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.
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When I stated that you, "quote outdated data or "modify" information to further your own arguments" it was in reference to the occasions where you have attacked evolution argued against it by finding faults or pointing out inconsistencies with outdated theories of evolution.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 In fact, I made no reference as to Molecular Biology or Modern Probability Theory being outdated, though I sure that there are theories in each discipline that were pursued in the past that are no longer applicable or have been built upon.
Before reading whob's following response to my post, refer to my first quote from whob in this post.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Karmadog's post initially translated by whobdamandogI 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..wink
Wow, way to make yourself look not only like a total hypocrite, but like a functioning idiot as well!
I told you that trying to debate with you is useless, I make some good points and point out your hypocrisy and you type garbage (that isn't even funny) to try and look witty and smart.
I can see that not only does it bother you that I and others make you feel stupid (and that you yourself must feel stupid as exemplified your resulting behavior) but that it also frustrates you when I (or others) make an observation about you that others find amusing or humourous while you have to laugh at your own pathetic jokes in order to let us know that you are trying yet another attempt at humor.
By the way, by posting your own "owned pics", smilies, ignoring the facts and points of others and reinterpreting what others have typed you have lived up to every character cliche and stereotype that people accuse you of being. All you have to do is lie and you've hit the Whob jackpot!
Not only are you deluded and sad, you aren't even entertaining any more.
So post some more pics, smilies and pathetic comment that derail your own thread so that you can try to hid behind attempt wit instead of intelligently facing the points and positions of others, your not fooling anyone, but maybe it makes you feel better about yourself.
intelligent design would be a decent theory if it weren't for one thing...that there is absolutely no evidence of any form of intelligence that "designs" all living and non living things on the earth
so the intelligent design theorists argue on exaclty the same front as creationists...they dont actually show any evidence to back up their own theory...the simply try and pick holes in the giant and ever increasing amount of evidence that supports evolution
Originally posted by jaden101
intelligent design would be a decent theory if it weren't for one thing...that there is absolutely no evidence of any form of intelligence that "designs" all living and non living things on the earthso the intelligent design theorists argue on exaclty the same front as creationists...they dont actually show any evidence to back up their own theory...the simply try and pick holes in the giant and ever increasing amount of evidence that supports evolution
Exactly. They think of they can put a reasonable doubt into the theory of evolution suddenly it proves ID.
Why do you even try?
Evolution has a rousing victory. If you even want to call this pathetic excuse to undermine the truth.
Fine Whob, destroy my usage of the word truth, but deny it all you want its true. You can close your eyes and believe all you want that the sky is green but it doesn't change the truth that when you open them and look up, its blue.
Your idiotic, nonsensical psudo-intellect has anyone with a real brain baffled on how you can actually function if you live in this little world you have created for youself.
I'm obvioulsy con't going to convince you otherwise, and you obviouly arn't going to convince the entire world, scientific, education and governmental institutions included of your little delusion. It doesn't matter what you think. There are some very strange people, and you happen to be one of them. So from now on I am considering you and your argument a simple conspiracy theroy, because if you break it down, thats what it is. That the government and the scientific community have falsified all this evidence and come up with these outrageous stories to try to pull the wool over our eyes, but you, the special one, the so called enlightened one can see through all this reaming pile of bullshit and have taken it upon yourself to educate the world of you absurd conspiracy story.
Go talk to Deano, you are two of the same.
So from hear on out, I banish you and all your ideas, to the ignorable and laughable realm of "Conspiracy Theroy"
So go soak your head.
Originally posted by whobdamandogThat is wrong on so many levels.
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.
Two scientists often cited by defenders of ID are Michael Behe, author of Darwin's Black Box (The Free Press, 1996), and William Dembski, author of Intelligent Design: The Bridge between Science and Theology (Cambridge University Press, 1998). Dembski and Behe are fellows of the Discovery Institute, a Seattle research institute funded largely by Christian foundations. Their arguments are attractive because they are couched in mathematical or scientific terms and backed by what seems to be scientific competence. However, their arguments are identical in function to the creationists' arguments: rather than provide positive evidence for their own position, they mainly try to find weaknesses in natural selection. As already noted, however, even if their arguments are successful against natural selection, that would not increase the probability of ID.
http://skepdic.com/intelligentdesign.html
Just like with Creationism ID commits the fallacy of thinking, that IF they can find any weakness in evolution (which they can't) that somehow prooves ID.
I can NEVER prove claim A by disproving claim B.
There is nothing to support the way ID thinks the world was created. Scientific theories need basis, and there is no basis to it, they just attack Darwin´s theory. I fail to see how possible flaws in Darwin´s theory implies in God, adam and eve, genesis.... Which fact can lead one to think specifically that the world was created exactly as it is in the genesis ? The is a lot of afirmations in the genesis, it is very specific, so we will need to explain every single thing in it, like Adam and Eve, the world being created in 7 days, the world having 5000 years old, ....
It is horrible to think that ID have people supporting it, and some even wanted to put it in science class in US. I mean, even science that is very objective and rigorous in the way it works can be distorted to make people accept something like this. In the end its more about "marketing of an idea" than truth.