Originally posted by Blue nocturne
I just posted it 🙄
This is what I mean about ignoring post.
Says the one who doesn't read links.
And where did you say it exactly? The post with Gregor Mendel? No, doesn't look it...
Maybe the one with Jet Li kicking ass? Nope, no scientific method there...
or maybe during you last few posts of bickering with XYZ? Hmm, can't find it there oddly enough...
Or during your mathematical rants? Which incedentally mean jack shit. As Omega has already mentioned countless times in several threads, the key to everything is time, which you refuse to accept just because you're stubborn. You don't want to see the common sense in the fact that if a percentage exists, it will happen with enough time. If it has a .000000000000001 chance of happening, give it a few hundred thousand years. If something is impossible, you give it infinite.
Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Intelligent Design through the Scientific Method:CSI
Click on post, and I do read links you guy's just spam links. also that wasn't jet li...
Originally posted by ArachnoidfreakOr during your mathematical rants? Which incedentally mean jack shit. As Omega has already mentioned countless times in several threads, the key to everything is time, which you refuse to accept just because you're stubborn. You don't want to see the common sense in the fact that if a percentage exists, it will happen with enough time. If it has a .000000000000001 chance of happening, give it a few hundred thousand years. If something is impossible, you give it infinite.
Your making a conclusion based on a hypothesis real scientific.
Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
Says the one who doesn't read links.And where did you say it exactly? The post with Gregor Mendel? No, doesn't look it...
Maybe the one with Jet Li kicking ass? Nope, no scientific method there...
or maybe during you last few posts of bickering with XYZ? Hmm, can't find it there oddly enough...
Or during your mathematical rants? Which incedentally mean jack shit. As Omega has already mentioned countless times in several threads, the key to everything is time, which you refuse to accept just because you're stubborn. You don't want to see the common sense in the fact that if a percentage exists, it will happen with enough time. If it has a .000000000000001 chance of happening, give it a few hundred thousand years. If something is impossible, you give it infinite.
Good point...
If no one is reading what a person writes, there are to possibilities;
1. no one can read
2. you have become irrelevant.
What do you think it is?
"elligent agents act, it is observed that they produce high levels of "complex-specified information" (CSI). CSI is basically a scenario which is unlikely to happen (making it complex), and conforms to a pattern (making it specified). Language and machines are good examples of things with much CSI. From our understanding of the world, high levels of CSI are always the product of intelligent design."
Your crap already falls apart here. 'unlikely' to happen... 🙄 So because we have man-made powerplants that produce thermo-nuclear energy, it's unlikely to happen in nature? *cough*THESUN*cough*
And of course, 'unlikely' falls into the category of statistics, saying that because something has a miniscule percentage of happening, it has to be God's design. Which is ridiculous, because I JUST answered that. The improbable takes time, the impossible takes forever.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Good point...If no one is reading what a person writes, there are to possibilities;
1. no one can read
2. you have become irrelevant.What do you think it is?
Or the third point, You guy's are hypocrites,I like how you guy's complain that I ignore facts then pretend my post doesn't exist that must be the KMC way.
ID isn't scientific to a certain amount of posters.
yet they subscribe to a theory that comes to a conclusion based on a hypothesis.
Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
The improbable takes time, the impossible takes forever.
Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Or the third, point you guy's are hypocrites,I like how you guy's complain that I ignore facts then pretend my post doesn't exist that must be the KMC way.ID isn't scientific to a certain amount of posters.
yet they subscribe to a theory that comes to a conclusion based on a hypothesis.Based on what experiment, like I said basing a conclusion on a hypothesis really scientific. 🙄
When someone says that everyone else is wrong, there is a good change that person is the one who is wrong.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
When someone says that everyone else is wrong, there is a good change that person is the one who is wrong.
And when did I say everything else is wrong, here you guy's go make stuff up again.
Whenever I posted a rebuttal to your claims, your responce would be all the lines of "Your wrong", "your ignoring facts"
When I ask to elaborate I get no responce, you guy's are great when it comes to avoiding questions, and making your assumptions seem like fact.
Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Two people sharing the same finger prints.
Criticisms of Complex Specified Information...to successfully demonstrate the existence of CSI, it would be necessary to show that some biological feature undoubtedly has an extremely low probability of occurring by any natural means whatsoever...
Such calculations depend on the accurate assessment of numerous contributing probabilities, the determination of which is often necessarily subjective. Hence, CSI can at most provide a "very high probability," but not absolute certainty.
...For example, it is unlikely that any given person will win a lottery, but, eventually, a lottery will have a winner; to argue that it is very unlikely that any one player would win is not the same as proving that there is the same chance that no one will win.
Originally posted by Blue nocturne
And what makes ID unscientific when it uses the scientific method?
Even in the case of Complex Specified Information, Intelligent Design does not conform to the scientific method. It does not qualify as a scientific theory because it is not testable, it is not falsifiable, and it does not make predictions about natural phenomena. It it a waste of time, just like you.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Even in the case of Complex Specified Information, Intelligent Design does not conform to the scientific method. It does not qualify as a scientific theory because it is not testable, it is not falsifiable, and it does not make predictions about natural phenomena. It it a waste of time, just like you.
Yet evolution, with it's untestable macroevolution and unpredictable random mutations is. so what experiment proved the hypothesis of evolution correct?
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
When everyone thinks you are wrong and you think you are right, you must consider the possibility that your ego is blinding you.
Just like If I lived in salem during the witch trails since everyone thought killing so called "witches" was right, If I disagreed then I would be wrong,nice anology.
Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Yet evolution, with it's untestable macroevolution and unpredictable random mutations is. so what experiment proved the hypothesis of evolution correct?Just like If I lived in salem during the witch trails since everyone thought killing so called "witches" was right, If I disagreed then I would be wrong,nice anology.
You should listen to what I say. The ego can be blinding. I think you are just reacting and not thinking.
Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Yet evolution, with it's untestable macroevolution and unpredictable random mutations is. so what experiment proved the hypothesis of evolution correct?
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is not true.
Yes, it is read the thread over.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Observed Instances of Speciation.
Can you post the part's with relevance next time, this is why I object to link spamming.