Originally posted by Evil Dead
you are FOR intelligent design aren't you? You are ruining your arguement. You are listing numerous examples of naturally occuring forms (more or less) of intelligence..........ruling out the necessity of a creater. Nobody ever argued the existence of intelligence.
That IS everybody's arguement against you...........intelligence naturally exists through billions upon billions of years or universal processes trial and and error.If the spider naturally builds a web of it's own.........why then does your side of the debate think there needs to be some outside intelligence telling the spider how to build a web? You're just digging your own hole man......
I don't follow your argument Evil, it seems to me that you're alluding to it taking billions of years for a spider to create a web..😕
Anyway as I stated before, the complexity of an object/organism alludes to the likelihood of some form of "intelligence" creating it. That's the ID argument in a nutshell my friend.
Unless of course you believe that the spider webs, beaver dams, and cars create themselves.
Originally posted by Evil Dead
rational is the adjective you were looking for............rationale is a noun.
Thank you for pointing out my minor typographical error. It's quite obvious you're an English major based on this post and all of the other ones you've posted within this thread. (sic) 😉
Your next assignment is to look up the word "coherency" in the dictionary and encyclopedia. Study it for a week, and then come back and post some more. And you wonder why I didn't respond....
😆
Fin
Originally posted by whobdamandog
What's even more amusing is when an individual has little to no knowledge of the topic at hand, and they use one liner's and slander in order to damage the credibility of the much stronger opponent.
At which you excel. And you have shown that you have a very limited understanding of evolution in various threads. You quote outdated data or "modify" information to further your own arguments. I don't need to damage your credibility, you have none.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
I'm not trying to [b]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. [/B]
It's not "a door" it's "adore". If you are going to try and be witty, yet berate my intelligence, stop making so many errors. You just look even more silly.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Though you demonstrate a lack of intellectual ability, you more then make up for in tenacity and maliciousness. Well done my friend. 😉Fin
Yes, attack my intelligence and observation regarding your debating technique and avoidance rather than defending your position against what others have posted against your arguments.
It is not that I can't debate such topics with you whob, it's just that it's pointless. You are unable to have an intelligent debate or conversation. You choose to talk at people as opposed to conversing or debating with people. You ignore points, try to distort what others have written or just outright try to deceive others. That is your way.
Your opinion of me matters not, for by stating more of your opinions you just further to solidify the forum's generally low opinion of your behaviour. But please, continue to focus your attention on me instead of trying to support your original post, in so doing you just confirm that the original post was merely bait and that you really didn't have anything of value to say from the beginning.
Anyway as I stated before, the complexity of an object/organism alludes to the likelihood of some form of "intelligence" creating it. That's the ID argument in a nutshell my friend.
explain. I'm sure you remember mathmatics class........show your work. If you make a statement, be sure to back it up with something tangible and real......we call this evidence.
and no.....the ID argument in a nutshell is simply god. I proposed a much better ID argument earlier but for some reason or another......you declined to comment on it. Gee.......I wonder why. Here, I'll re-post it.
the thing about this subject is........the proponents of intelligent design are not referring to intelligence, they are referring to a creator, a god. If they simply stated, "intellegent" design........then I would have no problem at all agreeing with them.
what we humans refer to as intelligence is a completely natural occurance. We human beings ourselves have intelligence. The existence of naturally occuring intelligence has never been in doubt nor debated. Why don't these intelligent design proponents simply take the position that our universe itself has an underlying intelligence to it? It has certainly been around long enough to attain intelligence. Our human intelligence is some how derrived from the interaction between chemicals, electrical impulses and tissue. All 3 are certainly known to exists in almost infinite abundance in our universe. Doesn't this seem to be the best arguement for intelligent design? After all, not only can we prove the universe itself exists......we can also prove that the pre-requisites for intelligence exist in infinite abundance within it.
The thing is....these guys aren't actually arguing intelligent design. They are arguing "creator" or "god". They use the serious study or our sciences to progress their religious beliefs, which by very definition of belief, is unsubstantiated. These people don't want to hear about real intelligent design.......... intelligent design does not give them the feeling that someone is looking over their shoulders, judging others with different morals than their own and punishing them for not believing as they do. They want a god, not intelligent design. As previously stated, all the elements for intelligence exists naturally in our universe in abundance.........they are real, they can be studied. There is even periphrial evidence to bolster the claim.......such as the quantum spooky affect at a distance......which is also being studied......not to mention very real and known universal intelligences like mathmatics. Yet these guys want something that is completely irrational, illogical......an invisible man with his own erector set running people's lives, watching and judging.
Thank you for pointing out my minor typographical error. It's quite obvious you're an English major based on this post and all of the other ones you've posted within this thread.
my pointing out of your misuse of words was merely an ironic reply to your post directly before it which appeared to me that you were mocking somebody else's typos in this post somewhere......while making your own mistakes at the very same time. You posted the following, all bolds included:
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.
seriously kid, how old are you? you remind me of this 12 year old kid who called himself chibi boy we had in here last year. When somebody refuses to put thier age in their bio.......just seems to me there's a reason they're hiding it. Perhaps they know that nobody of sane mind wants to engage in intelligent debate with a 14 year old kid.
Originally posted by Janus Marius
Whob, when was the last time you observed the intelligent designer designing the world? You can SEE a spider make a web. You can SEE the infamous watch maker make a pocketwatch. But empirically, you cannot SEE or witness any intelligent designer. In assigning one, you violate Occam's Razor and descend into foolishness.Wait, you were already there.
Whob, you can address this post ANY time now.
And try not to act like this guy:
Oh wait... hold on...
🙄 😉 🙁
There's my obligatory retarded smilies.
And here's my witty finish:
FIN
Originally posted by KharmaDog
At which you excel. And you have shown that you have a very limited understanding of evolution in various threads. You quote outdated data or "modify" information to further your own arguments. I don't need to damage your credibility, you have none.
😆
Yes Molecular Biology is outdated. As is Modern Probability Theory. Do you mind describing the validity of this position Karma?
Originally posted by KharmaDog
It's not "a door" it's "adore". If you are going to try and be witty, yet berate my intelligence, stop making so many errors. You just look even more silly.
Actually its "ador"...lol in reference to this little character.
Picador does not engage other Warriors in direct combat. Instead, he uses well placed barbs to goad his adversary into charging while skillfully avoiding the appearance of being the provocateur. He thus guides his enraged target towards certain injury or defeat at the hands of a stronger Warrior. Once the fight has been set in motion Picador will retire to a discrete distance, always ready prod his lance into sensitive areas should the action begin to flag. HINT: Alert Warriors can readily spot Picador because, though he seldom takes a stand on controversial issues, he always seems to be near the fray.
Someone's definitely living up to their namesake today...😉
Originally posted by KharmaDog
Yes, attack my intelligence and observation regarding your debating technique and avoidance rather than defending your position against what others have posted against your arguments.
Thus far Karma you've done little else other than state my apparent lack of knowledge of evolutionary theory, instead of showing your ability to present your abundance of knowledge regarding it. I would think if one was so comfortable in their abilities and position, they wouldn't resort to trying to discredit their opponents knowledge on said subject. With that being stated Karma, I'd like to view a rational rebuttal presented in your own words, regarding the original post in this thread.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Yes Molecular Biology is outdated. As is Modern Probability Theory. Do you mind describing the validity of this position Karma?
When I stated that you, "quote outdated data or "modify" information to further your own arguments" it was in reference to the occasions where you have attacked evolution argued against it by finding faults or pointing out inconsistencies with outdated theories of evolution. You reference older studies and material in hopes to sway the argument to your side. In fact, I made no reference as to Molecular Biology or Modern Probability Theory being outdated, though I sure that there are theories in each discipline that were pursued in the past that are no longer applicable or have been built upon. Much as what has happened with various theories of evolution.
And let us not forget when you have outright manipulated information in the ID vs. Evolution thread. Yes that was a classic whob moment.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Thus far Karma you've done little else other than state my apparent lack of knowledge of evolutionary theory instead of showing your ability to present your abundance of knowledge regarding it.
I never claimed to be an expert in evolutionary theory, and I did not realize that holding a PHD was necessary to argue for or against an issue here at KMC. Your arrogance has you fooled that you are an expert but your arguments suggest otherwise. As for arguing for evolution, I have had this argument with you (as have others) in other threads and see it pointless to continue.
And pointing out your lack of knowledge regarding evolution is a fairly important point as it shows that you maniacally attack evolution while not really taking the time to understand it, or worse ignore or manipulate information in order to reaffirm your own beliefs.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
I would think if one was so comfortable in their abilities and position, they wouldn't resort to trying to discredit their opponents knowledge on said subject.
Anyone reading this (other than you) is laughing at the hypocrisy.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
With that being stated Karma, I'd like to view a rational rebuttal presented in your own words, regarding the original post in this thread.
The problem with that is two fold:
The first problem is one can not rationally argue a point to an irrational person.
The second problem is contained in the following passage in your initial post:
This theory that describes life as being created by some form of intelligence is entitled Intelligent Design(ID), and it is one of the most controversial theories presented amongst the modern scientific community.
Intelligent Design is rooted in the belief of a superior being (i.e. God) creating life. This is not a scientific theory, it is a faith based belief. Being a faith based belief makes it a moot point to argue with any scientific validity.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Thought it might be a good idea to summarize what exactly ID is for the many laman who dogmatically and unquestionably follow Darwinian theory within these forums. Enjoy.- Whob
**********************************************
Upon observing and studying the earth and its inhabitants, it is quite apparent that it is comprised of a large amount of diverse organisms and systems. From the simplest of organisms in nature such as the one celled ameba, to the intricate systems of proteins and amino acids that make up DNA, it seems more often than not much of the processes that make up life have logical patterns to them.
Some believe that these complex systems originated from a series of random mutations and chemical processes gradually over the years. This philosophical belief system is the embodiment of the widely excepted scientific theory known as Evolution.
In recent years, however, many scientists are starting to question the validity of the widely accepted evolutionary theory, particularly the aspect of it that subscribes to complex organisms evolving from simpler organisms through random circumstances. These scientists suggest that it would mathematically improbable for randomness to initiate the start of any complex system. In lieu of Evolutionary theory, they adhere to a study which suggests that some form of intelligence designed these systems. This theory that describes life as being created by some form of intelligence is entitled Intelligent Design(ID), and it is one of the most controversial theories presented amongst the modern scientific community.
The concept of nature having a design to it is nothing new. Many liken it to the design theory that proceeded it entitled Creationism, which is exclusively based off of the Christian religion. Although many ID scientists are indeed Christian, the theory itself is not exclusively based on Christian doctrine nor is it based on the supernatural. Instead it is based on understanding the natural complexities that make up nature, and the impossibility of such perfect conditions to arise from random circumstance.
In 1802, theologian Whilliam Paley presented a theory entitled the Watchmaker Design Thesis. The following is an excerpt from his thesis:
The “rock” in the thesis is representative of a simplistic organism, while the “clock” is representative of a complex one. Using this analogy, Paley was asserting that the more complex an object is, greater is the likely hood that the object was at some point intelligently created. As simple as his thesis may sound, this type of rationale is the basis behind modern design theory.
Biology is but one of the many modern scientific facets that have assisted in giving the design theory credibility. In 1996, biochemist Michael Behe devised a theory, which expanded upon Paley’s initial Watchmaker thesis. Behe described biological systems as being too complicated on a molecular level, or too irreducibly complex to be formed by random processes within an organism and its environment.
Many biological systems are composed of codependent parts. Removing any part within these systems would cause them to not function properly, and in many cases not function at all. These irreducibly complex systems as Behe defines them, could not be reduced into simpler ones based on the dependency each part has with another. By adhering to Behe’s rationale, one would then have to attribute such a process as being part of a design, as opposed to being initiated from unplanned circumstances.
Modern concepts involving mathematics and statistics also shed new light on the validity of the design theory. Mathematician Whilliam Dembski suggests that it is statistically impossible to define complex organisms as the byproduct of random events. There are three core components to Dembski’s thesis. These components relate to the relationships of objects that are in a string, or a series of objects that have some form of coexistence. (3)
The first component, or contingency as Dembski terms it, relates to the freedom of choice objects within a string have. The second component, complexity, refers to the inability of a string’s creation to be defined by mere chance. (4)
Dembski asserts that one can only define a string’s creation as being unplanned if it is made up of very few contingent components. For example the word “an” can be thought of as a simple string. The words that make up a short story can be thought of as a complex string. It is somewhat probable to surmise that one can randomly throw two letters together on a page and create a simple word such as “an.” However, it is grossly illogical to assume that hundreds of letters can be thrown together at random on a page to create a story. The probability of the later string being generated from random circumstance would be around 10^-150, or in laman’s terms nearly
impossible. (5)With such dramatic findings being presented, one can only conclude that the complexity of the string alludes to the third component of Dembski’s design theory being true. This third component or specification as he defines it, asserts that some type of intelligent pattern exists within the complex string and that the intelligence demonstrated within the pattern alludes to it being designed. (6)
Although ID greatly contradicts much of modern evolutionary theory on a philosophical level, there is one core belief that it shares with it. Microevolution, sometimes termed variation or adaptation, is generally the term used when describing this type of evolution. Examples of microevolution are represented in different species of dogs, cats, fish, and other organisms within a particular family. It is important to note, however, that ID does not support the concept known as macroevolution, which theorizes that species of different families at some point randomly evolved into species of another family. The existence of this type of evolution is widely debated between the proponents of both theories, and at this time no conclusive specimens have been found to confirm this type of evolution as being possible.
1. Natural Theology; or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, 12th edition Paley. Pg. 3.
2. Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution.Behe.
Free Press, 1996, pg. 39.3. Review of Whilliam Dembski Intelligent Design the Bridge Between Science and Theology. Korthoff. World Wide Web, 2002. http://www.home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/kortho44.htm
4. Review of Whilliam Dembski Intelligent Design the Bridge Between Science and Theology. Korthoff. World Wide Web, 2002. http://www.home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/kortho44.htm.
5. Review of Whilliam Dembski Intelligent Design the Bridge Between Science and Theology. Korthoff. World Wide Web, 2002. http://www.home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/kortho44.htm.
BOLLOCKS and BULLSHIT.
What were you thinking Whob?
Surely you must know that all of the intracately designed systems of human life that are co-dependant on one another to survive came from slime, fish, reptiles, birds, monkeys and us?
Right? 😛 😄
Originally posted by Janus Marius
Whob, when was the last time you observed the intelligent designer designing the world?
Originally posted by whobdamandog
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.
We can indeed observe and study the "design" in the structure of DNA. We can also use the scientific method to study all types of processes found throughout nature. For example..one can..
Originally posted by Janus Marius
SEE a spider make a web.
This complex natural processes is indeed observable and testable.
So to clarify, ID is not testing the existence of an intelligent designer, rather, it's demonstrating the inherent intelligence found within natural world.
Whatever philosophical or religious conclusions one wants to draw from the inherent "intelligent designs" found within nature is left up strictly to that individual.
Now you answer my questions..
When was the last time you've witnessed "Ambiogenesis?"(Ambiogenesis = primordial soup creating life)
When was the last time you've witnessed a reptile transform into a bird?
Let me guess your response, it takes "billions" of years for such a thing to happen, and although you don't have any proof from the fossil record to support such a claim, it's logical to assume that it can still happen, even though biotechnological microbiology has proved such a process impossible on a cellular level, and modern probability theory has proved such a process to have a...
.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 % chance of occurring... 🙄
Oh yeah one more thing..you've just been owned.
😆
Fin
Originally posted by Karmadog
When I stated that you, "quote outdated data or "modify" information to further your own arguments" it was in reference to the occasions where you have attacked evolution argued against it by finding faults or pointing out inconsistencies with outdated theories of evolution. You reference older studies and material in hopes to sway the argument to your side. In fact, I made no reference as to Molecular Biology or Modern Probability Theory being outdated, though I sure that there are theories in each discipline that were pursued in the past that are no longer applicable or have been built upon.
Karmadog's post initially translated by whobdamandog
I have no idea what the fuuck I'm talking about, just as I have demonstrated in the other evolution thread.In order to make it look as though I have a point and I'm not afraid to respond to the initial post due to my lack of knowledge on said subject, I will keep on posting, in hopes that nobody realizes that I have not attempted to respond to the original subject matter.
**PM's PVS: hey sweetcheeks..come over to this new whob thread and start swinging on my nuts like you always do in these forums. Post some owned pics. That way I'll look like I know what I'm talking about, and whob will look silly. We got him at his own game this time..don't we sweet "P"..he..he..he..me so clever..love you baby..bye..bye..😉
😆 😆
Originally posted by Mindship
Occam's Razor demands we go for the simple and straightforward first. And that means we seek empirical evidence for empirical phenomena before delving into esoteria.
Nicely put. I think that's all a thread with such an oxyrmonic title like this one needs (and deserves).
EDIT: I see ol' Capt Fant got there first, so think of my remark as a reinforcement of such a blatant observation.
Intelligent design is NOT a scentific theory.
It is a religious hypothesis.
http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/not-science.html
I'm pretty open to ideas. Maybe some alien race engineered our entire existance. Maybe we formed out of a puddle of goop and evolved. Maybe an alien raced engineered our puddle of goop and let it ride. Who knows really. Maybe we're all pets to feline and k-9 anthropomorphs and this is one of our crazy dreams! Or maybe I'm weird and have too much time on my hands.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
"Look, it's my Bible!"^😆
Fin
Unfortunately, you failed to see the ridiculousness of the claim YOU made that I addressed: you said that the world was made by intelligence. You then went on to say that spiders make webs, watchmaker makes watches, etc. But what you failed to realize is that you made a
False Analogy
You were griping about evolution not being empirical because we don't observe it in an instance, and yet you can even SEE this fabled intelligent designer (Read: fanboy's God) make the world! You can SEE spiders make webs. You can SEE watchmakers make watches. You cannot see this intelligent designer at all.
But I did like the irrelevant misdirection on your part simply because I picked out one point (Out of your entire megapost of bullshit) and undid it.
Hold on... obligatory smilies...
😆 🤣 😮💨
And for that witty, know-it-all finish...
FIN
Originally posted by Janus Marius
Unfortunately, you failed to see the ridiculousness of the claim YOU made that I addressed: you said that the world was made by intelligence. You then went on to say that spiders make webs, watchmaker makes watches, etc. But what you failed to realize is that you made aFalse Analogy
You were griping about evolution not being empirical because we don't observe it in an instance, and yet you can even SEE this fabled intelligent designer (Read: fanboy's God) make the world! You can SEE spiders make webs. You can SEE watchmakers make watches. You cannot see this intelligent designer at all.
But I did like the irrelevant misdirection on your part simply because I picked out one point (Out of your entire megapost of bullshit) and undid it.
Hold on... obligatory smilies...
😆 🤣 😮💨
And for that witty, know-it-all finish...
FIN
HAHAHA fanboys of god! I liked that 😆 damnit, fanboys are everywhere, we can't get rid of them!