1221 replies to this topic

[Duchykins]

Exactly.

ID is a scientific "what". It is not a scientific "how".

ID is not a scientific theory and it therefore cannot compete with evolution as an alternative scientific theory.

Good luck with that.

[shadowhawk]

What and how are part of the same process.  I guess you know why there is something rather than nothing.  

[Duchykins]

What and how are part of the same process.  I guess you know why there is something rather than nothing.  

Magic?

[shadowhawk]

 

What and how are part of the same process.  I guess you know why there is something rather than nothing.  

Magic?

 

We each have faith, but I think this is off topic.

[Duchykins]

 

What and how are part of the same process.  I guess you know why there is something rather than nothing.  

Magic?
 

We each have faith, but I think this is off topic.

Well then you shouldn't have brought it up, should you have?

It's okay, I understand you couldn't help it since this topic is all about religion.

[shadowhawk]

 

 

 

What and how are part of the same process.  I guess you know why there is something rather than nothing.  

Magic?
 

We each have faith, but I think this is off topic.

Well then you shouldn't have brought it up, should you have?

It's okay, I understand you couldn't help it since this topic is all about religion.

 

I didn't bring it up!    It is about science, not religion and whether you can look in the mirror and conclude intelligence is part of the cosmos.

You never answered my previous question.  Here again is the question with more detail.

Lynn Margulis: Evolutionist and Critic of Neo-Darwinism (The Synthesis) said:

“Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn't create ... neo-Darwinists say that new species emerge when mutations occur and modify an organism...I believed it until I looked for evidence.”  
See more at: http://www.evolution...h.d9kB8J8u.dpuf

Evolution can be used in several ways:
Evolution #1: Change over time -- small-scale changes in a population of organisms (often called "microevolution").  ID accepts this.  So do I.

Evolution #2: Universal common descent -- the view that all organisms are related and are descended from a single common ancestor.  ID does not accept this.  I don’t either.   It takes #3 to pull it off.

Evolution #3: Natural selection and random mutation as the main cause or mechanism of change during the history of life -- the idea that an unguided process of natural selection acting upon random mutations is sufficient to produce the new forms of life that appear during that history as well as the appearance of design that living forms manifest.  This includes your intelligence.
ID accepts the obvious natural selection and so do the most fundamentalist Christians.  

Now back to the quiz, what issue is left over?  Come on, you can figure it out.  It is the main reason there is an ID movement.  No, magic is not the answer.  For more help see chapters 15 and 16.
http://www.amazon.co...t/dp/0062071475
 

[Duchykins]

I know you think that's a fantastic argument, but it's empty.


You've provided no scientific explanation for the diversity of life that isn't already covered by evolutionary theory. That's what ID needs to do in order to be a scientific theory capable of replacing evolutionary theory.

[Duchykins]

Again, ID is 99% anti-evolution argument, 1% teleological argument. It is completely void of scientific meaning and usefulness. I said that the first day I posted in this thread.

All you've done is reinforce that assessment.

I said let's throw out evolutionary theory and say it's wrong, so that we can get to the scientific explanation of biological diversity. You answered with more anti-evolution arguments.

I said let's say ID is correct that an intelligent mind designed life, so that we can get to the scientific explanation of biological diversity. You answered with more anti-evolution arguments and another assertion that life is designed.


That's all you have, lol!

The funniest part is that you actually think you had gained some ground with my argument tactics. :D

[shadowhawk]

Hay, laughing man.  Back with the same content less prattle.  All you can do is call names.  Laugh on.

http://www.longecity...-14#entry659735
 

[Duchykins]

There's nothing there. That's an anti-evolution argument, it doesn't propose any kind of explanation or biological mechanism. What part of that do you have trouble understanding? Is it the scientific part because you have no idea what makes a scientific theory?

[Duchykins]

ID is commonly defined as the idea that living things appeared on Earth "fully formed" with "all major features" already intact. But that's it - it's just that assertion, it doesn't try to outline a scientific explanation for how this happened.

If the intelligence were aliens, there would be a biological mechanism involved in the creation of Earth life.

Does ID propose a biological mechanism? What is it?

[shadowhawk]

Ok, but you get to play the game also.  So far all you are doing is attack.  Would you agree to this?

 

In evolutionary biology, convergent evolution is the process whereby organisms not closely related (not monophyletic), independently evolve similar traits as a result of having to adapt to similar environments or ecological niches.

It is the opposite of divergent evolution, where related species evolve different traits.

On a molecular level, this can happen due to random mutation unrelated to adaptive changes; see long branch attraction. In cultural evolution, convergent evolution is the development of similar cultural adaptations to similar environmental conditions by different peoples with different ancestral cultures. An example of convergent evolution is the similar nature of the flight/wings of insects, birds, pterosaurs, and bats.

All four serve the same function and are similar in structure, but each evolved independently.

 

Is that an exp;lanation of how evolution explains similarity in divergent species?

[Duchykins]

I will not indulge your disineguous attempts with smoke and mirrors. I will not be drawn into irrelevant side issues with anti-evolution arguments.

I will make NO ATTEMPT to defend the theory of evolution.

You cannot distract me from the heart of the issue of ID's status as a scientific theory.

Get to the biological mechanism that the intelligence developed and used to diversify species.

[shadowhawk]

  OK LAUGHING MAN.   I hope Casey Luskin is lookikng in but I am sure he has better things to do.  So do I.

[Duchykins]

Okay bye!

If you return to the thread, we will continue, lol.

[shadowhawk]

[addx]

I have started a dialogue with a dr. of cybernetics at Max Planck institute in research of body development and behaviour, the complexities of behaviour etc. I am explaining my concept of evolution and the body-mind problem the way it has not been imagined but I have posted many explanation here on this forum. In my dialog with him I have come to understand how to express myself and at this point it seems I will prove evolution as a n-traverse cybernetic system with a purpose and my proof explains all the animal clade, biologic diversity, provides balances for creating biologic diversity and they work to explain life from inception to us. I am having some issues explaining as has been seen on this forum as I have arrived at my concepts completely independent of any education but I have started finding ways to express it with that professor and confirming validity. If I proceed with my intentions as planned, will my effort will, TRANSCEND all religion and evolution debates including the purpose of life and the definition of it.

Now at this point some mullet head idiot you quoted is explaing that evolution "can not create". Do you understand that I consider such a person to be an inbred idiot with an IQ maybe room temperature. I actually have proof that evolution is an n-traverse cybernetic system of creation, and I can prove each traverse and parallel them to observable animal clade evolution order? So this will make evolution a mathematical-cybernetic system that can be used to make confirmeable any-scale life predictions, not just an idea about selfish genes which in fact only explains a small piece of evolution.

So, duchykins is right, I forgot, but I do believe I already pointed out the same issue also in the thread before as has he. ID theory is based on pointing out that evolution as a theory is not deducted but inducted from proof. It is an irrational demand that a theory explaining biological diversity can deduct every single biological diversity(such as the eye or whatever part of whatever life form which are in effect endless) that ever existed as that is an undertaking exponentially bigger than decoding the DNA. Asserting that evolution theory is not fully deducted is simply an argument that evolution theory is inducted which noone is arguing. However, this argument can not be used as proof for any other theory such as ID. Any other theory that intends to compete should be based on at least the same number of independent deductions, meaning they can not reference another theory. In case of ID there is not a single independent deduction supporting it so, as religion, there is no proof, it is just rambling nonsense in the face of not being to understand the truth.

Edited by addx, 09 May 2014 - 07:13 AM.

[Duchykins]

You understand the crux of the issue, addx, and I'm glad becuse not many do. I agree. It's extremely important that we don't allow ID creationists to turn the debate into a defense of evolution. They keep lying to the vulnerable general public and saying ID is a scientific theory and viable alternative explanation to evolution; they must substantiate these claims. Don't defend; attack. Immediately abandon evolution for the sake of argument and keep pushing for what is supposed to be the meat of any scientific theory: its explanatory power. It will become obvious even to the creationist that ID has no explanatory power. This will pull the rug out from under any but the most oblivious creationist and it's why it's consistently worked with any professional liar I've ever directly communicated with. They literally have nothing of scientfic substance and having this exposed will infuriate them to no end because they know they have nothing beyond the old "creation science" that was banned from public schools decades ago, they know ID is fundamentally the same thing, and this knowledge is what makes them liars.

[addx]

You understand the crux of the issue, addx, and I'm glad becuse not many do. I agree. It's extremely important that we don't allow ID creationists to turn the debate into a defense of evolution. They keep lying to the vulnerable general public and saying ID is a scientific theory and viable alternative explanation to evolution; they must substantiate these claims. Don't defend; attack. Immediately abandon evolution for the sake of argument and keep pushing for what is supposed to be the meat of any scientific theory: its explanatory power. It will become obvious even to the creationist that ID has no explanatory power. This will pull the rug out from under any but the most oblivious creationist and it's why it's consistently worked with any professional liar I've ever directly communicated with. They literally have nothing of scientfic substance and having this exposed will infuriate them to no end because they know they have nothing beyond the old "creation science" that was banned from public schools decades ago, they know ID is fundamentally the same thing, and this knowledge is what makes them liars.

In fact I'd say they lie compusively to themselves which causes the endless need to validate the lie externally by "spreading the truth". His internal narrative is obvious from his writings and I have no question about him suffering from serious cognitive dissonance also obvious from constantly breaking all the "fallacy" rules that he keeps pointing out to others.

His cognitive dissonance is in fact trying to resolve itself via these religious/creationist threads by forcing others to submit to his opinion. He is just rebelling against his atheistic parents, using religion as an external point to argue over and defeat in "wisdom of debate" which seems to be the prime issue - his parents made him feel unappreciated in that sense.

Shadowhawk, you should take this advice to a shrink and try out an atheistic form of spiritual healing. If nothing for the sake of completeness of your revision of possible theories.

Edited by addx, 09 May 2014 - 08:20 AM.

[platypus]

Please do not debate cre(a)ti(o)nists on the interwebs, it does not lead to anything and the cretinists will still remain cretins

Edited by platypus, 09 May 2014 - 10:16 AM.

[shadowhawk]

ID like any Scientific theory, stands or falls with the evidence.  Evidence is a process of discovery not some bigoted pronouncement by those who do not like its philosophical implications.

Science is a process not a position and even the most cherished beliefs are always open to challenge.  Therefore ID is in as a subject of scientific study add in the long run no attempt to censor it will work

[addx]

Well, I think Miley Cyrus explaining that her video containing barely dressed provocative dancers is a demonstration of her feministic activism, so can a bunch of retards conclude that they re doing science.

But the bunch of retards never comes up with any useable theory but just a list of criticism of existing theories.

The list of criticism are nothing but misunderstandings of science, a result of them being retards.

[shadowhawk]

Well, I think Miley Cyrus explaining that her video containing barely dressed provocative dancers is a demonstration of her feministic activism, so can a bunch of retards conclude that they re doing science.

But the bunch of retards never comes up with any useable theory but just a list of criticism of existing theories.

The list of criticism are nothing but misunderstandings of science, a result of them being retards.

 

What overpowering logic. 
 

[Duchykins]

ID like any Scientific theory, stands or falls with the evidence.  Evidence is a process of discovery not some bigoted pronouncement by those who do not like its philosophical implications.

Science is a process not a position and even the most cherished beliefs are always open to challenge.  Therefore ID is in as a subject of scientific study add in the long run no attempt to censor it will work

What philosophical implications? Aliens? Aliens would be very cool.


Keep talking. Your arguments reek of religion.

That mechanism we were discussing. Whenever you're ready.

Edited by Duchykins, 10 May 2014 - 04:36 AM.

[shadowhawk]

  Duchykins:  What philosophical implications? Aliens? Aliens would be very cool.
Keep talking. Your arguments reek of religion.
That mechanism we were discussing. Whenever you're ready.

That is the view Richard Dawkins takes!  Some Atheists explain design this way. You, as your buds, think Aliens are cool?   Appairently so.  That I suppose is your scientific answer for design but is it scientific?  Keep talking.

[Duchykins]

The more you keep associating an aliens conclusion of ID with atheism, all the while ridiculing it, the more you demonstrate that ID is indeed a THEISTIC teleological argument.

From an actual scientific perspective, aliens cannot be ruled out just yet, especially when ID has outlined NO BIOLOGICAL MECHANISM that could show that aliens did NOT put life on Earth. Since ID proposes no mechanism at all, there is just big ??? where the identity of the designer is. Enter aliens, gods, invisible pink unicorns and such.

ID cannot rule out aliens without revealing its true religious nature.

Assertion: life on Earth is intelligently designed.

The mechanism the designers used is ???

The properties of the designers are ???

ID takes great pains to avoid answering those two questions. By leaving them wide open and unacknowledged, any manner of intelligent beings become possible candidates for the designers. This is because ID is too vague and useless, like all other creationist endeavors.


It's your own fault people ask about aliens.

[shadowhawk]

Laughing man, you are the one who said aliens are "cool."  ID does not say what the source of ID is, just that random chance does not have the creative power to cause life etc...  Now is the time for you to laugh.

Argue away that it is scientific to believe in Aliens, perhaps someday you will believe in ID.  You unlike the ID proponents have no ???  Some, like me say we think God did it.  You say no.  Why?  Oh I forgot you don’t answer questions, only call people names.  That is one reason you can’t rule ID out of science.

[Duchykins]

So much straw man, so little time.

You don't even speak the same language.

[shadowhawk]

Apparently we are not using the same language.  I know I am using English.  Are you having trouble understanding?  Perhaps I need to cut you some slack.  Stop using straw men and this may help you.    I think your view of ID is a straw man. 

[Duchykins]

You don't even know what a straw man is. If you did then you wouldn't make the absurd arguments that you do all over this forum.

Still avoiding my questions, eh? Well I predicted that in my first post.