1221 replies to this topic

[shadowhawk]

I read your words and they are all the same name calling and logical fallacies.  Not interested except to say you have said nothing about science. 

[serp777]

I read your words and they are all the same name calling and logical fallacies.  Not interested except to say you have said nothing about science. 

 

 

You're the one using the majority of logical fallacies, such as your use of fallacy fallacy, and your use of shifting the burden of proof (ad ignorantium). But cool, I am not interested in your denials and lack of arguments all together. And I could not care less about what you're interested in or what your unjustified opinions are.

 

You ended the debate when you refused to respond to the points of numerous members on this forum. You are the worst member on Longecity. Better go call the internet police about the name calling

[addx]

ID starts off with observation of what appears designed.  You haven't shown it is not and that hunch is being explored.

That's not an observation! It's a hunch, you said it yourself.

You also said that you accept evolution and agree with it but then made an arbitrary claim that it can't explain anything. That claim is your hunch.

I have not shown your hunch is wrong because you give no basis for your claim to discuss on. There is no explanation of your claim, just that is is a hunch. Since evolution does explain these things your hunch contradicts this and you give no proof. Evolution is the current standing theory that is accepted and you need proof against it that is better than "hunch"


You observe exhibit A and I observe exhibit A.

I say: exhibit A evolved

You say: exhibit A was designed.


What was observed was

1) exhibit A
2) my opinion on how it came to existence
3) your opinion on how it came to existence

So, nothing in reality has been observed except opinions, placing the discussion within domains of philosophy or psychiatry.

Furthermore the claim that evolution can not explain diversity is also an opinion and nothing more. It is not an observed fact but an interpretation, an opinion, same as the above.

For it to actually be an observation warranting scientific research you would have to observe, explain and demonstrate algorithms proving the limits of evolution in creating diversity and this algorithm would first have to be peer reviewed and confirmed and shown to be predictive for reality in order to at least open up a door for an additional theory such as ID. Nothing has been done by ID proponents towards this goal.

Observations that sparked evolutionary theory were many exhibits that could be shown to have common ancestry by a coherent theory explaining it and also providing explanations for things that will yet be observed in the future to have evolved via same mechanisms thus proving predictive power of the theory. When such observations are lined up as exhibits both you and I and more importantly a bunch of top scientists agree that the mechanism proposed is evident from exhibited proof and has predictive power towards explaining future observations and thus warrants further effort into research and validation as a theory.

Edited by addx, 11 June 2014 - 01:27 PM.

[shadowhawk]

How likely is it that you could swish together amino acids randomly and come up with a sequence that would fold up into a functional protein?

Evolution News reports on research performed by Doug Axe at Cambridge University, and published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Molecular Biology.

Excerpt:

    Doug Axe's research likewise studies genes that it turns out show great evidence of design. Axe studied the sensitivities of protein function to mutations. In these "mutational sensitivity" tests, Dr. Axe mutated certain amino acids in various proteins, or studied the differences between similar proteins, to see how mutations or changes affected their ability to function properly.10 He found that protein function was highly sensitive to mutation, and that proteins are not very tolerant to changes in their amino acid sequences. In other words, when you mutate, tweak, or change these proteins slightly, they stopped working. In one of his papers, he thus concludes that "functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences," and that functional protein folds "may be as low as 1 in 10^77."11 The extreme unlikelihood of finding functional proteins has important implications for intelligent design.

Just so you know, those footnotes say this:

    [10.] Douglas D. Axe, "Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds," Journal of Molecular Biology, 1-21 (2004); Douglas D. Axe, "Extreme Functional Sensitivity to Conservative Amino Acid Changes on Enzyme Exteriors," Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 301:585-595 (2000).

    [11.] Douglas D. Axe, "Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds," Journal of Molecular Biology, 1-21 (2004).

And remember, you need a lot more than just 1 protein in order to create even the simplest living system. Can you generate that many proteins in the short time between when the Earth cools and the first living cells appear? Even if we spot the naturalist a prebiotic soup as big as the universe, and try to make sequences as fast as possible, it's unlikely to generate even one protein in the time before first life appears.

If you are building a protein for the FIRST TIME, you have to get it right all at once - not by building up to it gradually using supposed Darwinian mechanisms. That's because there is no replication before you have the first replicator. The first replicator cannot rely on explanations that require replication to already be in place.

[serp777]

How likely is it that you could swish together amino acids randomly and come up with a sequence that would fold up into a functional protein?

Evolution News reports on research performed by Doug Axe at Cambridge University, and published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Molecular Biology.

Excerpt:

    Doug Axe's research likewise studies genes that it turns out show great evidence of design. Axe studied the sensitivities of protein function to mutations. In these "mutational sensitivity" tests, Dr. Axe mutated certain amino acids in various proteins, or studied the differences between similar proteins, to see how mutations or changes affected their ability to function properly.10 He found that protein function was highly sensitive to mutation, and that proteins are not very tolerant to changes in their amino acid sequences. In other words, when you mutate, tweak, or change these proteins slightly, they stopped working. In one of his papers, he thus concludes that "functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences," and that functional protein folds "may be as low as 1 in 10^77."11 The extreme unlikelihood of finding functional proteins has important implications for intelligent design.

Just so you know, those footnotes say this:

    [10.] Douglas D. Axe, "Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds," Journal of Molecular Biology, 1-21 (2004); Douglas D. Axe, "Extreme Functional Sensitivity to Conservative Amino Acid Changes on Enzyme Exteriors," Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 301:585-595 (2000).

    [11.] Douglas D. Axe, "Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds," Journal of Molecular Biology, 1-21 (2004).

And remember, you need a lot more than just 1 protein in order to create even the simplest living system. Can you generate that many proteins in the short time between when the Earth cools and the first living cells appear? Even if we spot the naturalist a prebiotic soup as big as the universe, and try to make sequences as fast as possible, it's unlikely to generate even one protein in the time before first life appears.

If you are building a protein for the FIRST TIME, you have to get it right all at once - not by building up to it gradually using supposed Darwinian mechanisms. That's because there is no replication before you have the first replicator. The first replicator cannot rely on explanations that require replication to already be in place.

 

They key part is this-- "and that functional protein folds "may be as low as 1 in 10^77."

He made a complete guess that may or may not be true. He also did not specify the probability as a function of time, which is very important for this kind of analysis. If this was the probability in a nanosecond, then over the course of 13.7 billion years, and given that there are an estimated 10^78---10^82 atoms in the universe, with 0.1% of atoms constituting the atoms that make up life, then that would mean the probability can be determined by 13.7 billion years = 4.3233e26 nanoseconds since the big bang, multiplied by the number of atoms that constitute life, and then multiplied by a combinatorial factor percentage constant (currently unknown for obvious reasons, since we can't know how many different places there have been combinations of these atoms).

 

Ignoring that percentage conversion constant, the lowest probability estimate for the number of atoms in the universe would be 4.3233e26 * 10^78 * 0.1% * C(unknown combination constant) = 4.323*10^101*C

 

If c = 1, then

 

4.323*10^101 * 1/10^77 = 4.323*10^24 probability of finding life somewhere in the entire observable universe over the lifetime of the universe.

 

Of course we would not expect C = 1. But solving for C with respect to a 100% probability

 

 

4.323*10^101 * 1/10^77 * C = 1

 

C = 1/4.332*10^24, or 4.332 *10^-24

 

This is an extremely small value which would likely underestimate the number of combinations of life building atoms that have occurred during the 13.7 billion year history of the universe .

 

In conclusion, the calculation is much more complicated than just some unspecified probability. However, based on the fact that there are so many atoms in the universe, and that the universe has existed for quite a long time, even a low probability event is likely to occur over a long enough time scale.

 

"The extreme unlikelihood of finding functional proteins has important implications for intelligent design."

Alleged evidence against something is not evidence for something else.
 

"And remember, you need a lot more than just 1 protein in order to create even the simplest living system."

Perhaps you can link the study showing what the first self replicating molecules were, or even if the simplest living system requires proteins. You'd win a nobel prize and millions of dollars.

Edited by serp777, 12 June 2014 - 12:54 AM.

[addx]

Douglas Axe
Douglas Axe is the director of the Discovery Institute-run Biologic Institute, co-author of Science and Human Origins, and signatory to the Discovery Institute petition A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism.
Credentials

Axe is a molecular biologist, and is as such one of relatively few people with real credentials affiliated with the intelligent design movement. Drawing on his knowledge of biology, Axe has authored a few relatively mundane papers, at least some of which have been published in low-tier, although genuine, journals. Although none of these papers contain or even attempts to mount any refutation of evolution, much less evidence for intelligent design, Axes work has been hailed by the Discovery Institute as evidence supporting their views. Even Axe himself has admitted that this is not the case.[1]
He has published extensively in the Biologic Institutes house journal BIO-Complexity, but that does not count.
[edit]Fallacies and ignorance

Axe is on the record arguing that problems with evolution are evidence for intelligent design,[2] insofar as if the theory of evolution cannot explain some data it means that there can be no naturalistic explanation at all.
His expertise in the fields relevant to assessing evolutionary explanations has also been questioned.[3]

http://rationalwiki....iki/Douglas_Axe

[shadowhawk]

 1.   The universe had a beginning, and a first cause, some 14 billion years ago.
 2.   The universe is finely tuned for life.
3.    The complexity of life could not arise through unguided processes.
4.    DNA contains information and biological machines.
5.    New species appear suddenly in the fossil record.
6.    Earth is a special planet, uniquely suited to life.
7.    Quantum physics points to a reality outside of space and time.  Godel.

Do you think we live in a meaningless universe, and human beings were created by accident? Or do you think we live in a universe designed and created by a great intelligence, and human beings were designed? Accident or design -- that is the question.

All I am suggesting is free and open debate and let science give us the answer.  ID is in.
 

[shadowhawk]

serp777 He made a complete guess that may or may not be true.

 

That is what science is designed to test.

[serp777]

serp777 He made a complete guess that may or may not be true.

 

That is what science is designed to test.

 

As i explained from my post, that is currently untestable. There is no way to determine that probability with current technology, and no experiment could deduce the true probability with our current knowledge.

 

Again assuming that was true, I explained, mathematically, how that probability would indicate that life is likely to spontaneously develop over the current lifetime of the universe.
 

Edited by serp777, 12 June 2014 - 01:54 AM.

[serp777]

 1.   The universe had a beginning, and a first cause, some 14 billion years ago.
 2.   The universe is finely tuned for life.
3.    The complexity of life could not arise through unguided processes.
4.    DNA contains information and biological machines.
5.    New species appear suddenly in the fossil record.
6.    Earth is a special planet, uniquely suited to life.
7.    Quantum physics points to a reality outside of space and time.  Godel.

Do you think we live in a meaningless universe, and human beings were created by accident? Or do you think we live in a universe designed and created by a great intelligence, and human beings were designed? Accident or design -- that is the question.

All I am suggesting is free and open debate and let science give us the answer.  ID is in.
 

 

1. Beginning is an interesting term. Before the big bang there was no time, and beginning is a relative term. Causality requires time, and there was no time before the big bang, so there was no first cause.

2. The universe could have been fined tuned to support life better. Most of the universe is inhospitable.

3. Evolution is not completely unguided. It favors certain traits above others--those that lead to more survivability.

4. Agreed, but that does not support ID

5. That is consistent with evolution.

6. The kepler telescope has shown that many planets exist in the habitable zones, including a few super earth planets. Furthermore, the moons Enceledaus, Europa, Ganymede, and Titan in our own solar system has been shown to contain, or likely to contain, a sub surface ocean that can support life.

7. It certainly does, but the interpretation points towards the multi verse.

 

ID is not scientific currently because there are no experiments or tests that could verify it. Most of science points towards ID being wrong and that life is in fact a result of probability. Science pursues likely theories first.
 

Edited by serp777, 12 June 2014 - 02:01 AM.

[addx]

1.   The universe had a beginning, and a first cause, some 14 billion years ago.
 2.   The universe is finely tuned for life.
3.    The complexity of life could not arise through unguided processes.
4.    DNA contains information and biological machines.
5.    New species appear suddenly in the fossil record.
6.    Earth is a special planet, uniquely suited to life.
7.    Quantum physics points to a reality outside of space and time.  Godel.

Do you think we live in a meaningless universe, and human beings were created by accident? Or do you think we live in a universe designed and created by a great intelligence, and human beings were designed? Accident or design -- that is the question.

All I am suggesting is free and open debate and let science give us the answer.  ID is in.

Your debates are not free and open, they are the worst debates ever.


Opening a debate about something does not make that something scientific. Especially when one of the debaters, namely you, couldn't possibly be more irrational.


ID is not in, even this sad scientist you pulled out from "cambridge" or better yet formerly from cambridge did not really advocate ID views, in fact he was quite careful not to get involved with the quacked like you because that would cause him to completely loose credibility in the scientific community. Your only scientist "in the field" clearly renounces this "field".

So, ID is out. Not only is it not a scientific topic, but talking about it makes you lose scientific credibility.

So repeat it all you want. ID is only in your head. And you have no authority beyond that.

Edited by addx, 12 June 2014 - 09:20 AM.

[shadowhawk]

 

serp777 He made a complete guess that may or may not be true.

 

That is what science is designed to test.

 

As i explained from my post, that is currently untestable. There is no way to determine that probability with current technology, and no experiment could deduce the true probability with our current knowledge.

 

Again assuming that was true, I explained, mathematically, how that probability would indicate that life is likely to spontaneously develop over the current lifetime of the universe.
 

 

 

It is testable because we can test for ID and that is one of the things ID is presently working on.  Irreducible Complexity is one line of research but there are others.
 

[shadowhawk]

serp777 Most of science points towards ID being wrong and that life is in fact a result of probability. Science pursues likely theories first.

 

What science points toward ID being wrong.  Show me how probability produces life.

[serp777]

 

 

serp777 He made a complete guess that may or may not be true.

 

That is what science is designed to test.

 

As i explained from my post, that is currently untestable. There is no way to determine that probability with current technology, and no experiment could deduce the true probability with our current knowledge.

 

Again assuming that was true, I explained, mathematically, how that probability would indicate that life is likely to spontaneously develop over the current lifetime of the universe.
 

 

 

It is testable because we can test for ID and that is one of the things ID is presently working on.  Irreducible Complexity is one line of research but there are others.
 

 

"It is testable because we can test for ID"

The most circular reasoning ever. ID is testable because it can be tested for, which means it's testable because it can be tested for, which means it's testable because.......... ad infinitum.

 

"What science points toward ID being wrong.  Show me how probability produces life."

Your own evidence given by that cambridge guy says that proteins have a low, but non zero probability of spontaneously forming due to mutations. Now, given the age of the universe and the number of atoms/combination of atoms in the universe, it becomes probable that life would spontaneously develop over the duration of the universe, at some place in the entire universe, given the vast scope and time scales of the universe.

 

Asking how probability produces life is like asking how probability produces a 6 of diamonds from a stack of cards, or asking how probability produces a uranium atom decaying to lead over a certain duration of time, or asking how dumping marbles on the floor produced a certain distribution of marbles . It doesn't matter how, it only matters than it can happen.

 

Science does not technically point towards ID being wrong, but it certainly points towards spontaneous development of life, by your own evidence, which would imply that ID is ruled out.

 

Edited by serp777, 13 June 2014 - 04:31 AM.

[shadowhawk]

 

1.   The universe had a beginning, and a first cause, some 14 billion years ago.
 2.   The universe is finely tuned for life.
3.    The complexity of life could not arise through unguided processes.
4.    DNA contains information and biological machines.
5.    New species appear suddenly in the fossil record.
6.    Earth is a special planet, uniquely suited to life.
7.    Quantum physics points to a reality outside of space and time.  Godel.

Do you think we live in a meaningless universe, and human beings were created by accident? Or do you think we live in a universe designed and created by a great intelligence, and human beings were designed? Accident or design -- that is the question.

All I am suggesting is free and open debate and let science give us the answer.  ID is in.

Your debates are not free and open, they are the worst debates ever.


Opening a debate about something does not make that something scientific. Especially when one of the debaters, namely you, couldn't possibly be more irrational.


ID is not in, even this sad scientist you pulled out from "cambridge" or better yet formerly from cambridge did not really advocate ID views, in fact he was quite careful not to get involved with the quacked like you because that would cause him to completely loose credibility in the scientific community. Your only scientist "in the field" clearly renounces this "field".

So, ID is out. Not only is it not a scientific topic, but talking about it makes you lose scientific credibility.

So repeat it all you want. ID is only in your head. And you have no authority beyond that.

 

Lets see of you have a clue.  Here is a list of topics I was taught were the evidence for Evolution.  Rather than your usual calling of names, care to show me how right you are and how wrong I am. They are still in the text books.  Tell me how they prove evolution.
 
 The Beginning of life
 How did the first Cell Outer Membrane Form?
 Haeckel's Embryos
 Archaeopteryx
 Peppered Moth
 Galápagos Finches
 Four-Winged Fruit Flies
 Horses
 E-Coli
 Human Evolution
 

[serp777]

 

 

1.   The universe had a beginning, and a first cause, some 14 billion years ago.
 2.   The universe is finely tuned for life.
3.    The complexity of life could not arise through unguided processes.
4.    DNA contains information and biological machines.
5.    New species appear suddenly in the fossil record.
6.    Earth is a special planet, uniquely suited to life.
7.    Quantum physics points to a reality outside of space and time.  Godel.

Do you think we live in a meaningless universe, and human beings were created by accident? Or do you think we live in a universe designed and created by a great intelligence, and human beings were designed? Accident or design -- that is the question.

All I am suggesting is free and open debate and let science give us the answer.  ID is in.

Your debates are not free and open, they are the worst debates ever.


Opening a debate about something does not make that something scientific. Especially when one of the debaters, namely you, couldn't possibly be more irrational.


ID is not in, even this sad scientist you pulled out from "cambridge" or better yet formerly from cambridge did not really advocate ID views, in fact he was quite careful not to get involved with the quacked like you because that would cause him to completely loose credibility in the scientific community. Your only scientist "in the field" clearly renounces this "field".

So, ID is out. Not only is it not a scientific topic, but talking about it makes you lose scientific credibility.

So repeat it all you want. ID is only in your head. And you have no authority beyond that.

 

Lets see of you have a clue.  Here is a list of topics I was taught were the evidence for Evolution.  Rather than your usual calling of names, care to show me how right you are and how wrong I am. They are still in the text books.  Tell me how they prove evolution.
 
 The Beginning of life
 How did the first Cell Outer Membrane Form?
 Haeckel's Embryos
 Archaeopteryx
 Peppered Moth
 Galápagos Finches
 Four-Winged Fruit Flies
 Horses
 E-Coli
 Human Evolution
 

 

http://en.wikipedia....ific_examples_3

 

Read here: this discusses a decent amount of evidence of evolution. Furthermore, can you explain, without evolution, how unique neanderthal mitochondrial DNA ended up in a vast majority of modern day humans?

 

Can you explain how antibiotic resistant bacteria evolved over the last thirty years without evolution and natural selection?

 

 

[addx]

1.   The universe had a beginning, and a first cause, some 14 billion years ago.
 2.   The universe is finely tuned for life.
3.    The complexity of life could not arise through unguided processes.
4.    DNA contains information and biological machines.
5.    New species appear suddenly in the fossil record.
6.    Earth is a special planet, uniquely suited to life.
7.    Quantum physics points to a reality outside of space and time.  Godel.

Do you think we live in a meaningless universe, and human beings were created by accident? Or do you think we live in a universe designed and created by a great intelligence, and human beings were designed? Accident or design -- that is the question.

All I am suggesting is free and open debate and let science give us the answer.  ID is in.

Your debates are not free and open, they are the worst debates ever.


Opening a debate about something does not make that something scientific. Especially when one of the debaters, namely you, couldn't possibly be more irrational.


ID is not in, even this sad scientist you pulled out from "cambridge" or better yet formerly from cambridge did not really advocate ID views, in fact he was quite careful not to get involved with the quacked like you because that would cause him to completely loose credibility in the scientific community. Your only scientist "in the field" clearly renounces this "field".

So, ID is out. Not only is it not a scientific topic, but talking about it makes you lose scientific credibility.

So repeat it all you want. ID is only in your head. And you have no authority beyond that.

Lets see of you have a clue.  Here is a list of topics I was taught were the evidence for Evolution.  Rather than your usual calling of names, care to show me how right you are and how wrong I am. They are still in the text books.  Tell me how they prove evolution.
 
 The Beginning of life
 How did the first Cell Outer Membrane Form?
 Haeckel's Embryos
 Archaeopteryx
 Peppered Moth
 Galápagos Finches
 Four-Winged Fruit Flies
 Horses
 E-Coli
 Human Evolution

You see here, you are just a random idiot.

Not every random idiot who likes to scream nonsense on a forum gets the priviledge of someone knowledgable tutoring him about evolution. There's too much idiots and too little knowledgeable persons for this to be realistic. So knowledgeable people open up schools where idiots can learn. You should have paid attention in school.

At this point you can read more books and try and figure it out or you save yourself the effort of education and simply claim that the education you missed or did not understand is false anyway.

Going around asking people to explain to you the theory of evolution of is merely research on how much people do appreciate you. I'm pretty sure noone is going to bother being your private tutor and I'm also pretty sure you'll chalk this up to them being wrong rather than you being worthless of the effort and otherwise a horrible person.

The list you requested here is off topic. It is also blitzkrieg. You do know very well that each of these could be proven and discussed at length, but as a bunch it would turn the topic into a 1000 page book and you'd still be crying 'fallacy! fallacy!' so what's the point? You never conceided to single thing anyone ever said.

You also repeatedly feigned conceiding to evolution only to feign "trust in scientific method", to share a something with others so that your claim of ID can seem more credible as if "I believe in evolution but it is not enough". You don't beleive in evolution, you beleive in YOUR evolution. The one that is not enough. We shall call it shadawhawks evolution. Science does not beleive in shadowhawks evolution and neither do I. You have no common ground with science or me. It's pathetic. These conversations are interesting for me only to see how unreasonable people function mentally. If you google my name you'll see that I've infact mostly developed theories on narcsissism personality disorder and others. So how are you enjoying our cooperation so far? You have given me ample inspiration, please go on


---


Now, show us observation of the designer or the designing happening. Do not point at a thing a say "this is design, prove its not". Point at something and say "this is the designer, follow him, observe him, youll see he designs" or "this is the designing process, it's happening right now, observe it, you'll find the designer!"

Until you can produce that, you have nothing.

But the fact that you're so loaded with nonsense literature on ID but can't really make even the first step towards any scientific process makes you a lame ass ignorance spreading blind fool.

Edited by addx, 13 June 2014 - 02:16 PM.

[shadowhawk]

 

 

 

serp777 He made a complete guess that may or may not be true.

 

That is what science is designed to test.

 

As i explained from my post, that is currently untestable. There is no way to determine that probability with current technology, and no experiment could deduce the true probability with our current knowledge.

 

Again assuming that was true, I explained, mathematically, how that probability would indicate that life is likely to spontaneously develop over the current lifetime of the universe.
 

 

 

It is testable because we can test for ID and that is one of the things ID is presently working on.  Irreducible Complexity is one line of research but there are others.
 

 

"It is testable because we can test for ID"

The most circular reasoning ever. ID is testable because it can be tested for, which means it's testable because it can be tested for, which means it's testable because.......... ad infinitum.

 

"What science points toward ID being wrong.  Show me how probability produces life."

Your own evidence given by that cambridge guy says that proteins have a low, but non zero probability of spontaneously forming due to mutations. Now, given the age of the universe and the number of atoms/combination of atoms in the universe, it becomes probable that life would spontaneously develop over the duration of the universe, at some place in the entire universe, given the vast scope and time scales of the universe.

 

Asking how probability produces life is like asking how probability produces a 6 of diamonds from a stack of cards, or asking how probability produces a uranium atom decaying to lead over a certain duration of time, or asking how dumping marbles on the floor produced a certain distribution of marbles . It doesn't matter how, it only matters than it can happen.

 

Science does not technically point towards ID being wrong, but it certainly points towards spontaneous development of life, by your own evidence, which would imply that ID is ruled out.

 

 

If you would actually study the scientific process you would discover that most things have to have testing methods developed before testing takes place.  I know that is hard to understand for someone who thinks the testing methods are already there.  No, often science has to develop the testing methods and it can take many years.  ID is developing testing methods now and already have some in place to test for the work of intelligence.  I could go into it but you can study their progress.

[shadowhawk]

 

 

 

1.   The universe had a beginning, and a first cause, some 14 billion years ago.
 2.   The universe is finely tuned for life.
3.    The complexity of life could not arise through unguided processes.
4.    DNA contains information and biological machines.
5.    New species appear suddenly in the fossil record.
6.    Earth is a special planet, uniquely suited to life.
7.    Quantum physics points to a reality outside of space and time.  Godel.

Do you think we live in a meaningless universe, and human beings were created by accident? Or do you think we live in a universe designed and created by a great intelligence, and human beings were designed? Accident or design -- that is the question.

All I am suggesting is free and open debate and let science give us the answer.  ID is in.

Your debates are not free and open, they are the worst debates ever.


Opening a debate about something does not make that something scientific. Especially when one of the debaters, namely you, couldn't possibly be more irrational.


ID is not in, even this sad scientist you pulled out from "cambridge" or better yet formerly from cambridge did not really advocate ID views, in fact he was quite careful not to get involved with the quacked like you because that would cause him to completely loose credibility in the scientific community. Your only scientist "in the field" clearly renounces this "field".

So, ID is out. Not only is it not a scientific topic, but talking about it makes you lose scientific credibility.

So repeat it all you want. ID is only in your head. And you have no authority beyond that.

 

Lets see of you have a clue.  Here is a list of topics I was taught were the evidence for Evolution.  Rather than your usual calling of names, care to show me how right you are and how wrong I am. They are still in the text books.  Tell me how they prove evolution.
 
 The Beginning of life
 How did the first Cell Outer Membrane Form?
 Haeckel's Embryos
 Archaeopteryx
 Peppered Moth
 Galápagos Finches
 Four-Winged Fruit Flies
 Horses
 E-Coli
 Human Evolution

 

You see here, you are just a random idiot.

Not every random idiot who likes to scream nonsense on a forum gets the priviledge of someone knowledgable tutoring him about evolution. There's too much idiots and too little knowledgeable persons for this to be realistic. So knowledgeable people open up schools where idiots can learn. You should have paid attention in school.

At this point you can read more books and try and figure it out or you save yourself the effort of education and simply claim that the education you missed or did not understand is false anyway.

Going around asking people to explain to you the theory of evolution of is merely research on how much people do appreciate you. I'm pretty sure noone is going to bother being your private tutor and I'm also pretty sure you'll chalk this up to them being wrong rather than you being worthless of the effort and otherwise a horrible person.

The list you requested here is off topic. It is also blitzkrieg. You do know very well that each of these could be proven and discussed at length, but as a bunch it would turn the topic into a 1000 page book and you'd still be crying 'fallacy! fallacy!' so what's the point? You never conceided to single thing anyone ever said.

You also repeatedly feigned conceiding to evolution only to feign "trust in scientific method", to share a something with others so that your claim of ID can seem more credible as if "I believe in evolution but it is not enough". You don't beleive in evolution, you beleive in YOUR evolution. The one that is not enough. We shall call it shadawhawks evolution. Science does not beleive in shadowhawks evolution and neither do I. You have no common ground with science or me. It's pathetic. These conversations are interesting for me only to see how unreasonable people function mentally. If you google my name you'll see that I've infact mostly developed theories on narcsissism personality disorder and others. So how are you enjoying our cooperation so far? You have given me ample inspiration, please go on


---


Now, show us observation of the designer or the designing happening. Do not point at a thing a say "this is design, prove its not". Point at something and say "this is the designer, follow him, observe him, youll see he designs" or "this is the designing process, it's happening right now, observe it, you'll find the designer!"

Until you can produce that, you have nothing.

But the fact that you're so loaded with nonsense literature on ID but can't really make even the first step towards any scientific process makes you a lame ass ignorance spreading blind fool.

 

More and more name calling but when it comes to evidence 0.  Do you think design happens by designers?  Where did it come from?  Ever hear of designer genes?

 

Here is the list again for one more try.  Lets talk about it.  How about starting off with number one?  How would ID and evolution explain each one.  I know you have lots of names to call me.  It should be a slaughter because we are talking about text book evidence and I am no IDer expert.

 

1. The Beginning of life
2. How did the first Cell Outer Membrane Form?
3,  Haeckel's Embryos
4.  Archaeopteryx
5.  Peppered Moth
6.  Galápagos Finches
7.  Four-Winged Fruit Flies
8.  Horses
9.  E-Coli
10.  Human Evolution

 

Now is your chance.

 

 

Edited by shadowhawk, 13 June 2014 - 07:56 PM.

[serp777]

 

 

 

 

serp777 He made a complete guess that may or may not be true.

 

That is what science is designed to test.

 

As i explained from my post, that is currently untestable. There is no way to determine that probability with current technology, and no experiment could deduce the true probability with our current knowledge.

 

Again assuming that was true, I explained, mathematically, how that probability would indicate that life is likely to spontaneously develop over the current lifetime of the universe.
 

 

 

It is testable because we can test for ID and that is one of the things ID is presently working on.  Irreducible Complexity is one line of research but there are others.
 

 

"It is testable because we can test for ID"

The most circular reasoning ever. ID is testable because it can be tested for, which means it's testable because it can be tested for, which means it's testable because.......... ad infinitum.

 

"What science points toward ID being wrong.  Show me how probability produces life."

Your own evidence given by that cambridge guy says that proteins have a low, but non zero probability of spontaneously forming due to mutations. Now, given the age of the universe and the number of atoms/combination of atoms in the universe, it becomes probable that life would spontaneously develop over the duration of the universe, at some place in the entire universe, given the vast scope and time scales of the universe.

 

Asking how probability produces life is like asking how probability produces a 6 of diamonds from a stack of cards, or asking how probability produces a uranium atom decaying to lead over a certain duration of time, or asking how dumping marbles on the floor produced a certain distribution of marbles . It doesn't matter how, it only matters than it can happen.

 

Science does not technically point towards ID being wrong, but it certainly points towards spontaneous development of life, by your own evidence, which would imply that ID is ruled out.

 

 

If you would actually study the scientific process you would discover that most things have to have testing methods developed before testing takes place.  I know that is hard to understand for someone who thinks the testing methods are already there.  No, often science has to develop the testing methods and it can take many years.  ID is developing testing methods now and already have some in place to test for the work of intelligence.  I could go into it but you can study their progress.

 

"If you would actually study the scientific process"

An irrelevant argumentative fallacy. Red herring.

 

Strawman argument. This is not what I was talking about at all. Read arguments before responding. There are perfectly good theories and evidence i've given you that show life can arise WITHOUT intelligent design, which you completely ignored, so why would we suddenly need to explore intelligent design when there is a perfectly good explanation? You first use circular reasoning, and now strawman tactics to try and make your point. You completely missed my point and did not understand my argument at all. You could make your same argument for the reason why science should explore leprechauns, since science is a process, and you need to have testing methods developed for leprechauns before testing takes for them can take place. Using the word Leprechaun is vodoo to you, so I have a feeling your personal incredulity will make you say "nonsense."

Edited by serp777, 13 June 2014 - 11:46 PM.

[serp777]

 

 

 

 

1.   The universe had a beginning, and a first cause, some 14 billion years ago.
 2.   The universe is finely tuned for life.
3.    The complexity of life could not arise through unguided processes.
4.    DNA contains information and biological machines.
5.    New species appear suddenly in the fossil record.
6.    Earth is a special planet, uniquely suited to life.
7.    Quantum physics points to a reality outside of space and time.  Godel.

Do you think we live in a meaningless universe, and human beings were created by accident? Or do you think we live in a universe designed and created by a great intelligence, and human beings were designed? Accident or design -- that is the question.

All I am suggesting is free and open debate and let science give us the answer.  ID is in.

Your debates are not free and open, they are the worst debates ever.


Opening a debate about something does not make that something scientific. Especially when one of the debaters, namely you, couldn't possibly be more irrational.


ID is not in, even this sad scientist you pulled out from "cambridge" or better yet formerly from cambridge did not really advocate ID views, in fact he was quite careful not to get involved with the quacked like you because that would cause him to completely loose credibility in the scientific community. Your only scientist "in the field" clearly renounces this "field".

So, ID is out. Not only is it not a scientific topic, but talking about it makes you lose scientific credibility.

So repeat it all you want. ID is only in your head. And you have no authority beyond that.

 

Lets see of you have a clue.  Here is a list of topics I was taught were the evidence for Evolution.  Rather than your usual calling of names, care to show me how right you are and how wrong I am. They are still in the text books.  Tell me how they prove evolution.
 
 The Beginning of life
 How did the first Cell Outer Membrane Form?
 Haeckel's Embryos
 Archaeopteryx
 Peppered Moth
 Galápagos Finches
 Four-Winged Fruit Flies
 Horses
 E-Coli
 Human Evolution

 

You see here, you are just a random idiot.

Not every random idiot who likes to scream nonsense on a forum gets the priviledge of someone knowledgable tutoring him about evolution. There's too much idiots and too little knowledgeable persons for this to be realistic. So knowledgeable people open up schools where idiots can learn. You should have paid attention in school.

At this point you can read more books and try and figure it out or you save yourself the effort of education and simply claim that the education you missed or did not understand is false anyway.

Going around asking people to explain to you the theory of evolution of is merely research on how much people do appreciate you. I'm pretty sure noone is going to bother being your private tutor and I'm also pretty sure you'll chalk this up to them being wrong rather than you being worthless of the effort and otherwise a horrible person.

The list you requested here is off topic. It is also blitzkrieg. You do know very well that each of these could be proven and discussed at length, but as a bunch it would turn the topic into a 1000 page book and you'd still be crying 'fallacy! fallacy!' so what's the point? You never conceided to single thing anyone ever said.

You also repeatedly feigned conceiding to evolution only to feign "trust in scientific method", to share a something with others so that your claim of ID can seem more credible as if "I believe in evolution but it is not enough". You don't beleive in evolution, you beleive in YOUR evolution. The one that is not enough. We shall call it shadawhawks evolution. Science does not beleive in shadowhawks evolution and neither do I. You have no common ground with science or me. It's pathetic. These conversations are interesting for me only to see how unreasonable people function mentally. If you google my name you'll see that I've infact mostly developed theories on narcsissism personality disorder and others. So how are you enjoying our cooperation so far? You have given me ample inspiration, please go on


---


Now, show us observation of the designer or the designing happening. Do not point at a thing a say "this is design, prove its not". Point at something and say "this is the designer, follow him, observe him, youll see he designs" or "this is the designing process, it's happening right now, observe it, you'll find the designer!"

Until you can produce that, you have nothing.

But the fact that you're so loaded with nonsense literature on ID but can't really make even the first step towards any scientific process makes you a lame ass ignorance spreading blind fool.

 

More and more name calling but when it comes to evidence 0.  Do you think design happens by designers?  Where did it come from?  Ever hear of designer genes?

 

Here is the list again for one more try.  Lets talk about it.  How about starting off with number one?  How would ID and evolution explain each one.  I know you have lots of names to call me.  It should be a slaughter because we are talking about text book evidence and I am no IDer expert.

 

1. The Beginning of life
2. How did the first Cell Outer Membrane Form?
3,  Haeckel's Embryos
4.  Archaeopteryx
5.  Peppered Moth
6.  Galápagos Finches
7.  Four-Winged Fruit Flies
8.  Horses
9.  E-Coli
10.  Human Evolution

 

Now is your chance.

 

 

 

 

 

"How would ID and evolution explain each one."

ID has no explanation and leads to the question of who designed the designer, ad infinitum. There must be a physical explanation on some level for how the initial intelligence arose.

[shadowhawk]

First addx and I were engaging in a discussion and several claims were made.  So since this is a two way conversation it is addx’s turn. You can jump in as well.  So, now is your chance.  These are major examples of evolution presented in most text books.  I could think of more but ten will suffice.  I already said, give me the real answer on these points.  I will then give you my best understanding of ID and readers can make up there own minds.  So you get to play the game as well.  Start with number one.  How did life start on the planet?  I will answer the same question.

1. The Beginning of life?
2. How did the first Cell Outer Membrane Form?
3,  Haeckel's Embryos?
4.  Archaeopteryx?
5.  Peppered Moth?
6.  Galápagos Finches?
7.  Four-Winged Fruit Flies?
8.  Horses?
9.  E-Coli?
10.  Human Evolution?

 

 

[serp777]

First addx and I were engaging in a discussion and several claims were made.  So since this is a two way conversation it is addx’s turn. You can jump in as well.  So, now is your chance.  These are major examples of evolution presented in most text books.  I could think of more but ten will suffice.  I already said, give me the real answer on these points.  I will then give you my best understanding of ID and readers can make up there own minds.  So you get to play the game as well.  Start with number one.  How did life start on the planet?  I will answer the same question.

1. The Beginning of life?
2. How did the first Cell Outer Membrane Form?
3,  Haeckel's Embryos?
4.  Archaeopteryx?
5.  Peppered Moth?
6.  Galápagos Finches?
7.  Four-Winged Fruit Flies?
8.  Horses?
9.  E-Coli?
10.  Human Evolution?

 

 

" So since this is a two way conversation it is addx’s turn."

This isn't kindergarten, although your debate tactics would suggest otherwise. There are no turns, and this is not your thread.  

 

"These are major examples of evolution presented in most text books. "

Ok, so what? You keep bringing up these examples, but you've yet to make any points or arguments, or provide any evidence. 

These have already been answered if you would take the time to read through this thread. I will summarize.

 

1. Probability from chemistry, as supported by your own evidence. 

2. Evolution from initial replicating cells

 

3,  Haeckel's Embryos?
4.  Archaeopteryx?
5.  Peppered Moth?
6.  Galápagos Finches?
7.  Four-Winged Fruit Flies?
8.  Horses?
9.  E-Coli?

10.  Human Evolution?

More evolution and irrelevant specific examples. 

[addx]

More and more name calling but when it comes to evidence 0.

I'm not here supplying evidence, I'm here to see your evidence about ID you keep claiming to have but always asking people to give evidence about evolution first and it is not even the topic
 

Do you think design happens by designers?  Where did it come from?  Ever hear of designer genes?

Well, that sounds like a mechanism, tell us about it
 

Now is your chance.

Evolution is not the topic. You have google if you want to learn about evolution, it's too large for me to explain it to you especially when considering futility of such an endeavour. Or if you reduce your arrogance maybe you could show up in a class and listen to someone talk about it or something.

Offer evidence towards ID or stop confusing and trolling the topic.

Edited by addx, 17 June 2014 - 06:01 PM.

[shadowhawk]

 

More and more name calling but when it comes to evidence 0.

I'm not here supplying evidence, I'm here to see your evidence about ID you keep claiming to have but always asking people to give evidence about evolution first and it is not even the topic
 

Do you think design happens by designers?  Where did it come from?  Ever hear of designer genes?

Well, that sounds like a mechanism, tell us about it
 

Now is your chance.

Evolution is not the topic. You have google if you want to learn about evolution, it's too large for me to explain it to you especially when considering futility of such an endeavour. Or if you reduce your arrogance maybe you could show up in a class and listen to someone talk about it or something.

Offer evidence towards ID or stop confusing and trolling the topic.

 

  I thought so, here was your chance to destroy ID and you fired a blank.  All you want to do is call names. 

[shadowhawk]

 

First addx and I were engaging in a discussion and several claims were made.  So since this is a two way conversation it is addx’s turn. You can jump in as well.  So, now is your chance.  These are major examples of evolution presented in most text books.  I could think of more but ten will suffice.  I already said, give me the real answer on these points.  I will then give you my best understanding of ID and readers can make up there own minds.  So you get to play the game as well.  Start with number one.  How did life start on the planet?  I will answer the same question.

1. The Beginning of life?
2. How did the first Cell Outer Membrane Form?
3,  Haeckel's Embryos?
4.  Archaeopteryx?
5.  Peppered Moth?
6.  Galápagos Finches?
7.  Four-Winged Fruit Flies?
8.  Horses?
9.  E-Coli?
10.  Human Evolution?

 

 

" So since this is a two way conversation it is addx’s turn."

This isn't kindergarten, although your debate tactics would suggest otherwise. There are no turns, and this is not your thread.  

 

"These are major examples of evolution presented in most text books. "

Ok, so what? You keep bringing up these examples, but you've yet to make any points or arguments, or provide any evidence. 

These have already been answered if you would take the time to read through this thread. I will summarize.

 

1. Probability from chemistry, as supported by your own evidence. 

2. Evolution from initial replicating cells

 

3,  Haeckel's Embryos?
4.  Archaeopteryx?
5.  Peppered Moth?
6.  Galápagos Finches?
7.  Four-Winged Fruit Flies?
8.  Horses?
9.  E-Coli?

10.  Human Evolution?

More evolution and irrelevant specific examples. 

 

Seriously, these are not answers..  How does an airplane fly?  It flys.
My question.
1. The Beginning of life?
Your answer
1. Probability from chemistry, as supported by your own evidence.

My question.
2. How did the first Cell Outer Membrane Form?
Your answer
2. Evolution from initial replicating cells
-----------------------------------------------------------
Number one is not evidence.  There is no experment or probability from chemistry to show life starts from.....  The contents of a cell are much more than chemistry.  
Number two.  Without a membrane all the contents of a cell would simply spill out.

[platypus]

where's the evidence for ID? of evidence that evolution cannot and could not do something for that matter?

[serp777]

 

 

First addx and I were engaging in a discussion and several claims were made.  So since this is a two way conversation it is addx’s turn. You can jump in as well.  So, now is your chance.  These are major examples of evolution presented in most text books.  I could think of more but ten will suffice.  I already said, give me the real answer on these points.  I will then give you my best understanding of ID and readers can make up there own minds.  So you get to play the game as well.  Start with number one.  How did life start on the planet?  I will answer the same question.

1. The Beginning of life?
2. How did the first Cell Outer Membrane Form?
3,  Haeckel's Embryos?
4.  Archaeopteryx?
5.  Peppered Moth?
6.  Galápagos Finches?
7.  Four-Winged Fruit Flies?
8.  Horses?
9.  E-Coli?
10.  Human Evolution?

 

 

" So since this is a two way conversation it is addx’s turn."

This isn't kindergarten, although your debate tactics would suggest otherwise. There are no turns, and this is not your thread.  

 

"These are major examples of evolution presented in most text books. "

Ok, so what? You keep bringing up these examples, but you've yet to make any points or arguments, or provide any evidence. 

These have already been answered if you would take the time to read through this thread. I will summarize.

 

1. Probability from chemistry, as supported by your own evidence. 

2. Evolution from initial replicating cells

 

3,  Haeckel's Embryos?
4.  Archaeopteryx?
5.  Peppered Moth?
6.  Galápagos Finches?
7.  Four-Winged Fruit Flies?
8.  Horses?
9.  E-Coli?

10.  Human Evolution?

More evolution and irrelevant specific examples. 

 

Seriously, these are not answers..  How does an airplane fly?  It flys.
My question.
1. The Beginning of life?
Your answer
1. Probability from chemistry, as supported by your own evidence.

My question.
2. How did the first Cell Outer Membrane Form?
Your answer
2. Evolution from initial replicating cells
-----------------------------------------------------------
Number one is not evidence.  There is no experment or probability from chemistry to show life starts from.....  The contents of a cell are much more than chemistry.  
Number two.  Without a membrane all the contents of a cell would simply spill out.

 

 

"How does an airplane fly?  It flys."

 

First of all, false analogy. It's not like asking about an airplane, it's like asking how did the universe come into existence. No one can obviously explain the physical mechanism yet, else I would be winning a nobel prize, not commenting on this forum. How else can i answer a currently unanswerable question? Your analogy is false an terrible because airplanes already have scientific explanations vs something that is currently being investigated. 

 

 

"Number one is not evidence.  There is no experment or probability from chemistry to show life starts from.....  The contents of a cell are much more than chemistry. "

 

Ok, so now on top of all your argumentative fallacies, you are asking me to explain, on a web forum, the physical mechanism that creates life. Even if I did know, which no one currently knows, you would not be able to understand the advanced chemistry. Furthermore, the evidence you gave says that proteins have a low probability of randomly forming, which means that other advanced organic molecules have a small probability of forming, including an unknown self replicating molecule. Do you reject your own evidence? If you reject your own evidence, then why did you provide it? 

 

 

 

"The contents of a cell are much more than chemistry"

 

Assumption. You have no proof of that. Faulty assumptions are faulty. 

 

"Without a membrane all the contents of a cell would simply spill out."

 

Assumption. Provide evidence for your baseless assertions.

 

As always, you provide absolutely no evidence to support ID. You just keep providing more argumentative fallacies and trying to defeat your own evidence. 

[serp777]

 

 

More and more name calling but when it comes to evidence 0.

I'm not here supplying evidence, I'm here to see your evidence about ID you keep claiming to have but always asking people to give evidence about evolution first and it is not even the topic
 

Do you think design happens by designers?  Where did it come from?  Ever hear of designer genes?

Well, that sounds like a mechanism, tell us about it
 

Now is your chance.

Evolution is not the topic. You have google if you want to learn about evolution, it's too large for me to explain it to you especially when considering futility of such an endeavour. Or if you reduce your arrogance maybe you could show up in a class and listen to someone talk about it or something.

Offer evidence towards ID or stop confusing and trolling the topic.

 

  I thought so, here was your chance to destroy ID and you fired a blank.  All you want to do is call names. 

 

 

THis was your chance to show evidence for ID and you fired a blank. All you do is keep asking people to provide evidence for evolution.

[addx]

More and more name calling but when it comes to evidence 0.

I'm not here supplying evidence, I'm here to see your evidence about ID you keep claiming to have but always asking people to give evidence about evolution first and it is not even the topic
 

Do you think design happens by designers?  Where did it come from?  Ever hear of designer genes?

Well, that sounds like a mechanism, tell us about it
 

Now is your chance.

Evolution is not the topic. You have google if you want to learn about evolution, it's too large for me to explain it to you especially when considering futility of such an endeavour. Or if you reduce your arrogance maybe you could show up in a class and listen to someone talk about it or something.

Offer evidence towards ID or stop confusing and trolling the topic.

  I thought so, here was your chance to destroy ID and you fired a blank.  All you want to do is call names.

No I don't. I'll leave this thread as well as I did the others as calling names is not amusing for me but just a reflection of frustation of not being able to initate a rational dialog with you while you in fact claim that you are interested in such.

There is no rational discussion here, there never was and other than that I've learned everything I need to know about your psychology profile. Everything you say now is expected, predicted and boring. There's nothing amusing your cognitively distorted mind can produce anymore.

Enjoy talking to your projections and begging people to fulfill them ("now is your chance" rofl) so you can beat them with your endless lists of bogus evidence. This activity sure seems to be doing wonders for your life.

You're wasting your life building lists of proof for something you declare to already beleive is true. You have no way to explain this yourself, you lie to yourself about it. You try to invent witty analogies why this happens, but ask any shrink and you'll get the same answer: you're the one who doesn't beleive.

And you're here trying to change peoples minds and can't admit that it is in fact YOU who doesnt beleive in God and by changing our opinion you will finally change yours.
And it never happens so you're locked into a ridiculous recurring process seen on this forum that is a waste of life. You should really simply be put down to ease your suffering as if you were a wounded horse.

Anyway, enjoy the futility of your existence, ta-ta