The Scientific Theory of Intelligent Design

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

😆 phrenology!

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

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

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

This is yet another trolling thread by Whob.

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

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

Don't ever go to Vegas kid..😉

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

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

www.dictionary.com
Def NATURALISM

Philosophy: The system of thought holding that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws.

Theology: The doctrine that all religious truths are derived from nature and natural causes and not from revelation.

😆

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Definately.

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

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

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

Wait, you were already there.

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

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

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

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

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

here's one.....

2+2= 4. There you go.

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

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

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

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

ps.

Don't ever go to Vegas kid..

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

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

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

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

😆

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Go away. You don't have anything here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wait, you were already there.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fin