumably thwarted by God Himself. That, in your view (as well as mine in the context of this discussion), is based on faith. All I can offer is this:

Science proves... time and time again, both through documentation and observation data, that organisms have changed over "X" amount of time (in diversity); however, despite all wishful thinking, genetic mutation, and claims of Complexity Theory, all is limited in scope, Digi! You and I, not to mention the entire scientific world, cannot explain, account, or give examples of organisms developing into "new" organisms, however subtle (or expedient)! And let's not forget the origin of the first simple cell, which contain, by the way, dozens of molecular machines--all having complexity and/or similarities of man-made machines. This is absolutely fascinating!!! Point is, Natural Selection--a beautiful theory "in its time," is completely outdated. I'm sorry, but that is the case. As the media presents, not to mention pop-culture, Christians (and others of religious faith) are not the backbone of Intelligent Design; scientists presented the idea, both of religious and non-religious backgrounds! DO NOT BELIEVE THE HYPE!! Intelligent Design, is not some conspiracy to take over the world and/or scientific works.

2. Since it would need to be physical and is thus observable, how do we test for this intervention?

This questions is unwarranted, at least, almost completely, anyway! Why? Scientists are able to make assumptions/theories based on observational data, namely, the inner workings of the cell (and molecular machines within, carrying a host of duties: reproduction, cellular repair, transport of raw material/information, energetic processes and the like). The cell--and all functions within--are not a free lunch. In other words, Naturalists overlook the details--the example of the Whale for example. Most Naturalists mock the Creationist by saying, "Magic-man did it." Okay... whatever; but let us be honest. Both sides of the view have a piece of the puzzle, and that is all so-called "Creationist Whackos" are trying to make clear. In other words, let's put views/knowledge on the table. It is not a competition for the most superior view, as the media presents it! The media has made, not to mention other venues, a mockery of Intelligent Design regarding the educational system. Intelligent Design has been, for the most part, boiled down to Christian nut-bags attempting to preach the Bible in schools! This, is, absolutely not the case!!

3. What evidence is there to support such intervention?

As the majority of Astrophysicists--I assume would state--I make the following statement directed towards the birth of the cosmos. I use this example, because it is simplistic, and yet, powerful (at the same time)!

And here we go:

Mass, energy, space, and time--dimensionality in which we live, is not possible via means of Evolutionary processes. Simply said, if mass exists... where do you put it, and when (?), and with what!? Mathematics, not to mention "logic," indicates that the Cosmos came into existence at one point in time, simultaneously! Subtract (or off-set) one of the following premises, the entire Cosmos becomes a fairy-tale. The Cosmos collapse, and we--you and I Digi--would not be having this discussion. Period.

If the reader--including you Digi--can render my appeal, as honest, than I congratulate you; honestly, this post contains "updated" scientific knowledge to the best of my ability. I am not here to deceive. Please... pretty please, give me a break.

Take care all! Not to throw Scripture in your face, but I think it has a powerful message. For me, it "compliments" science, not "determines" science! And the passage reads:

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened" (Romans 1:2-21).

once again an entire post about what evolution doesn't have to prove it rather than what intelligent design does

this is the "backbone" of intelligent design...spineless...ironically

Originally posted by jaden101
once again an entire post about what evolution doesn't have to prove it rather than what intelligent design does

this is the "backbone" of intelligent design...spineless...ironically

That and big blue text. Big blue text wins every argument. If at first it seems that big blue text is not working, then just make the text bigger and bluer. You can also throw in some black text to make the blue text seem even bluer and bigger.

Why does anyone even answer Ushomefree?

Originally posted by chithappens
Why does anyone even answer Ushomefree?

We are tremendously board.

Originally posted by chithappens
Why does anyone even answer Ushomefree?

I find that while I agree with pretty much nothing he says, as ID advocates go he's more informed than most (i.e. he spends more time looking for articles to copy/paste into here). I have yet to encounter someone in real life who isn't intimidated by my ability to defend evolution (regardelss of which side they fall on) and, ironically, I have ushome and a select few others to thank for it.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Is there a reason I shouldn't consider you response a complete failure? Ask a stupid person, get a stupid answer. I think that's how the saying goes right?

Also, ushome, if you actually have a pair, please go back to the last page and check out both my response, as well as the others (inamilist and 1-2 others). Then respond. Because your usual procedure at this point is to disappear for a couple days from this thread, then pop up with another pasted argument on another topic once it's fairly safe that no one will remember those arguments, nor bother to bring them up again.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Ask a stupid person, get a stupid answer. I think that's how the saying goes right?

Lulz. Guess so. I kinda like being the persistent bulldog to his arguments though. He tends to get on ever more speculative rolls unless we keep him in check. Others (yourself among them) have done it just as well (and better a lot of the time), but I don't think anyone's engaged him as often or as lengthily as I have. Stupid of me, I suppose, but like I said it's amusing and honestly good practice for real life debates.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
I find that while I agree with pretty much nothing he says, as ID advocates go he's more informed than most (i.e. he spends more time looking for articles to copy/paste into here). I would have to agree with you on that.

Originally posted by chithappens
Why does anyone even answer Ushomefree? Because we're on a mission from god?

Actually it is pleasant to converse with someone that even knows the scriptures when many don't. He is worthy.......*let me bow down*


Okay, up again........

I still haven't been convinced.

Originally posted by Deja~vu
Because we're on a mission from god?

Actually it is pleasant to converse with someone that even knows the scriptures when many don't. He is worthy.......*let me bow down*


Okay, up again........

I still haven't been convinced.

You mean converted.

DigiMark007-

Honestly, why do you undermine points being made in my posts? You ignore important aspects regarding statements of mine, and then focus on segments that you feel comfortable with and force them to reach different conclusions; this is not cool. For instance, in one of your posts, you criticized me for using the Bible in "taking the position of authority" to support a scientific view. This is simply not true; in dealing with science--if Scripture is presented--it is applied to compliment science. It is not the core and/or foundation of my argument.

You mention that you disagree with virtually everything that I post. Okay! But why?! You talk big when it comes to science--being scientific--but you have nothing to provide. In lieu of my previous posts on this thread (and others), all you have done is mock me and attempt to discredit information provided as pseudoscience, amongst other things. It is pathetic. If clarification is needed on a post of mine simply ask; I will elaborate. Do not get ahead of yourself. It makes you look ignorant--to me--and my point is lost and/or distorted. We are not communicating.

Members of the forum do not like me! And credence to anything I post is almost impossible, as if I am making things up as I go along. Amazing! I even got slack for taking a couple days to understand a few things that a member posted on the forum. Simply amazing (ha ha ha)! Members of the forum have bias views regarding information that I present, not to mention myself! I am not asking for special treatment and/or sympathy. I simply ask for integrity amongst members of the forum--including yourself--and fairness. Members of the forum--including myself--at times, take this forum too seriously. Truth and new ideas are nothing to hide from; things change! I remain on this forum because I take nothing personal; in addition, I enjoy debating and/or discussing religious views, not to mention aspects of religion that correlate to the scientific record.

With all in mind, may we please hit the "reset button," and move on? I have a post that I wish to present; but I need all members of the forum--including you DigiMark007--to understand my ambitions and motives. When it comes to Intelligent Design--which many of you know nothing about, based upon your replies--I ain't here to preach the Bible. If all parties agree--especially you DigiMark007--we can move on.

Agreed? May I present my next post?!

Watch!
The Evolution of An Eye: Part-One
rUOpaFVgKPw
The Evolution of An Eye: Part-Two
sb2fjftZrkE
Richard Dawkins: The Making of An Eye
lEKyqIJkuDQ

Seeing is Believing: An excerpt from "Darwin's Black Box," authored by Michael J. Behe

Let's go back to the human eye. Dawkins and Hitching also clash over the classic complex organ. Hitching had stated in the neck of a giraffe that:

It is quite evident that if the slightest thing goes wrong en route - the cornea is fuzzy, or the pupil fails to dilate, or the lens becomes opaque, or the focusing goes wrong - then a recognizable image is not formed. The eye either functions as a whole or not at all. So how did it come to evolve by slow, steady, infinitesimally small Darwinian improvements. Is it really plausible that thousands upon thousands of lucky chance mutations happened coincidentally so that the lens and the retina, which cannot work without each other, evolved in synchrony? What survival value can there be in an eye that doesn't see?

Dawkins, grateful that Hitching again leads with his chin, doesn't miss the opportunity:

Consider the statements that "If the slightest thing goes wrong... the focusing goes wrong....a recognizable image is not formed." The odds cannot be far from 50/50 that you are reading these words through glass lenses. Take them off and look around. Would you agree that "a recognizable image is not formed"?...(Hitching) also states, as though it were obvious, that the lens and the retina cannot work without each other. On what authority? Someone close to me has had a cataract operation in both eyes. She has no lenses in her eyes at all. But she assures me that you are far better off with a lensless eye than with no eye at all. You can tell if you are about to walk into a wall or another person. If you were a wild creature you could certainly use your lensless eye to detect the looming shape of a predator, and the direction from which it was approaching.

After attaching Hitching - as well as scientists Goldschmidt and Steven J. Gould - for worrying about the eye's complexity, Dawkins goes on to paraphrase Charles Darwin's argument for the plausibility for eye evolution:

Some single-celled animals have a light sensitive spot with a little pigment behind it the screen shields it from one direction, which gives it some "idea" of where the light is coming from, among many celled animals...the pigment backed light sensitive cells are set in a little cup. This gives slightly better direction finding capability....now, if you make a cup very deep and turn the sides over, you eventually make a lensless pinhole camera....when you have a cup for an eye, almost any vaguely convex, vaguely transparent, or even translucent material over its opening will constitute an improvement because of its slight lens like properties. Once such a crude proto lens is there, there is a continuously graded series of improvements, thickening it and making it more transparent and less distorting, the trend culminating in what we all recognize as a true lens.

We are invited by Dawkins and Darwin to believe that the evolution of an eye proceeded step by step through a series of plausible intermediates in infinitesimal increments. But are they infinitesimal? Remember that the "light sensitive spot" that Dawkins takes as a starting point requires a cascade of factors, including 11-cs-retinal and rhodopsin to function. Dawkins doesn't mention them. And where did the "little cup" come from? A ball of cells - from which the cup must be made - will tend to be rounded unless held in the correct shape by molecular supports. In fact, there are dozens of complex proteins maintained cell shape, and dozens more that control extracellular structure; in their absence, cells take on the shape of so many soap bubbles. Do these structures represent single-step mutations? Dawkins did not tell us how the apparently simple "cup" shape came to be. And although he reassures us that any "translucent material" would be an improvement (recall that Haeckel mistakenly thought it would be easy to produce cells since they wee certainly just "simple lumps", we are not told how difficult it is to produce a "simple lens." In short, Dawkins's explanation is only addressed to the level of what is called gross anatomy.

Both Hitching and Dawkins have misdireced their focus. The eye, or indeed almost any large biological structure, consists of a number of discrete systems. The function of the lens is to gather light and focus it. If a lens is used with a retina, the working of the retina is improved, but both the retina and lens can work by themselves. Similarly, the muscles that focus the lens or turn the eye to function is a contraction apparatus, which can be applied to many different systems. The perception of light by the retina is not dependent on them. Tear ducts and eyelids are also complex systems, but separable from the function of the retina.

Hitching's argument is vulnerable because he mistakes an integrated system of systems for a single system, and Dawkins rightly points out the separability of the components. Dawkins, however, merely adds complex systems to complex systems and calls that an explanation. This can be compared to answering the question "How is a stereo system made?" with the words "By plugging a set of speakers into an amplifier, and adding a CD player, radio receiver, and tape deck." Either Darwinian theory can account for the assembly of the speakers and amplifier, or it can't.

Awesome video, uhf. Thanks for posting.

Cool bro... whether you agree (or disagree with Dawkins)! All points need to be on the table. The need to be "critical" is imperative!!

While it is an interesting post and long read, much of the problem is your delivery, starting a post of with big bold "watch" can be taking as demanding and rude. Using big bold letters and underling gets very annoying and is childish to some. I would also stop with the poor pity me ploy, it will get you no where. Just my two cents and also saying everyone hates you is jumping a bit. Annoyed yes but I doubt hate from everyone here.

Originally posted by Da Pittman
While it is an interesting post and long read, much of the problem is your delivery, starting a post of with big bold "watch" can be taking as demanding and rude. Using big bold letters and underling gets very annoying and is childish to some. I would also stop with the poor pity me ploy, it will get you no where. Just my two cents and also saying everyone hates you is jumping a bit. Annoyed yes but I doubt hate from everyone here.

I've no intention of actually having to put any effort into replying to IDBS, since it will be indubitably ignored anyway, and is off topic so...

"Claim CB200:
Some biochemical systems are irreducibly complex, meaning that the removal of any one part of the system destroys the system's function. Irreducible complexity rules out the possibility of a system having evolved, so it must be designed.
Source:
Behe, Michael J. 1996. Darwin's Black Box, New York: The Free Press.
Response:

1. Irreducible complexity can evolve. It is defined as a system that loses its function if any one part is removed, so it only indicates that the system did not evolve by the addition of single parts with no change in function. That still leaves several evolutionary mechanisms:

* deletion of parts
* addition of multiple parts; for example, duplication of much or all of the system (Pennisi 2001)
* change of function
* addition of a second function to a part (Aharoni et al. 2004)
* gradual modification of parts

All of these mechanisms have been observed in genetic mutations. In particular, deletions and gene duplications are fairly common (Dujon et al. 2004; Hooper and Berg 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000), and together they make irreducible complexity not only possible but expected. In fact, it was predicted by Nobel-prize-winning geneticist Hermann Muller almost a century ago (Muller 1918, 463-464). Muller referred to it as interlocking complexity (Muller 1939).

Evolutionary origins of some irreducibly complex systems have been described in some detail. For example, the evolution of the Krebs citric acid cycle has been well studied (Meléndez-Hevia et al. 1996), and the evolution of an "irreducible" system of a hormone-receptor system has been elucidated (Bridgham et al. 2006). Irreducibility is no obstacle to their formation.

2. Even if irreducible complexity did prohibit Darwinian evolution, the conclusion of design does not follow. Other processes might have produced it. Irreducible complexity is an example of a failed argument from incredulity.

3. Irreducible complexity is poorly defined. It is defined in terms of parts, but it is far from obvious what a "part" is. Logically, the parts should be individual atoms, because they are the level of organization that does not get subdivided further in biochemistry, and they are the smallest level that biochemists consider in their analysis. Behe, however, considered sets of molecules to be individual parts, and he gave no indication of how he made his determinations.

4. Systems that have been considered irreducibly complex might not be. For example:
* The mousetrap that Behe used as an example of irreducible complexity can be simplified by bending the holding arm slightly and removing the latch.
* The bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex because it can lose many parts and still function, either as a simpler flagellum or a secretion system. Many proteins of the eukaryotic flagellum (also called a cilium or undulipodium) are known to be dispensable, because functional swimming flagella that lack these proteins are known to exist.
* In spite of the complexity of Behe's protein transport example, there are other proteins for which no transport is necessary (see Ussery 1999 for references).
* The immune system example that Behe includes is not irreducibly complex because the antibodies that mark invading cells for destruction might themselves hinder the function of those cells, allowing the system to function (albeit not as well) without the destroyer molecules of the complement system."

"Claim CB301:
The eye is too complex to have evolved.
Source:
Brown, Walt, 1995. In the Beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 7.
Hitching, Francis, 1982. The Neck of the Giraffe, New York: Meridian, pp. 66-68.
Response:

1. This is the quintessential example of the argument from incredulity. The source making the claim usually quotes Darwin saying that the evolution of the eye seems "absurd in the highest degree". However, Darwin follows that statement with a three-and-a-half-page proposal of intermediate stages through which eyes might have evolved via gradual steps (Darwin 1872).

* photosensitive cell
* aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve
* an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin
* pigment cells forming a small depression
* pigment cells forming a deeper depression
* the skin over the depression taking a lens shape
* muscles allowing the lens to adjust

All of these steps are known to be viable because all exist in animals living today. The increments between these steps are slight and may be broken down into even smaller increments. Natural selection should, under many circumstances, favor the increments. Since eyes do not fossilize well, we do not know that the development of the eye followed exactly that path, but we certainly cannot claim that no path exists.

Evidence for one step in the evolution of the vertebrate eye comes from comparative anatomy and genetics. The vertebrate βγ-crystallin genes, which code for several proteins crucial for the lens, are very similar to the Ciona βγ-crystallin gene. Ciona is an urochordate, a distant relative of vertebrates. Ciona's single βγ-crystallin gene is expressed in its otolith, a pigmented sister cell of the light-sensing ocellus. The origin of the lens appears to be based on co-optation of previously existing elements in a lensless system.

Nilsson and Pelger (1994) calculated that if each step were a 1 percent change, the evolution of the eye would take 1,829 steps, which could happen in 364,000 generations. "

"Claim CB921.1:
What use is half an eye?
Source:
Paley, Richard, 2000. The eye. http://objective.jesussave.us/eye.html
Response:

1. Half an eye is useful for vision. Many organisms have eyes that lack some features of human eyes. Examples include the following:
* Dinoflagellates are single cells, but they have eyespots that allow them to orient toward light sources (Kreimer 1999).
* Starfish and flatworms have eyecups; clustering light-sensitive cells in a depression allows animals to more accurately detect the direction from which the light is coming from.
* Most mammals have only two kinds of color photoreceptors, allowing less color discrimination than most humans have. Some deep-sea fish can see only black and white.

Visual prosthetics (bionic eyes) with as few as 16 pixels are found to be very useful by people who had become blind (Wickelgren 2006, Fildes 2007).

2. Humans themselves have far from perfect vision:

* Humans see in only three colors. Some fish see five. (A very few women are tetrachromats; they have four types of color receptors; Zorpette 2000.)
* Humans cannot see into the ultraviolet, like bees.
* Humans cannot see infrared, like pit vipers and some fish.
* Humans cannot easily detect the polarization of light, like ants and bees.
* Humans can see only in front of themselves. Many other animals have far greater fields of view; examples are sandpipers and dragonflies.
* Human vision is poor in the dark; the vision of owls is 50 to 100 times more sensitive in darkness. Some deep-sea shrimp can detect light hundreds of times fainter still (Zimmer 1996).
* The range of distances on which one may focus is measured in diopters. A human's range is about fourteen diopters as children, dropping to about one diopter in old age. Some diving birds have a fifty-diopter range.
* The resolution of human vision is not as good as that of hawks. A hawk's vision is about 20/5; they can see an object from about four times the distance of a human with 20/20 vision.
* Humans have a blind spot caused by the wiring of their retinas; octopuses do not.
* The Four-eyed Fish (Anableps microlepis) has eyes divided in half horizontally, each eye with two separate optical systems for seeing in and out of the water simultaneously. Whirligig beetles (family Gyrinidae) also have divided compound eyes, so one pair of eyes sees underwater and a separate pair sees above.
* The vision of most humans is poor underwater. The penguin has a flat cornea, allowing it to see clearly underwater. Interestingly, the Moken (sea gypsies) from Southeast Asia have better underwater vision than other people (Gislén et al. 2003).
* Humans close their eyes to blink, unlike some snakes.
* Chameleons and seahorses can move each eye independent of the other.

If you want to know what use is half an eye, ask yourself how you survive with much less than half of what eyes are capable of. "

Thanks X. As usual, saves me some time.

Ushome, you don't have to like me. That's cool. I actually consider it somewhat of a compliment that you insist on attacking me instead of my arguments. But there was a crap-ton of actual rational discussion on the last few pages that you ignored completely. My words as well as those of others. So I can't really refute the claim that I tlak about "being" scientific but don't actually talk science, except by saying this: Er, no. Once again, if you actually engaged us in discussion, rather than saying what you think, posting variations on the same arguments, and ignoring us and our points, my respect for you would...well...it would exist.

I apologize; repost your question(s), and I will make an attempt to answer. If all possible, please relay 1 question at a time. Thanks.

Digi? What's up man?!

Originally posted by ushomefree
Digi? What's up man?!

RnrXiaPVeHY

Queen... excellent band; "Another One Bites the Dust" is a favorite of mine. Still, regardless, what does this music video have to do with scientific inquiry? What were the questions and/or statements that I failed to answer? Please, let us get back to the topic.

In addition to my previous post, answer me this: have you seen the movie "Expelled: Intelligence Not Allowed?" Remember, I posted a message asking whether or not members of the forum had seen it? I am just curious. Since then, have you?!

I won't watch it, but Stein is banking on the 70% or so Americans who believe in a higher power to buy tickets and DVD's. Good for him, i hope he enjoys his new yacht.

Why won't you watch it? Are you just simply not interested in the debate/topic?

Originally posted by ushomefree
Why won't you watch it? Are you just simply not interested in the debate/topic? Well, to be fair, it is unlikely he will bring anything new to the table.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, to be fair, it is unlikely he will bring anything new to the table.

Now if he had some science to prove his view then that would be a different story. It seems that supports of the ID theory only tries to disprove purposed theories and nothing to try and prove theirs. It seems that they go with the idea that if we can disprove all other theories then ours must be right. It is like saying that if we disprove that it is a dog then it must be a cat.

Da Pittman-

For the sake of argument, I will state, that your statement is true; however--and this is a big "however"--your statement proves true only at first glance. Let me explain, please.

Intelligent Design (ID) does not attempt to theorize the origin of life. That is not to state that some advocates of ID have not; the fact remains, that ID, in "itself," begs for intelligent cause! And so advocates of ID jump on the opportunity. I see nothing wrong with this, by the way. Free (unprovoked) inquiry is always a good thing!

With all stated, I have not defined ID, at least, not to the core. Intelligent Design merely attempts to explain--or define, rather--biology systems, that otherwise challenge Darwinian processes. It is that simple, and I do not understand the fuss. In other words, ID professes complexity in biology systems that, "cannot be explained in Darwinian fashion!" This is especially true when it boils down to origins. That is all ID professes! Evolution does account for "micro" variation within species, but not "macro" variation. Macro-evolution only exists on paper, not nature (in which it attempts to explain).



ID demonstrates that biological systems--the cell--are comprised of molecular machines (that mimic "man-made machines"! Complexity and intelligence is what nature shows man, not uncaused, random processes. It should be, no wonder, that man, exerts himself to assume that God--an intelligent cause--created life, in all its abundance.

I may have missed a few points I felt necessary to make, but did this post help provide (a little bit) of understanding?

Originally posted by ushomefree
Da Pittman-

For the sake of argument, I will state, that your statement is true; however--and this is a big "however"--your statement proves true only at first glance. Let me explain, please.

Intelligent Design (ID) does not attempt to theorize the origin of life. That is not to state that some advocates of ID have not; the fact remains, that ID, in "itself," begs for intelligent cause! And so advocates of ID jump on the opportunity. I see nothing wrong with this, by the way. Free (unprovoked) inquiry is always a good thing!

With all stated, I have not defined ID, at least, not to the core. Intelligent Design merely attempts to explain--or define, rather--biology systems, that otherwise challenge Darwinian processes. It is that simple, and I do not understand the fuss. In other words, ID professes complexity in biology systems that, "cannot be explained in Darwinian fashion!" This is especially true when it boils down to origins. That is all ID professes! Evolution does account for "micro" variation within species, but not "macro" variation. Macro-evolution only exists on paper, not nature (in which it attempts to explain).



ID demonstrates that biological systems--the cell--are comprised of molecular machines (that mimic "man-made machines"! Complexity and intelligence is what nature shows man, not uncaused, random processes. It should be, no wonder, that man, exerts himself to assume that God--an intelligent cause--created life, in all its abundance.

I may have missed a few points I felt necessary to make, but did this post help provide (a little bit) of understanding? It is true in all parts and the reason for this is because you can not prove that God or a creator exists, so until God or a creator comes down and say “This is me and I made all things” it can not be proven. While it is sound logic to disprove a theory and this is one of the fundamental parts of the scientific process what ID theorist fail at is that when they try and disprove they say that their “theory” is correct. You are also incorrect that ID is a theory of how life was created what they don’t do is try to prove their claim. It would be the same if I said that I created fire from my hands when I was a boy and I have now not been able to do it again, how would you disprove or prove this? The other part that is flawed is that even if you assume that there was a creator that it is the God of the Bible and not some other explanation, the seeding of life by alien life has as much validity as God.

Yeah, how is it that you're ok with a theory that has no evidence for itself? You LOVE "inquiry" without realizing that all that does is discuss evolution, not ID. Disproving one thing doesn't validate another thing.

You've said the same exact things dozens of times now, but have yet to show one shred of evidence FOR ID, not against evolution.

Also, your erroneous claims about the eye (and even earlier about new "information" in a genome) were addressed at length by xmark's posts on the last few pages (and others). You made no attempt to admit that your argument was trumped, or mount a credible counter-thrust. I'd love to see you refute any of it, but you haven't been able to or you've just ignored it.

Most of what you're saying about evolution is just plain wrong. And even if it was right, there would be a gap in our knowledge, but without any evidence ID would still have no right replacing it.

Address that. Everyone already knows you don't think evolution accounts for macroevolution (as you define it to fit your argument). Everyone already knows your qualms with Darwinism, and the counterpoints to your arguments (we've posted them numerous times). You haven't said anything new in months, you've just provided variations on the same points without ever addressing the counter-arguments.

As I've said before, believe ID if you want. But know that it has no evidence to support it. Frankly, it's hard not to be insulted when you only say what you want t hear, and pretend that anything that can't be answered can just be ignored.

....so now, ignore me or provide a trite answer that rehashes previous debates without providing new information. I can't wait to see which one it is.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Disproving one thing doesn't validate another thing.

It kind of does, as long as the argument is kept to only two options. As long as everything is organized along simple black and white lines, then those who benefit from the knee-jerk reactions of others will benefit. Democrat vs Republican, pro-life vs pro-choice, christian vs muslim, east vs west and creationism vs evolution. People always say that i'm sorry are the hardest words, but it's really I don't know, along with realizing most, if not all, others don't know either that are the hardest words.

Originally posted by Devil King
It kind of does, as long as the argument is kept to only two options. As long as everything is organized along simple black and white lines, then those who benefit from the knee-jerk reactions of others will benefit. Democrat vs Republican, pro-life vs pro-choice, christian vs muslim, east vs west and creationism vs evolution. People always say that i'm sorry are the hardest words, but it's really I don't know, along with realizing most, if not all, others don't know either that are the hardest words. However in all your example it is not only one option, it is only valid in absolutes.

Originally posted by Da Pittman
However in all your example it is not only one option, it is only valid in absolutes.

And the matter of absolutes are a result of the manner in which the options are presented, which is my real point.

Originally posted by Devil King
It kind of does, as long as the argument is kept to only two options. As long as everything is organized along simple black and white lines, then those who benefit from the knee-jerk reactions of others will benefit. Democrat vs Republican, pro-life vs pro-choice, christian vs muslim, east vs west and creationism vs evolution. People always say that i'm sorry are the hardest words, but it's really I don't know, along with realizing most, if not all, others don't know either that are the hardest words. You are right, of course. Which is why ID supporters just try to discredit evolution, but I think Digimark meant to say that in scientific discourse and in a matter of fact, it is not correct.

What Bardock said. We're not limited to 2 options in this case. Such dualistic thinking actually would lead us to believe ID (even without evidence) if evolution was ever disproven (as yet unaccomplished). But setting it up as such is a needless duality.

So sure, disprove one thing and the other is true, only if there is only 2 possible interpretations. There isn't in this case, nor has anything been disproven, so ID is lacking on both fronts. It's a niggling point that honestly should be implied when dealing with scientific theories.

Darwinian evolution attempts to explain and/or account for the origin of life. Intelligent Design (ID) does not! Life is based on processes at the "molecular level." If Darwinian evolution cannot account for basic life--the simple cell--while ID demonstrates fallacies of Darwinian evolution--things that naturalists overlook out of ignorance or simply ignore--then what are we to do with Darwinian evolution? Give more credence to it?!



Yes I have; I posted 3 videos provided by Richard Dawkins, and I asked all members of the forum to "watch!" Afterward, a brief counter-argument was provided. Only xmarksthespot came forth; but he only provided material "copy and pasted."



My argument was not "trumped," as you put it. Re-read my post, please.



In what way is ID invalid? And in what way is Darwinian evolution correct about entailing the origin of life? Again, Darwinian evolution attempts to explain the origin of life, ID does not; but ID provides evidence to the contrary of Darwinian theory. Again, are were to give more credence to Darwinian evolution, knowing that such is the case?!

Darwinian evolution states, for example, that motorcycles evolved from bicycles. Everyone can connect with such; but Darwinian evolution does not account for how the engine, brake system, ignition system, transmission system, etc., came to be! Darwinian evolution completely overlooks the "details," in the name of "conceptual ideas" and wishful thinking. All ID does is demonstrate that Darwinian evolution is incorrect, that life did not evolve in macro processes. Why can't you come to terms with that?



Right... and you've said so much Digi.



Pride.

has anyone noticed that arguing with ushomefree is like running around a circular track? it never ends

I only "copied and pasted" because I'm have no intention of putting any real effort into debunking retarded wastes of space and bandwidth. That doesn't detract from that those copied and pasted counterpoints "trumped" your "argument" as Digi would say, or rather "show the bullshit you peddle as what it is" as I would say. Notwithstanding that when I copy and paste something it directs to valid scientific papers, as opposed to the lack of discovery Institute or a peanut butter jar. Give my regards to the Tooth Fairy.

Excellent point.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Darwinian evolution attempts to explain and/or account for the origin of life. Intelligent Design (ID) does not! Life is based on processes at the "molecular level." If Darwinian evolution cannot account for basic life--the simple cell--while ID demonstrates fallacies of Darwinian evolution--things that naturalists overlook out of ignorance or simply ignore--then what are we to do with Darwinian evolution? Give more credence to it?!



Yes I have; I posted 3 videos provided by Richard Dawkins, and I asked all members of the forum to "watch!" Afterward, a brief counter-argument was provided. Only xmarksthespot came forth; but he only provided material "copy and pasted."



My argument was not "trumped," as you put it. Re-read my post, please.



In what way is ID invalid? And in what way is Darwinian evolution correct about entailing the origin of life? Again, Darwinian evolution attempts to explain the origin of life, ID does not; but ID provides evidence to the contrary of Darwinian theory. Again, are were to give more credence to Darwinian evolution, knowing that such is the case?!

Darwinian evolution states, for example, that motorcycles evolved from bicycles. Everyone can connect with such; but Darwinian evolution does not account for how the engine, brake system, ignition system, transmission system, etc., came to be! Darwinian evolution completely overlooks the "details," in the name of "conceptual ideas" and wishful thinking. All ID does is demonstrate that Darwinian evolution is incorrect, that life did not evolve in macro processes. Why can't you come to terms with that?



Right... and you've said so much Digi.



Pride. I don’t know where you get that ID doesn’t try to explain the origin of life, that is its main theory that God or a creator made life and no you have not shown anything to prove the theory of ID. You have only shown rebuttals of the theory of evolution and nothing showing the proof or science of ID, as we have stated many times by trying to disprove one theory does not prove the other. You videos were far from any kind of proof of ID, I don’t think anyone here would claim that the theory of evolution is perfect and doesn’t have its flaws but the ID theory is so full of them you can hide a house in it.

What Pitt and X said. Apparently he comments on what good points you guys make when you're the one saying that his argument is BS, but when I say it I get attacked. Lucky me.

Also lulz at saying "he copy/pastes" as an excuse to ignore X's comments. That's pretty much all ushome ever does. And an argument should stand or fall on its merits (or lack thereof), not on its source.

Also, double lulz at rearranging ID to say it doesn't attempt to account for life ("attempt" being the key word). If it makes no claims, it's not a theory. Speaking against evolution isn't a theory ushome. It, well, that's the only way to say it. It isn't. And if it does attempt to explain life, it has no evidence. Catch-22 there.

And as for his selective memory and repeated claims that I don't address his points, he's apparently forgotten the tomes I used write in response to his threads (all of which were the same things he's still saying). I stopped at some point because I realized the futility...which is only reinforced when his ignorance of any earlier debates leads me to believe he never paid attention to my arguments in the first place.

If you can't remember my responses, that's your problem ushome....not my responsibility to re-type every time you go MIA then reappear when it's safe to assume the previous argument has been forgotten.

So why don't you get to the point, Digi?

Originally posted by ushomefree
So why don't you get to the point, Digi? I think his point is quite clear since he has posted it over and over as well as many others.

Da Pittman-

Intelligent Design focuses on the complexity of life and documents all within. Have people expounded on such? Absolutely! But, "origin," is not something ID attempts to explain or credit. All ID does is note that biological organisms, down to the simple cell, appear to be "designed!" A cell is more complex, more cunning, and more intricate than any man-machine. Right?! In addition, ID also presents examples of biological organisms--the cell too--that cannot be accounted for by Darwinian processes. It is that simple. I went out of my way to post a message on this thread to relay a little insight--the eye and how Darwinian evolution fails to explain such biological systems. Could Darwinian evolution have the answer in time? Absolutely! Science is not written in stone; but at this moment in time, evolution only accounts for micro processes, not macro processes. You disagree with that?

That's a flat out lie.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Da Pittman-

Intelligent Design focuses on the complexity of life and documents all within. Have people expounded on such? Absolutely! But, "origin," is not something ID attempts to explain or credit. All ID does is note that biological organisms, down to the simple cell, appear to be "designed!" A cell is more complex, more cunning, and more intricate than any man-machine. Right?! In addition, ID also presents examples of biological organisms--the cell too--that cannot be accounted for by Darwinian processes. It is that simple. I went out of my way to post a message on this thread to relay a little insight--the eye and how Darwinian evolution fails to explain such biological systems. Could Darwinian evolution have the answer in time? Absolutely! Science is not written in stone; but at this moment in time, evolution only accounts for micro processes, not macro processes. You disagree with that? I’m not an authority on micro or macro evolution so that I can not say however you are still incorrect that ID does give a theory to the origin of life and that is through God or a creator. This is their theory and the reason that they “do not attempt” to explain it is because they say that it can’t because they are not the creator of God. Their only way to “try” and prove their theory is by trying to disprove all others for their flawed logic is that if they prove all others wrong then theirs has to be right. Darwin’s theory is not and has never claimed to be the be-all and end-all to the answer to life; it is a theory just like everything else. I think it is held in higher regard and a lofted position in more of the religious community then in the non-religious community.

That you say that Darwin’s theory could in time explain and be ratified to explain all stages of life from micro to macro is encouraging which would mean that you are open to the possibility that your theory of ID could be wrong as I (can’t speak of all) and open to the idea that mine may as well be.

Originally posted by Devil King
That's a flat out lie.
Either you are the one lying here, or else you do not know your biology.
Let me simplify this for you:
There are structures that exist in nature (for example the organelles of a cell) that would have no survival benefit independent from each other (in the cell example, a ribosome would give no advantage to survival without a nucleus to provide codons in mRNA). So, these structures should not exist through the processes of natural selection. But yet they do.
Why?
And that is where Intelligent Design comes in;
these highly complex structures (which have the appearance of being designed like man-made machines!) were, in fact, intelligently designed, thusly explaining both the generation and complexity of certain structures.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
Either you are the one lying here, or else you do not know your biology.
Let me simplify this for you:
There are structures that exist in nature (for example the organelles of a cell) that would have no survival benefit independent from each other (in the cell example, a ribosome would give no advantage to survival without a nucleus to provide codons in mRNA). So, these structures should not exist through the processes of natural selection. But yet they do.
Why?
And that is where Intelligent Design comes in;
these highly complex structures (which have the appearance of being designed like man-made machines!) were, in fact, intelligently designed, thusly explaining both the generation and complexity of certain structures. The process of natural selection doesn’t mean that it makes the “perfect” creature only that it evolves to better adapt to its environment. Even things that we have considered to be “Useless” have been found out later to server a vital purpose after more study, this can go both ways to the argument. Here is one that claims that there are no “useless organs” so that would prove intelligent design which would be in contrary to your point.

http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/evolutions_useless_organ_argument

Originally posted by Da Pittman
The process of natural selection doesn’t mean that it makes the “perfect” creature only that it evolves to better adapt to its environment. Even things that we have considered to be “Useless” have been found out later to server a vital purpose after more study, this can go both ways to the argument. Here is one that claims that there are no “useless organs” so that would prove intelligent design which would be in contrary to your point.

http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/evolutions_useless_organ_argument
It is not that there are "useless organs", but rather co-dependent structures (in my example organelles in cells, not organs) that do not serve a purpose without another structure in conjunction. In my example, ribosomes make proteins by chaining long strands of amino acids; but without the instructions for making the proteins (mRNA sent out by the nucleus) they are useless for they cannot assemble proteins and therefore provide no evolutionary advantage.

Abiogenesis and evolution are two separate but related fields of science.

RNA world hypothesis.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
It is not that there are "useless organs", but rather co-dependent structures (in my example organelles in cells, not organs) that do not serve a purpose without another structure in conjunction. In my example, ribosomes make proteins by chaining long strands of amino acids; but without the instructions for making the proteins (mRNA sent out by the nucleus) they are useless for they cannot assemble proteins and therefore provide no evolutionary advantage. So you are saying that if something provides no “evolutionary” advantage then it is proof that evolution is false? Do you deny that species do adapt and become better suited to their environment?

Originally posted by Transfinitum
Either you are the one lying here, or else you do not know your biology.
Let me simplify this for you:
There are structures that exist in nature (for example the organelles of a cell) that would have no survival benefit independent from each other (in the cell example, a ribosome would give no advantage to survival without a nucleus to provide codons in mRNA). So, these structures should not exist through the processes of natural selection. But yet they do.
Why?
And that is where Intelligent Design comes in;
these highly complex structures (which have the appearance of being designed like man-made machines!) were, in fact, intelligently designed, thusly explaining both the generation and complexity of certain structures.

Based on these claims, perhaps it is yourself that does not understand. ID and creationism feel the need to justify the legitimacy and purpose of biologial factors. Clean lines and specific purpose are the side effects of creationism, not evolution. Evolution is a messy and illogical process. ID is not.

Originally posted by Transfinitum

And that is where Intelligent Design comes in;
these highly complex structures (which have the appearance of being designed like man-made machines!) were, in fact, intelligently designed, thusly explaining both the generation and complexity of certain structures.

Too bad that's not an acceptable answer.

How does this resemble a man-made machine?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c6/10_large_subunit.gif
Translation: the only reason you say it looks like a man-made machine is because it looks like a man-made machine... wait for it... wait for it... to you!

Not to mention, there are notable differences between eukaryotic ribosomes, and mitochondrial/prokaryotic ribosomes, primarily concerning eukaryotic ribosomes being more specialized and larger. Is it any surprise that more complex ribosomes are found in more complex cells as opposed to the simpler cells that came first?

Not to mention the observed self-assembly of such things as rna fragments, proteins, protobionts, etc etc in simulated early earth environments is also a pretty good indication that something may have happened.

Furthermore not to mention, lack of absolute proof of something does not automatically mean that the other side is correct, which is why ID completely fails on a scientific basis. It sits on the premise that lack of evidence from one view proves that the other view is right, without it actually having provide it's own evidence to support it.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Abiogenesis and evolution are two separate but related fields of science.

RNA world hypothesis.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
What Bardock said. We're not limited to 2 options in this case. Such dualistic thinking actually would lead us to believe ID (even without evidence) if evolution was ever disproven (as yet unaccomplished). But setting it up as such is a needless duality.

So sure, disprove one thing and the other is true, only if there is only 2 possible interpretations. There isn't in this case, nor has anything been disproven, so ID is lacking on both fronts. It's a niggling point that honestly should be implied when dealing with scientific theories. I even know what the axiom of such a case is called. "tertium non datur"

Yeah, look at me, packin' da latin.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Why won't you watch it? Are you just simply not interested in the debate/topic?


I'm open to debate, but this film is nothing more than a money making scheme. ...straight up propaganda.

Originally posted by AngryManatee
How does this resemble a man-made machine?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c6/10_large_subunit.gif
Because it is a Graphical Interface Format (GIF) and man made

Sorry couldn't resist

Originally posted by AngryManatee
Not to mention, there are notable differences between eukaryotic ribosomes, and mitochondrial/prokaryotic ribosomes, primarily concerning eukaryotic ribosomes being more specialized and larger. Is it any surprise that more complex ribosomes are found in more complex cells as opposed to the simpler cells that came first?

>> But you forget a very important detail here:
Even though it is true that there were simpler ribosomes in simpler cells; we have NEVER found a ribosome that can make proteins without specific codon from mRNA, which is ONLY found in the nucleus. Now you mention that ribosomes existed in prokaryotic cells, the question we set out to answer is why.
Darwinian evolution provides no answer, for all the structures we see today were mutations that increased survival and were passed onwards.
Ribosomes in prokaryotic cells provided no advantage.
So we must take this observation and create hypotheses to try to solve it (scientific method); and one of these hypotheses is Intelligent Design, which introduces a "blueprint" so to speak, into the evolutionary process.



>>Ah, you are talking about Urey-Miller, the oft-spun experiment on abiogenesis. One problem with that experiment as empirical evidence for abiogenesis is that it DID NOT MAKE LIFE , in fact all it created were organic substances such as protiens. And because I know your next retort, "for them to assemble it would take millions and billions of years", let me provide you with a fact:

http://origins.swau.edu/papers/life/chadwick/default.html pg 3


I'm sorry, that's not an acceptable answer,
Intelligent Design looks at flaws in the Darwinian theory (observations) and creates reasoned hypotheses based upon those flaws. Intelligent Design is not as much its own theory as it is a supplement to the ailing problems of Darwinism. It takes most of the Darwinian theory and supplements a few hypotheses to explain such things as irreducible complexity, probability, and the inability of Natural Selection to explain observed phenomenon in the natural world. It looks at observations and makes hypotheses, much like (dare I say it) the Scientific Method !

Originally posted by Transfinitum
I'm sorry, that's not an acceptable answer,
Intelligent Design looks at flaws in the Darwinian theory (observations) and creates reasoned hypotheses based upon those flaws. Intelligent Design is not as much its own theory as it is a supplement to the ailing problems of Darwinism. It takes most of the Darwinian theory and supplements a few hypotheses to explain such things as irreducible complexity, probability, and the inability of Natural Selection to explain observed phenomenon in the natural world. It looks at observations and makes hypotheses, much like (dare I say it) the Scientific Method ! Just because it “may” have one part of the scientific method doesn’t mean that it is a scientific method.

What observed phenomenon can natural selection not explain? Because your posts show that you really just don't understand what evolution is...you seem to understand how creationists misconstrue it, but can't actually identify it's actual causes.

The argument from probability is old and tired, and also debunked. Natural selection isn't blind probability, but selection...and built up from the smallest order into infinitely gradual complexity. It keeps the good and eliminates the bad...the process supports itself. So the extravagant probabilities and Hoyle-esque arguments of claiming that hundreds of things would need to come together all at once are patently false. Only 1 tiny thing would need to happen. Then one more tiny thing, and so on for hundreds of millions of years....except as the "one more things" keep happening, the number of places for a new "one more thing" increase exponentially. So once you have, say, a bond between 2 proteins....it becomes not only possible but likely that some form of life will occur.

So lulz at the "FACT" as you called it. I've seen similar analyses from various times and the number grows with each decade to try to make it seem even more outrageous. All it does is show an inability to comprehend how natural selection actually works.

I could counter irreducable complexity with ID's inability to account for suboptimal design in nearly any organism. So I will. But now I'll also clarify that most cases of irreducable complexity are just ID'ists not looking long enough or thinking hard enough. You stop when it seems like a problem and declare God the winner. That's not how science works.

Famous "problems" like the eyeball have since been researched and reconciled with scientific data (turns out, part of an eyeball, even tiny amounts, is useful). Also generally ignored is the co-evolution of both species and specific gene clusters in organisms, which is likely how most of the "problems" came to be. Imagine lions who hunt gazelles...the fast lions get food, thus surviving, but the fastest gazelles survive and thus procreate, so only the even faster lions survive and become more numerous, then the fastest among that breed and so forth. Increments. Now imagine a complex joint where all of maybe 6 hinges are needed to move in a specific way. A crude example, but it will suffice. The first hinge is bred accidentally and no positive or negative benefit. Then a second is mutated, and it allows incredibly basic movement which may o may not have benefit. Remember, neutral mutations will continue to survive so any of it would need to be a negative in order to ensure extinction of that mutations. After a few million years the creature might have basic movement, which aids in food gathering (or any mundane survival task). Co-evolving in increments. Then one can easily imagine a species-level co-evolution like the lion/gazelle scenario to push such a joint to even greater fruition over millions of years.

So please, try reading something that isn't tinged with religious bias, because it's clear you're only familiar with one side of the argument.

....

Also, same question as for ushome...you said ID "supplements" evolution. How? What evidence is there to support ID? What do you have that is support for your own theory, not something against evolution? I have yet to see it except for "look! It looks designed!" Well, it doesn't to me. It looks evolved over hundreds of millions of years. And you'll need a better argument than that if you expect to convince anyone who isn't blinded by religion.

Originally posted by Transfinitum

I'm sorry, that's not an acceptable answer,
Intelligent Design looks at flaws in the Darwinian theory (observations) and creates reasoned hypotheses based upon those flaws. Intelligent Design is not as much its own theory as it is a supplement to the ailing problems of Darwinism. It takes most of the Darwinian theory and supplements a few hypotheses to explain such things as irreducible complexity, probability, and the inability of Natural Selection to explain observed phenomenon in the natural world. It looks at observations and makes hypotheses, much like (dare I say it) the Scientific Method !

And see, therein lies your problem. it's not supposed to work like the scientific method, it's supposed to FOLLOW the scientific method.

Define the question
Gather information and resources (observe)
Form hypothesis
Perform experiment and collect data - How? (FAIL)
Analyze data -It was an Intelligent Designer (Fail)
Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis - It was an Intelligent Designer. How do you draw up a new hypothesis from that? (Fail)
Publish results - Lulz
Retest (frequently done by other scientists) -It was an Intelligent Designer (Fail)

Originally posted by Transfinitum
Some ID BS Argumentum ad ignoratiam, go back to the crappy geocentric universe thread where you try and pretend you know physics. Appeal to a crappy authority isn't going to convince anyone you know biology.

Oh look, I can post articles too:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1370670
But unfortunately mine aren't posted on a website with a cool dinosaur logo.

Originally posted by AngryManatee
And see, therein lies your problem. it's not supposed to work like the scientific method, it's supposed to FOLLOW the scientific method.

Define the question
Gather information and resources (observe)
Form hypothesis
Perform experiment and collect data - How? (FAIL)
Analyze data -It was an Intelligent Designer (Fail)
Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis - It was an Intelligent Designer. How do you draw up a new hypothesis from that? (Fail)
Publish results - Lulz
Retest (frequently done by other scientists) -It was an Intelligent Designer (Fail)