Evolution vs Intelligent Design...

Originally posted by KharmaDog
So we should all re-examine our posts to your standard? Compelling arguement.

My objective has been to get you all to look at your posts "objectively." The compelling part is your inability to recognize a common "subjectivity" within each of your posts, when compared to many others within the thread.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
I have avoided going to your thread, other than that one post, because I have very little interest to hear what you have to say.

Avoidance is a sign of fear..and fear gives is usually a sign that one believes themselves already defeated.

First being that in the past you have proven to be a childish and irrational person who when things don't go their own way either complain that everyone is rallying agains them or posts childish rebuttles.

Why continue to respond to those opinions you deem childish, and what does that say about your overall mentality? It completely baffles me as to how you cannot realize the irony behind what you have posted above. I implore you my friend to read what you write before you post, and make sure that you judge your own actions..before attempting to judge the actions of others.

Originally posted by Karmadog
Second reason being that you have been exposed as one who lies and distorts information to try prove your point. A debate with such a person is useless as nothing you say can be respected as it may all be based on a lie once again.

As for others not posting in your thread it may be ore because they see the futility of dealing with such a person also or the fact that you have lost alot of respect on this board with your behaviour or any number of reasons. Or they may see it as the trap that I think it may be, if that is the case, why bother with the childishness?

The only distortion taking place is the "distortion" of reality. One that makes you believe that your opinion carries any merit and influence on the general public. Outside of the opinions of yourself and a few others within this forum, how do you come to the assertion that my credibility has been damaged? Your own opinion of my "credibility"...doesn't necessarily reflect the opinions of the general populace who read these posts K-dog. You are more foolish than I thought..if you truly believe that it does.

Whatever their reasons for not participating, I doubt it is because can not come up with any real benefits, but if that makes you feel better about yourself and your beliefs, then feel free to believe it.

As I've stated twice already..within this thread and the other, I was not attempting to validate my beliefs...but rather..I was attempting to understand yours. Try to take time to reflect on the questions being posed in an objective way. You might find many things in life a lot more pleasing to you..and in many cases..you might also find that every opinion that posted that contrasts your own..doesn't demonstrate that one who is out to attack you.

-Fin

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Avoidance is a sign of fear..and fear gives is usually a sign that one believes themselves already defeated.

-FIN

Once again, you saying you win doesn't mean you've actually won. And people avoid your posts because you lie a lot...not because they're scared of you. Seriously, it's like talking to a child.

And, why do you even use the "FIN" thing? 1st, you are never really FIN! and 2nd, you just have to waste time later by telling everybody why you couldn't resist saying more.

It's kinda silly.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Avoidance is a sign of fear..and fear gives is usually a sign that one believes themselves already defeated.

Avoidance is also a sign of annoyance. I find you sad and annoying. A little pathetic even.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Why continue to respond to those opinions you deem childish, and what does that say about your overall mentality?

Boredom, that is my only excuse.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
The only distortion taking place is the "distortion" of reality. One that makes you believe that your opinion carries any merit and influence on the general public. Outside of the opinions of yourself and a few others within this forum, how do you come to the assertion that my credibility has been damaged? Your own opinion of my "credibility"...doesn't necessarily reflect the opinions of the general populace who read these posts K-dog. You are more foolish than I thought..if you truly believe that it does.

Are you going to make me post where you lied again? Remember all that grief that you got before? It would be in your best interest to let it lie. (get it? lie?)

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Once again, you saying you win doesn't mean you've actually won. And people avoid your posts because you lie a lot...not because they're scared of you. Seriously, it's like talking to a child.

And, why do you even use the "FIN" thing? 1st, you are never really FIN! and 2nd, you just have to waste time later by telling everybody why you couldn't resist saying more.

It's kinda silly.

I agree.

Whob, don't bother trying to take the intellectual or moral highroad, it will only be a matter of time before the personal attacks and childish behaviour return. It seems to have become a pattern of yours.

If you feel compelled to respond to this, do so by PM, I'm sure the rest of this forum is as tired of reading this garbage as I have become.

Uh, sorry to break the routine of back and forth arguing but...

An amusing metaphor that many door-to-door ID's use is the house I'm in. Thing that seriously ticks them off is if you say that yes, in theory, the house COULD pop up like it is now out of the ground. Different colours come from the different types of wood, the metal just so happens to be shaped like that (as a huge universe exists, happenstance=infinite possibilities) and the architecture is as it is simply out of the tree's survival instinct.

Moral of the story: if they refuse to believe in science, do the same. Say that everything is by chance (it gets some amusing responses.)

Originally posted by Ushgarak
whob, you are just going to take whatever we say and make it fit your crappy lazy attacks on us. It's truly contemptible.

If there are stereotypes here around you, then it is simply because you have created them by always acting the same way.

I find it rather child-like and amusing that you are unable to take responsability for your own responses. Expressing my opinion, does not create the stereotype, however your response to my opinion does.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
All anyone has to do is read your posts to see how much ill-0informed, irrational gibberish they contain. You condemn yourself further every time you speak.

Let's take into account, that the opinion of my lack of knowledge is coming from an individual whom..

A) Stated that science contains no facts or constants.
B) Stated that Creationism is not a theory(grossly incorrect)
C) Has stated that by definition alone..a particularly field of study should be deemed as a valid/credible science.
D) Processes that exist within nature, but are induced by "man" should not be deemed as part of the natural sciences.
E) Countless other non-sensical ramblings

😆 😆 😆

I apologize..I don't mean to laugh, but the hilarity and hypocrisy behind your assumptions is mind numbing. Take note..before you label someone as ill-informed..please make sure that you are generally more informed on the topic at hand. Thus far in the context of many of these debates..you continue to prove that this isn't the case. Particularly when you demonstrate difficulty understanding fundemental concepts which represent what's being discussed.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
All you can do in this thread, which contains a perfectly valid satiricial refutation of your views, is moan and whine like child crying out "Everyone is all against, me, waaaaaaaaaaaah...". As yerssot says, it is just an enormous dodge, it is very cowardly, and it has no redeeming value whatsoever.

FYI..a satire is an exaggeration of something..and take note Ush..that an exaggeration of something doesn't represent truth...

lol.."valid(true) satire"

You don't even understand how "satire" should be used appropriately in a sentence..yet you consistently challenge my intellect and state that I speak gibberish..😆 😆

....Again Ush..concentrate on the fundementals..such as knowing the terminolgy with which you use when discussing a subject, and demonstrating the ability to form "valid sentence" structures and using correct terminology when attempting to refute my arguments. Perhaps then I won't respond in the typical fashion..and you won't continually be labeled as one who fits withing a "stereotypical" mold.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
And you expect anyone to take you seriously? You expect your silly little rules and throwaway uses of the word 'proof' to make any difference to how dumb you look or how poor your arguments are? You make out my comments to be some sort of evasive tactic. In fact, they are the simpler option- the shoe fits.

There is no value or sense or logic or purpose in anything you are posting. If you want to be negotiated with, post something worthy of negotiation and reason to comments made about it rationally and with proper use of logic. Crying into a thread like this with ridiculous comments like the ones you have made above serve only to prove why everything said about you here is, in fact, not the product of some crappy phenomenon that in the La-La land you like to inhabit is the reason everyone is against you...

... but is in fact simply the truth. Everyone is against you, whob (as opposed to being so much against plenty of other people who hold similar views to you around here) because you are being such a continuously unreasonable person. When so many people are against you like that- look at your own behaviour, not ours.

Do not just keep coming into threads quoting rules like that and expect them to be treated as intelligent posts, whob.

You are a dreadful ambassador for your views, and just by posting here in the way you are, you are turning people away from your views towards those of others. They all see how irrational, ridiculous and ineffectual you are, and the straightforward conclusion from that is that you are wrong. You are killing the idea of Intelligent Design as an acceptable concept simply by your conduct in defence of it. You are making it happen. Start engaging intelligently instead of with the posts you have made here, and that might stop, but there is little hope for you and your views otherwise

Thus far..the only thing you've demonstrated within yet another post Ush, is you're inability to reason or think objectively, the inability to use correct terminology and understand the fundementals of the topics you discuss, and the overall arrogant attitude towards any opinion that doesn't reflect the "ignorance" that supports your close minded viewpoints.

Arrogance peppered with self delusion, ignorance, and authority is a deadly thing. For the sake of yourself and many others I can only hope that you do not gain a position of "authority" that extends beyond being a "Mod" in these forums, seeing as how it would have very detremental effect on yourself and many others in the real world.

-Fin

Woah! Look! I found a photo of whob:

Congratulations!

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
Woah! Look! I found a photo of whob:

Congratulations!

I'm missing both front teeth..moron..😆😆

Apart from that, the artist's rendition is uncannily accurate, wouldn't you say, Billy?

Originally posted by KharmaDog
Avoidance is also a sign of annoyance. I find you sad and annoying. A little pathetic even.

Boredom, that is my only excuse.

I agree.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Once again, you saying you win doesn't mean you've actually won. And people avoid your posts because you lie a lot...not because they're scared of you. Seriously, it's like talking to a child.

And, why do you even use the "FIN" thing? 1st, you are never really FIN! and 2nd, you just have to waste time later by telling everybody why you couldn't resist saying more.

The shorter and less related the response is to the topic..the more whipped your arguments have become.

I once again feel comfortable leaving another debate.
keep the faith 😇 😆

the·o·ry

A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Whob, how on earth is Creationism a theory? It's a random conjecture based on something people would like to believe. You can't just say "I think _____ might exist!", come up with ten reasons why it's possible that we somehow can't observe _____'s presence, and call it science. Dragons MIGHT exist... They could be invisible, fly everywhere, and never need to eat. Saying that something could exist, and should therefore be accepted as scientific "theory", is simply ridiculous.

True scientists simply look at the observable evidence, and come up with the most logical explanation, without including anything that simply COULD exist.

Please tell me what qualifies Creationism as a theory.

Good Lord, whob, it is staggering how wrong you can be. Just how can one guy get something so very badly wrong?

"A) Stated that science contains no facts or constants.
B) Stated that Creationism is not a theory(grossly incorrect)
C) Has stated that by definition alone..a particularly field of study should be deemed as a valid/credible science.
D) Processes that exist within nature, but are induced by "man" should not be deemed as part of the natural sciences.
E) Countless other non-sensical ramblings"

A. Actually, I didn't state that, I was quoting someone else who did. And it is true. He was saying that Science is not Maths- it is not a collection of airtight proofs. It is the observation of phenomena the the creation of supportable theories to explain it, which are then tested and attacked to see if they withstand. YOU have a skewed view of science that gets it all wrong, assuming that a theory is just any idea you can come up with, and that science is always about finding out 100% accurate things (again, I'll use my example of gravity here), as you just demonstrated AGAIN. Seriously- go back to school and listen carefully this time.

b. Creationism is NOT a theory. There is no scientific backing behind the idea of creationism. It is not supported by evidence and does not fit the observed facts. Again, you have this crazy-ass idea of what a theory is. Creationism does not fit ANY of the hall marks if theory in science- it is not even a hypotheisis, it is simple belief and nothing else. By trying to seriously call Creationism a theory, you are again making yourself a laughing stock. Get with the real world, geez.

Creationism only becomes a theory by your own personal definition of a theory being any idea that you happen to like.

c. The criteria that that is decided on is whether something meets rational and logicial standards; your arguments do not.

d. If you cannot work out that things to do with man are aritificial then there is no hope for you. Science has a much wider scope than simply the world of nature.

e. Your 'e' is just a feeble attempt to get another letter in.

I guarantee you, whob- everyone is seeing YOU as the ignorant and ill-informed one. Your attempt to turn that around on me doesn't mean crap. It looks feeble to me, and to everyone. You can continue to run and hide in your own little world, pretending that I am somehow ignorant, or any other of the throwaway comments you made about me, simply because you cannot handle me shoving the truth under your nose- but it won't help you, and you still expose yourself to everyone else.

Next, I understand satire perfectly well. Where the heck did you learn these things? If you cannot work out that the opening post is indeed a satire of the ID argument then you have a serious problem with recognising things! That is absolutely dumb. Who the hell told you that satire can only be about things that are not true? Or even that it had to be exaggeration? Satire is simply:

"A literary work in which human vice or folly is attacked through irony, derision, or wit. "

Clear? Not the first time you have done this- are you simply ignorant, or once more lying to try and improve your argument? Either way, your fallacy is exposed once more.

You are still poisoning your own cause every time you post, whob. Everyone is growing more and more contemptuous of you as your obvious logical fallacies are exposed time and time again. You just did it again with your comments on my last post... shall we see if you do it again with this one? I am perfectly happy for you to do so, ebcause each time you do- giving myself and others another chance to knock your rotting arguments down- you make our side of the argument more and more convincing, as your arguments continue to consist of nothing but clear misconceptions or obvious lies.

Or you can just strut around saying that you are 'comfortable' to have left the debate and pretend that that denotes any form of superiority or victory- when once again, everyone will see you as the clear loser here.

Fece- the post was not about all Christians, but the attempt by some people to try and equate a certain belief with fact. That would be equally mockable from any religion. The fact that Christianity is the big deal around here simply evidences the cultural background of the boards. Muslim Creationists have similar views but nowhere right now is there a big deal about them trying to be equated with science.

I don't really know alot of the posters views clearly... I would hazard a guess that you all believe in evolution.... Cept whobdamandog...

What do you believe in whobdamandog??
I'm a little lost on the subject and would apreciate any and all info site you could send my way...

Whob is a supporter of the belief of Intelligent Design and that it is a valid scientific theory.

I don't 'believe' in evolution any more than I believe in tables; I accept that the process of science leads towards that being the most likely explanation of the development of life but, like any good scientist, I am open to the possiiblity of a superior explanation. As I have pointed out before, this is the biggest difference between accepting evolution and having a faith- faith remains constant regardless of new explanations or evidence. Science is only ever guided by the evidence.

The root of the debate is the idea that Intelligent Design should be taiught in science class. The opinionnof most most here is that it should not because it is a philisophical belief, not a piece of science- which by any objective definition of science is so. This is unlike Evolution, which regardless of your views of its details is a perfectly valid scientific theory, and hence absolutely belongs in science class.

No-one is actively deriding the basic idea of ID- though I am sure many do hold it in such scorn. The oibjection is to it being labelled as science.

God I wish there were pictures.....

There need not be any violence in the conveying of an idea to other people with different beliefs.

It is wrong of Evolutionists to force their ideas onto Creationists, and it is also just as wrong for Creationists to force their ideas onto Evolutionists.

I believe that nobody will ever have the true answer as to the 'what, where and how' of life. Such absolute existential questions are meaningless and will not afford you inner happiness and peace. We must rather be practical and realistic in our theories, in order to achieve enlightenment in our daily lives.

so... was everything created due to intelligent design.. cause When I look at a human body I see a lot of areas that could have some improvements made... Also were all virus and germs intelligent design... I can for the life of me understand the purpose behind Aids or cancer...

Originally posted by Wonderer
There need not be any violence in the conveying of an idea to other people with different beliefs.

It is wrong of Evolutionists to force their ideas onto Creationists, and it is also just as wrong for Creationists to force their ideas onto Evolutionists.

I believe that nobody will ever have the true answer as to the 'what, where and how' of life. Such absolute existential questions are meaningless and will not afford you inner happiness and peace. We must rather be practical and realistic in our theories, in order to achieve enlightenment in our daily lives.

No one is saying there's anything wrong with the idea of creationism/ID in itself. Trying to claim it as science, though, IS, as it's blatantly not and anyone who's gotten further than high school biology should know that.

Whob, I have a challenge for you. The one and ONLY way you could ever have evidence for ID is if you have evidence that such a higher being exists. Without staggering proof of this, ID holds no water whatsoever. So go and find this evidence.

And I find it quite ironic that you dare to tell other people that they are avoiding something when you yourself are probably the largest dodger this entire site has ever seen.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
The shorter and less related the response is to the topic..the more whipped your arguments have become.

I once again feel comfortable leaving another debate.
keep the faith 😇 😆

By into your own delusions. Keep the dream alive.

I hate to beat a dead horse..but often times one finds that the horse wasn't quite as "dead" as it appeared to be. Unfortunately in some cases one must beat the horse many times..to guarantee its' demise.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Good Lord, whob, it is staggering how wrong you can be. Just how can one guy get something so very badly wrong?

For one who proudly and dogmatically professes their atheistic beliefs, you certainly like to swear upon the name and title of "Christ" a lot.
Moving on...let's examine your responses Ush.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
A. Actually, I didn't state that, I was quoting someone else who did. And it is true. He was saying that Science is not Maths- it is not a collection of airtight proofs. It is the observation of phenomena the the creation of supportable theories to explain it, which are then tested and attacked to see if they withstand. YOU have a skewed view of science that gets it all wrong, assuming that a theory is just any idea you can come up with, and that science is always about finding out 100% accurate things (again, I'll use my example of gravity here), as you just demonstrated AGAIN. Seriously- go back to school and listen carefully this time.

Do you make a concious effort to contradict yourself within your responses, or does this ability just come naturally? Regardless of who presented the argument, both yourself and the "scientist" who posted the erroneous argument continue to grossly contradict yourselves. The core contradiction within the argument lies within the following statements

Originally posted by Ushgarak
The statement scientific fact is an oxymoron. There are no facts in science.

Actually, I didn't state that, I was quoting someone else who did. And it is true.

How can you validate that what the speaker presented is true..if science offers no "airtight proofs" or truths?

Science is full of constants and absolutes. Without even having to reference any mathematical constants(ie such as pie), any scientific concept explored..must first make the "faithful" assumption that these 4 basic "philosophical" truths exist.

taken from http://homepages.tcp.co.uk/~carling/god&bb1.html

1) Rationality - that our thinking processes are basically reliable. (This assumption is needed in every area of life - even to discuss rationality!)

2) Orderliness - that there is an order to be discovered in nature - otherwise why do science at all?

3) Intelligibility - that our minds are able to discover this order.

4) Uniformity - that doing exactly the same experiment twice gives the same results. The scientific enterprise would be impossible without the assumption that there is a general uniformity in nature.

What you and the original speaker who presented the peice are attempting to do is force "Naturalistic Humanism" on science. "Relativism" is the belief that absolutes/facts do not exist within nature and life. This a philosophical belief system only!!! And it is a very false one at that.

If it were indeed true..we would live in a world full of chaos and contradictions. But as an rationale minded person can clearly view we do not.

Have you ever seen a clock..that was not created by a clockmaker? Or a clock..that didn't have the purpose of telling/gauging time. The physical world we inhabit is filled with order, design and purpose. From the things that we humans design with our own efforts,(Buildings, Computers, Cars, clocks etc)...to the constants that exist within nature...the very foundations that make up life are full of purpose/order/design.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
b. Creationism is NOT a theory. There is no scientific backing behind the idea of creationism. It is not supported by evidence and does not fit the observed facts. Again, you have this crazy-ass idea of what a theory is. Creationism does not fit ANY of the hall marks if theory in science- it is not even a hypotheisis, it is simple belief and nothing else. By trying to seriously call Creationism a theory, you are again making yourself a laughing stock. Get with the real world, geez.

Creationism only becomes a theory by your own personal definition of a theory being any idea that you happen to like.

taken from http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/Creationism
Main Entry: cre·a·tion·ism
Pronunciation: -sh&-"ni-z&m
Function: noun
: a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis -- compare EVOLUTION 4b

Are you going to argue with the dictionary now Ush? They state that Creationsim is a theory as well..perhaps they to represent individuals who are "ill-informed about how the scientific process works...😆 😆

Originally posted by Ushgarak
c. The criteria that that is decided on is whether something meets rational and logicial standards; your arguments do not.

Pretty weak response. So I take it that you are in agreement with me, about a concept not being deemed as a valid science, strictly by its definition alone. On another note..I would like to know by whose logical standards should mine/other arguments be evaluated by ..yours?
Perhaps "objective" standards should only be determined by those who support evolutionary theory...😆

Do you truly not realize the dogmatic and religious you come accross when presenting these types of views?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
d. If you cannot work out that things to do with man are aritificial then there is no hope for you. Science has a much wider scope than simply the world of nature.

You have no idea of what "artificial" means. As I've already stated multiple times...despite what you have been lead to believe..or to hard headed to admit..."man made" things are the result processes and elements that exist within the natural world. If you truly want to get into the "wider scope" of things..such as the metaphysical fantasies that embody cosmology..then perhaps you should take your own advice..and leave those types of belief's open to discussion in Philosophy class.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
e. Your 'e' is just a feeble attempt to get another letter in.
I guarantee you, whob- everyone is seeing YOU as the ignorant and ill-informed one. Your attempt to turn that around on me doesn't mean crap. It looks feeble to me, and to everyone. You can continue to run and hide in your own little world, pretending that I am somehow ignorant, or any other of the throwaway comments you made about me, simply because you cannot handle me shoving the truth under your nose- but it won't help you, and you still expose yourself to everyone else.

Perhaps you should read current statistics Ush.. which relate to what we are currently debating..many within the US..in fact a good majority of people(around 50%) agree that ID should be allowed to be taught in Science class..as opposed to this "illusionary" majority you believe you/others represent. Your followers only represent a select few dinks within this forum..as opposed to your idea of "everyone else."

Next, I understand satire perfectly well. Where the heck did you learn these things? If you cannot work out that the opening post is indeed a satire of the ID argument then you have a serious problem with recognising things! That is absolutely dumb. Who the hell told you that satire can only be about things that are not true? Or even that it had to be exaggeration? Satire is simply:

"A literary work in which human vice or folly is attacked through irony, derision, or wit. "

Clear? Not the first time you have done this- are you simply ignorant, or once more lying to try and improve your argument? Either way, your fallacy is exposed once more.

Let me break this down as simple as I can...

A satire my friend..is a fictional/exaggerated scenario.

A fictional scenario is not true.

Something that is valid represents something that is true.

Thus your statement "valid satirical refutation"..is an illogical statement.

Some valid advice my friend..cut down on the length of your responses. Posting more, doesn't make your point anymore truthful.

You are still poisoning your own cause every time you post, whob. Everyone is growing more and more contemptuous of you as your obvious logical fallacies are exposed time and time again. You just did it again with your comments on my last post... shall we see if you do it again with this one? I am perfectly happy for you to do so, ebcause each time you do- giving myself and others another chance to knock your rotting arguments down- you make our side of the argument more and more convincing, as your arguments continue to consist of nothing but clear misconceptions or obvious lies.

Or you can just strut around saying that you are 'comfortable' to have left the debate and pretend that that denotes any form of superiority or victory- when once again, everyone will see you as the clear loser here.

You truly exist within a realm of illusionary grandeur Ush, and my sympathies go out to anyone who has to deal with you in the real world. Such arrogance can only be overshadowed by extreme ignorance..and in both cases my friends, anyone who attempts to stand up to the "gold standard" you've presented in both of these areas, will definately have some difficult shoes to fill.

If you would like to continue this debate on Humanism..please post any response there.