Originally posted by ushomefree
Digi? What's up man?!
Originally posted by ushomefree
Digi? What's up man?!
Originally posted by Bardock42👆
Well, to be fair, it is unlikely he will bring anything new to the table.
Now if he had some science to prove his view then that would be a different story. It seems that supports of the ID theory only tries to disprove purposed theories and nothing to try and prove theirs. It seems that they go with the idea that if we can disprove all other theories then ours must be right. It is like saying that if we disprove that it is a dog then it must be a cat.
Da Pittman-
For the sake of argument, I will state, that your statement is true; however--and this is a big "however"--your statement proves true only at first glance. Let me explain, please.
Intelligent Design (ID) does not attempt to theorize the origin of life. That is not to state that some advocates of ID have not; the fact remains, that ID, in "itself," begs for intelligent cause! And so advocates of ID jump on the opportunity. I see nothing wrong with this, by the way. Free (unprovoked) inquiry is always a good thing!
With all stated, I have not defined ID, at least, not to the core. Intelligent Design merely attempts to explain--or define, rather--biology systems, that otherwise challenge Darwinian processes. It is that simple, and I do not understand the fuss. In other words, ID professes complexity in biology systems that, "cannot be explained in Darwinian fashion!" This is especially true when it boils down to origins. That is all ID professes! Evolution does account for "micro" variation within species, but not "macro" variation. Macro-evolution only exists on paper, not nature (in which it attempts to explain).
[Note: Darwinian theory assumes "pre-existing" raw material to base theories without explain the first cell and/or molecule, progressing to advanced life. Such is utterly unknown and has never been accounted for!]
ID demonstrates that biological systems--the cell--are comprised of molecular machines (that mimic "man-made machines"😉! Complexity and intelligence is what nature shows man, not uncaused, random processes. It should be, no wonder, that man, exerts himself to assume that God--an intelligent cause--created life, in all its abundance.
I may have missed a few points I felt necessary to make, but did this post help provide (a little bit) of understanding?
Originally posted by ushomefreeIt is true in all parts and the reason for this is because you can not prove that God or a creator exists, so until God or a creator comes down and say “This is me and I made all things” it can not be proven. While it is sound logic to disprove a theory and this is one of the fundamental parts of the scientific process what ID theorist fail at is that when they try and disprove they say that their “theory” is correct. You are also incorrect that ID is a theory of how life was created what they don’t do is try to prove their claim. It would be the same if I said that I created fire from my hands when I was a boy and I have now not been able to do it again, how would you disprove or prove this? The other part that is flawed is that even if you assume that there was a creator that it is the God of the Bible and not some other explanation, the seeding of life by alien life has as much validity as God.
Da Pittman-For the sake of argument, I will state, that your statement is true; however--and this is a big "however"--your statement proves true only at first glance. Let me explain, please.
Intelligent Design (ID) does not attempt to theorize the origin of life. That is not to state that some advocates of ID have not; the fact remains, that ID, in "itself," begs for intelligent cause! And so advocates of ID jump on the opportunity. I see nothing wrong with this, by the way. Free (unprovoked) inquiry is always a good thing!
With all stated, I have not defined ID, at least, not to the core. Intelligent Design merely attempts to explain--or define, rather--biology systems, that otherwise challenge Darwinian processes. It is that simple, and I do not understand the fuss. In other words, ID professes complexity in biology systems that, "cannot be explained in Darwinian fashion!" This is especially true when it boils down to origins. That is all ID professes! Evolution does account for "micro" variation within species, but not "macro" variation. Macro-evolution only exists on paper, not nature (in which it attempts to explain).
[Note: Darwinian theory assumes "pre-existing" raw material to base theories without explain the first cell and/or molecule, progressing to advanced life. Such is utterly unknown and has never been accounted for!]
ID demonstrates that biological systems--the cell--are comprised of molecular machines (that mimic "man-made machines"😉! Complexity and intelligence is what nature shows man, not uncaused, random processes. It should be, no wonder, that man, exerts himself to assume that God--an intelligent cause--created life, in all its abundance.
I may have missed a few points I felt necessary to make, but did this post help provide (a little bit) of understanding?
Yeah, how is it that you're ok with a theory that has no evidence for itself? You LOVE "inquiry" without realizing that all that does is discuss evolution, not ID. Disproving one thing doesn't validate another thing.
You've said the same exact things dozens of times now, but have yet to show one shred of evidence FOR ID, not against evolution.
Also, your erroneous claims about the eye (and even earlier about new "information" in a genome) were addressed at length by xmark's posts on the last few pages (and others). You made no attempt to admit that your argument was trumped, or mount a credible counter-thrust. I'd love to see you refute any of it, but you haven't been able to or you've just ignored it.
Most of what you're saying about evolution is just plain wrong. And even if it was right, there would be a gap in our knowledge, but without any evidence ID would still have no right replacing it.
Address that. Everyone already knows you don't think evolution accounts for macroevolution (as you define it to fit your argument). Everyone already knows your qualms with Darwinism, and the counterpoints to your arguments (we've posted them numerous times). You haven't said anything new in months, you've just provided variations on the same points without ever addressing the counter-arguments.
As I've said before, believe ID if you want. But know that it has no evidence to support it. Frankly, it's hard not to be insulted when you only say what you want t hear, and pretend that anything that can't be answered can just be ignored.
....so now, ignore me or provide a trite answer that rehashes previous debates without providing new information. I can't wait to see which one it is.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Disproving one thing doesn't validate another thing.
It kind of does, as long as the argument is kept to only two options. As long as everything is organized along simple black and white lines, then those who benefit from the knee-jerk reactions of others will benefit. Democrat vs Republican, pro-life vs pro-choice, christian vs muslim, east vs west and creationism vs evolution. People always say that i'm sorry are the hardest words, but it's really I don't know, along with realizing most, if not all, others don't know either that are the hardest words.
Originally posted by Devil KingHowever in all your example it is not only one option, it is only valid in absolutes.
It kind of does, as long as the argument is kept to only two options. As long as everything is organized along simple black and white lines, then those who benefit from the knee-jerk reactions of others will benefit. Democrat vs Republican, pro-life vs pro-choice, christian vs muslim, east vs west and creationism vs evolution. People always say that i'm sorry are the hardest words, but it's really I don't know, along with realizing most, if not all, others don't know either that are the hardest words.
Originally posted by Devil KingYou are right, of course. Which is why ID supporters just try to discredit evolution, but I think Digimark meant to say that in scientific discourse and in a matter of fact, it is not correct.
It kind of does, as long as the argument is kept to only two options. As long as everything is organized along simple black and white lines, then those who benefit from the knee-jerk reactions of others will benefit. Democrat vs Republican, pro-life vs pro-choice, christian vs muslim, east vs west and creationism vs evolution. People always say that i'm sorry are the hardest words, but it's really I don't know, along with realizing most, if not all, others don't know either that are the hardest words.
What Bardock said. We're not limited to 2 options in this case. Such dualistic thinking actually would lead us to believe ID (even without evidence) if evolution was ever disproven (as yet unaccomplished). But setting it up as such is a needless duality.
So sure, disprove one thing and the other is true, only if there is only 2 possible interpretations. There isn't in this case, nor has anything been disproven, so ID is lacking on both fronts. It's a niggling point that honestly should be implied when dealing with scientific theories.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Yeah, how is it that you're ok with a theory that has no evidence for itself? You LOVE "inquiry" without realizing that all that does is discuss evolution, not ID. Disproving one thing doesn't validate another thing.
Darwinian evolution attempts to explain and/or account for the origin of life. Intelligent Design (ID) does not! Life is based on processes at the "molecular level." If Darwinian evolution cannot account for basic life--the simple cell--while ID demonstrates fallacies of Darwinian evolution--things that naturalists overlook out of ignorance or simply ignore--then what are we to do with Darwinian evolution? Give more credence to it?!
Originally posted by DigiMark00
You've said the same exact things dozens of times now, but have yet to show one shred of evidence FOR ID, not against evolution.
Yes I have; I posted 3 videos provided by Richard Dawkins, and I asked all members of the forum to "watch!" Afterward, a brief counter-argument was provided. Only xmarksthespot came forth; but he only provided material "copy and pasted."
Originally posted by DigiMark00
Also, your erroneous claims about the eye (and even earlier about new "information" in a genome) were addressed at length by xmark's posts on the last few pages (and others). You made no attempt to admit that your argument was trumped, or mount a credible counter-thrust. I'd love to see you refute any of it, but you haven't been able to or you've just ignored it.
My argument was not "trumped," as you put it. Re-read my post, please.
Originally posted by DigiMark00
Most of what you're saying about evolution is just plain wrong. And even if it was right, there would be a gap in our knowledge, but without any evidence ID would still have no right replacing it.
In what way is ID invalid? And in what way is Darwinian evolution correct about entailing the origin of life? Again, Darwinian evolution attempts to explain the origin of life, ID does not; but ID provides evidence to the contrary of Darwinian theory. Again, are were to give more credence to Darwinian evolution, knowing that such is the case?!
Darwinian evolution states, for example, that motorcycles evolved from bicycles. Everyone can connect with such; but Darwinian evolution does not account for how the engine, brake system, ignition system, transmission system, etc., came to be! Darwinian evolution completely overlooks the "details," in the name of "conceptual ideas" and wishful thinking. All ID does is demonstrate that Darwinian evolution is incorrect, that life did not evolve in macro processes. Why can't you come to terms with that?
Originally posted by DigiMark00
Address that. Everyone already knows you don't think evolution accounts for macroevolution (as you define it to fit your argument). Everyone already knows your qualms with Darwinism, and the counterpoints to your arguments (we've posted them numerous times). You haven't said anything new in months, you've just provided variations on the same points without ever addressing the counter-arguments.
Right... and you've said so much Digi.
Originally posted by DigiMark00
As I've said before, believe ID if you want. But know that it has no evidence to support it. Frankly, it's hard not to be insulted when you only say what you want t hear, and pretend that anything that can't be answered can just be ignored.....so now, ignore me or provide a trite answer that rehashes previous debates without providing new information. I can't wait to see which one it is.
Pride.
I only "copied and pasted" because I'm have no intention of putting any real effort into debunking retarded wastes of space and bandwidth. That doesn't detract from that those copied and pasted counterpoints "trumped" your "argument" as Digi would say, or rather "show the bullshit you peddle as what it is" as I would say. Notwithstanding that when I copy and paste something it directs to valid scientific papers, as opposed to the lack of discovery Institute or a peanut butter jar. Give my regards to the Tooth Fairy.
Originally posted by ushomefreeI don’t know where you get that ID doesn’t try to explain the origin of life, that is its main theory that God or a creator made life and no you have not shown anything to prove the theory of ID. You have only shown rebuttals of the theory of evolution and nothing showing the proof or science of ID, as we have stated many times by trying to disprove one theory does not prove the other. You videos were far from any kind of proof of ID, I don’t think anyone here would claim that the theory of evolution is perfect and doesn’t have its flaws but the ID theory is so full of them you can hide a house in it.
Darwinian evolution attempts to explain and/or account for the origin of life. Intelligent Design (ID) does not! Life is based on processes at the "molecular level." If Darwinian evolution cannot account for basic life--the simple cell--while ID demonstrates fallacies of Darwinian evolution--things that naturalists overlook out of ignorance or simply ignore--then what are we to do with Darwinian evolution? Give more credence to it?!Yes I have; I posted 3 videos provided by Richard Dawkins, and I asked all members of the forum to "watch!" Afterward, a brief counter-argument was provided. Only xmarksthespot came forth; but he only provided material "copy and pasted."
My argument was not "trumped," as you put it. Re-read my post, please.
In what way is ID invalid? And in what way is Darwinian evolution correct about entailing the origin of life? Again, Darwinian evolution attempts to explain the origin of life, ID does not; but ID provides evidence to the contrary of Darwinian theory. Again, are were to give more credence to Darwinian evolution, knowing that such is the case?!
Darwinian evolution states, for example, that motorcycles evolved from bicycles. Everyone can connect with such; but Darwinian evolution does not account for how the engine, brake system, ignition system, transmission system, etc., came to be! Darwinian evolution completely overlooks the "details," in the name of "conceptual ideas" and wishful thinking. All ID does is demonstrate that Darwinian evolution is incorrect, that life did not evolve in macro processes. Why can't you come to terms with that?
Right... and you've said so much Digi.
Pride.