1221 replies to this topic

[Duchykins]

Meyer opened with a lie: that Darwin believed he had explained everything but the Cambrian explosion. Lying right off the bat, lol!

What makes this funny is that the opposite is true, Darwin knew there was much he didn't fully understand or have an explanation for. Creationists frequently quote mine his works for evidence of this and pretend such admissions are evidences against evolution.

"In the distant future I see open fields for far more important researches."

Darwin was aware of many things he couldn't explain or have knowledge of. The age of the earth. Scholars at the time, before modern geology, believed the earth was much younger, no more than 100 million years. This wasn't enough time for evolution but Darwin had no other explanation. Inheritance, variation. Darwin didn't know the mechanism for variation, which was later explained with the arrival of genetics after his death. Transitional fossils. The fossil record was very scant back then, with few examples of intermediates and Darwin knew he couldn't explain that, and he acknowledged that at the time, the lack of intermediates was the best argument against his theory. There was actually quite a bit he didn't know because the science wasn't there yet, and whole fields of science didn't even exist yet, which makes his vision that much more impressive.

So Meyer lied. Again. I didn't watch more than that since there is no reason to listen to liars.

Present ID's mechanism without calling upon professional liars.

What is the biological mechanism of ID?

[sthira]

What Duchykins said. Articulate ID's explanation. I see loads of evolution criticisms from your ID tribe. So drop evolution. Explain your position so that we may determine if ID is "in" or "out".

[shadowhawk]

This is a game.  Intelligent design is a theory that deals with Cambriain Diversity which evolution can't explain either.  We do nnot yet know scientifically who or what the designer is,  Meyer did not lie.  You repeatedly call people names and that is all this is.

[sthira]

If you honestly believe that evolution cannot explain the distinct time periods during the Cambrian Diversity then why not visit your local community college and discuss it with a paleoecology prof? I don't really know what you mean by "[t]his is a game.". Given your long, involved history of posting on these fora, this appears to most certainly not be a game to you.

I'd like to know the biomechanisms of ID. Do you know how ID explains the diversity of life? Articulate it so we may evaluate it. I mean, you assert that ID is "in" yet you haven't elucidated its explanatory power.

[Duchykins]

ID explains nothing, you have been called upon at length to point out how ID explains the diversity of life; you are a liar. Meyer flat LIED when he said Darwin was sure he explained everything except the Cambrian explosion. That was a LIE.

Stating who or what the designer is does not explain the mechanism the designer developed for species diversity. Are you daft in addition to being a liar? We don't care about the identity of the deisgner.

ID says organisms appeared suddenly with all major features already intact (because it's sterilized Biblical creationism). It just states that this happened, it points to the Cambrian explosion as evidence that this happened, but you cannot seem to wrap your shriveled mind around the fact that THAT IS NOT AN EXPLANATION OF HOW THE DESIGNER DID ANYTHING.

Shadowhawk haven't you realized yet how exactly rock solid my argument is? How obtuse are you? I don't need to defend evolution; I can dismiss it and proclaim it false. I don't need to argue that life isn't deliberately designed; I can assume it is deliberately designed by intelligent agency. I can even assume GOD DID IT. I can do it because there is no answer to "how?" in any of these. I know those tactics blew your mind because you rarely see it and that's all your argument is: anti-evolution and assertion that life is designed.

I can do these things with ease because ID HAS NO EXPLANATORY POWER and MAKES NO ATTEMPT TO EXPLAIN THE DIVERSITY OF LIFE IN ANY WAY, SCIENTIFICALLY OR PHILOSOPHICALLY, NOR EVEN ATTEMPT TO EXPLAIN THE ORIGIN OF LIFE despite harping on life's origins. A scientific theory by definition is AN EXPLANATION of a related set of natural phenomena or MODEL of observation, outlining a natural MECHANISM by which a phenomenon occurs. Without anything like this ID IS NOT EVEN A WORKING HYPOTHESIS.

What is the mechanism of ID?

[sthira]

We do nnot yet know scientifically who or what the designer is, 

I agree. Bless your heart, you're agnostic whether you like it or not. We do not know who, what, and very importantly even *if* there is a "designer" at all behind existence. Until "we" (and probably most certainly neither you nor I nor anyone here) discover more -- or god sends us another rep -- this "game" as you write remains semantic, hypothetical, speculative, subject to power abuses, and more nastiness.

Does ID have a explanation? I honestly don't know.

[shadowhawk]

This is about ID not God.  I have repeatedly said as far as ID is concerned it is not about God,  ID does not say that either.  What it says is it looks designed and it does.  This does not make me an agnostic because I am a Christian.

[Duchykins]

If it's about ID then stop making it about evolution and just stick to ID. Only creationists rave on about evolution, and it's all because of their religious beliefs. You're just a liar. If you can say religion is not in play here, go look in the mirror and say it out loud to yourself, maybe you'll get a glimpse of how transparently despicable you are.

If you can say it's not about god beliefs here, go say it to yourself in the mirror and keep in mind that you're supposed to believe your god will be watching you while you lie to everyone about your god. That's one of the reasons I don't really think you believe in your god very much, the fact that you keep coming to this thread to be deliberately obtuse and deceptive. Sure you believe a little bit, but only part-time. You're a part-time Christian. That's much worse than being an atheist, you know.

Atheists tend to have different perspectives on life, different moral philosophies and different motivations for being moral. So many base their moral philosophies on a variation of humanism they have little opportunity to forget, since they are always interacting with humans. Perfect, hell no. Theists, though? Whole different story. Theists, except the hyperreligious, forget their motivations for being moral all the time because they don't have simple reminders in their face every hour, every day. Why is a part-time Christian worse than an atheist? Because they embrace fiat morality. A Christian who does this has little reason to think critically about what actions are moral and why, and why a person should desire to be moral. So they don't, and therefore don't develop the skills one needs to analyze moral quandaries. Moral stagnation. Christians for the most part do not analyze why an action is moral or immoral beyond 'god says so and god is the authority on the matter'. Even many of the deeply philosophical and sophisticated Christians have little experience in thinking critically about what is moral and why, let alone making it a regular event so that their minds are a little more trained to automatically think that way. So when theists forget their god exists, they also forget their motivations for being moral, and they can even forget why something is moral or immoral, which spells trouble for everybody else around them.

Edited by Duchykins, 08 July 2014 - 04:43 AM.

[sthira]

This is about ID not God.  I have repeatedly said as far as ID is concerned it is not about God,  ID does not say that either.  What it says is it looks designed and it does.  This does not make me an agnostic because I am a Christian.

Wait, I thought ID was god?  You saw a turtle, and you said wow there's an intelligently designed little symettrical pattern, it must have been created by a designer. 10,000 years ago sounds about right.  

Wait, we're weaving off topic into the weeds.  How does ID explain the cute turtle, and what happened to dear god?  I thought god was central to this story.

[shadowhawk]

ID is also about Evolution a competing theory.  Which is right, random mutations or ID as the creative power in life?

[shadowhawk]

 

This is about ID not God.  I have repeatedly said as far as ID is concerned it is not about God,  ID does not say that either.  What it says is it looks designed and it does.  This does not make me an agnostic because I am a Christian.

Wait, I thought ID was god?  You saw a turtle, and you said wow there's an intelligently designed little symettrical pattern, it must have been created by a designer. 10,000 years ago sounds about right.  

Wait, we're weaving off topic into the weeds.  How does ID explain the cute turtle, and what happened to dear god?  I thought god was central to this story.

 

You are off topic and ID is not about God.  You have not read the discussion.

[Duchykins]

ID is also about Evolution a competing theory.  Which is right, random mutations or ID as the creative power in life?

We did this part already. ID is not competition for evolution becuase it doesn't do anything evolutionary theory does, that's when I started laying into you about ID's lack of explanatory power. You're still lying or you have the memory of a gnat.

[Duchykins]

ID has to be a scientific theory of biology, it has to explain the diversity of life and outline a biological mechanism. It needs to be able to produce models that make accurate predictions as evolution does. It needs to be able to unify the disjointed biological subdisciplines as evolution does. It also needs to be useful in other fields of research like evolution is. This is the only way it can be competition for the modern synthesis. ID currently does none of these things, and if it remains in its current state it never will do any of these things. And the more you dodge the question of ID's lack mechanism, the more it becomes obvious to everyone else how morally and intellectually bankrupt you are, ID is.

Edited by Duchykins, 09 July 2014 - 04:03 AM.

[shifter]

There is no doubt the design of all life on Earth is intelligent. Seemingly everything has a purpose, including what we regard as pests. You might hate flies, but a world without flies would be very very different.

 

Regarding the human race, the chromosone difference between us and apes is strikingly similar

 

http://www.motherjon...onism-evolution

 

Apes and the like have 48 chromosones and Humans have 46. The difference lies in Chromosone 2. Ours is fused.

 

Chromosomes 1-3 in humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans. From Yunis & Prakash, Science, 1982. Reprinted with permission from AAAS.

 

 

Now what fused the chromosones in humans to do this and could this seemingly simple fusion of a chromosone be responsible for all our intelligence, speech and progress??

 

Here can be a new religion! One that accepts all the science and evidence we have before us but still gives a mystery to our origins.....

 

 

 

They came many eons ago and experimented on the apes!! You cant say it didn't happen because you weren't there! :p Implausible theory by our understanding of whats possible but without evidence to the contrary (eg a witness who was then and there and somehow still here to report and show proof), you cant discount it completely. Why couldn't Aliens have interfered with Earth so long ago? How do you know they didn't?? Even if they aren't supernatural, by definition, they would be our creators and as close to our God as the definition fits.

 

But then we have to ask where did THEY come from??

 

I know this is a bit about the young earth theory but I do have a point to make

Here is many arguments of the young earth theory totally debunked. Notice that even young earth creationists argue with themselves betwwen the age of the earth. (some say 6000 years and some points argue hundreds of thousands of years. They cant stay consistent).

 

http://www.talkorigi...owgood-yea.html

 

My point is, there is no science in Intelligent design (linked with creationism and young earth theories). There is only an agenda of sorts

 

I wonder why religion cant accept the age of the universe, the age of the earth and evolution. Why cant they say (with the knowlege we have now) that rather than the earth and the human race amongst others being 6000 years old, they say that sometime in the past God intervened in his Earth creation (after patiently waiting 4-5 billion years for conditions to be just right in our timescale) and he's the dude that modified our genome that made us like we are today.

 

Even say that God exists outside of time, is incorporial and thats why the whole 7 days is not 7 days as WE know it and not to be taken literally. Afterall, the 'time' is a concept that WE invented.

 

We were made in His image. Sure I see no problem with that. We are and look like just how we wanted to look like. If I take a mouse, I can modify, delete or add genes to its genome to make all sorts of crazy combinations. I made it to my specifications, in my image, yet I do not look at all like a mouse. I created the new breed of mouse. I 'could' be it's 'God'. But I bleed, live and die like the rest of all life.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by shifter, 09 July 2014 - 04:52 AM.

[Duchykins]

"Religion" has no problem with the age of the earth or evolution in and of itself. Last I checked, only young earth creationists are crying about geology and carbon (lol) dating. YECs are Christian (Protestant) specifically and a minority among Protestants. The majority of Christians are Catholic and Catholics get their cues from the Vatican, and the Vatican says evolution is compatible with Christianity. Very very rarely you might see a Messianic Jew espousing antievolution garbage, which is always good for laughs because Messianic Jews are more like Christians than Jews. Antievolution is only excessively common in American Protestantism (among the rich and developed countries). But if you count poor and underdeveloped countries then you also get a huge swatch of Muslims in the antievolution pot. We Americans also hold the bulk of YECs, we Americans are pretty good at championing ignorance (and conspiracy theory).

[sthira]

So ID isn't about god (the Intelligent Designer), you say. Then how does godless ID explain the natural world? Just leave evolution criticisms off the table. How does godless ID explain species diversity?

[addx]

There are 3 answers to the question "how life that we observe came to be".

1) we don't know
2) spontaneous organization of matter into a self-replicating organization which enabled further evolution
3) god(aliens, unicorns, deus ex machina) did it


the magic of this discussion lies in the fact that 1) is initially the correct answer. the magic of having a faulty thinking circuit is revealed in how your brain/ego responds to "i don't know", and so 2) and 3) and in fact emotional responses to 1) rather than answers to the question.

2) is acceptance of "we don't know" which emotionally motivates investing effort into finding out the answer in the external world, objective world. the answer, if one arrives at it, is shared to the willing and genuienly interested in it.

3) is denial of "we don't know" which emotionally motivates investing effort into spreading such denial rather than seeking some truth that would answer the initial question. the truth is seen in your own ability to infest another person with the same denial by installing various fears. such denial is typically spread by social pressure (having different beleifs making you a target for conditioning) and is upheld by xenophobia.

so, shadowhawk. read 3) very very carefuly, and see that you're investing into your own ability to "spread the word of god". and you are indulging in this imagined ability on this forum, spewing posts and posts to that end. you are spreading your own denial.


so, close this f. thread already.

[shadowhawk]

So ID isn't about god (the Intelligent Designer), you say. Then how does godless ID explain the natural world? Just leave evolution criticisms off the table. How does godless ID explain species diversity?

You need to read the ID position because you don't have an idea of what you are talking about.  There are atheist and agnostic leaders in the ID camp.  Evolution explains it by mutation.  That to them is the way new genetic information is created for new body parts.   ID says this is inadequate to explain the new information required and propose ID as an alternative.  Now to the evidence.  That is what science is all about.

[shadowhawk]

Response to addx:

 

One  (1) is no answer at all and thus is pure ignorance.  No evidence or science.

[sthira]

Quick wiki cut & paste: 

 "Intelligent design (ID) is the pseudoscientific view that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Educators, philosophers, and the scientific community have demonstrated that ID is a religious argument, a form of creationism which lacks empirical support and offers no tenable hypotheses..."

What are the biomechanisms of ID?

[shadowhawk]

Nagel is an atheist.

Excerpt:

In September, Oxford University Press officially releases the hardcover version of a new book by renowned philosopher Thomas Nagel at New York University. It’s a bombshell.

Already available on Kindle, Nagel’s book carries the provocative title Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False. You read that right: The book’s subtitle declares that “the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False.” Nagel is an atheist who is not convinced by the positive case for intelligent design. But he clearly finds the evidence for modern Darwinian theory wanting.

Nagel writes:

In thinking about these questions I have been stimulated by criticisms of the prevailing scientific world picture… by the defenders of intelligent design. Even though writers like Michael Behe and Stephen Meyer are motivated at least in part by their religious beliefs, the empirical arguments they offer against the likelihood that the origin of life and its evolutionary history can be fully explained by physics and chemistry are of great interest in themselves. Another skeptic, David Berlinski, has brought out these problems vividly without reference to the design inference. Even if one is not drawn to the alternative of an explanation by the actions of a designer, the problems that these iconoclasts pose for the orthodox scientific consensus should be taken seriously. They do not deserve the scorn with which they are commonly met. It is manifestly unfair.

[shadowhawk]

[shadowhawk]

Response to sthira: "What are the biomechanisms of ID?"

 

The same as evolution except ID in place of random mutations.(RM)

Edited by shadowhawk, 09 July 2014 - 07:26 PM.

[maxwatt]

The OP should put a poll on this topic.

 

IF exits intelligent design, the designer is a sadist as well as an incompetent engineer.

[addx]

Response to addx:
 
One  (1) is no answer at all and thus is pure ignorance.  No evidence or science.

And did you read the explanation under 3)?

May I quote myself:
 

3) is denial of "we don't know" which emotionally motivates investing effort into spreading such denial rather than seeking some truth that would answer the initial question.

The fact, that this comment of yours above is the only thing commented or reacted to from my entire post, and in spite of me actually predicting it, quite literally shows and confirms that it is true what I have written and that your emotional response is quite clearly 3) -> denial and "invention" of deux-ex-machina-answers instead of finding real truths. to deny 1)

I think this deserves an applause, really.

Edited by addx, 09 July 2014 - 09:44 PM.

[shadowhawk]

The OP should put a poll on this topic.

 

IF exits intelligent design, the designer is a sadist as well as an incompetent engineer.

A poll is not the way we decide science.  If that was the case there would be no science.  Science is a method not a poll.

Second, ID does not address the question of the character of the designer.  Saying the designer is a sadist or incompetent assumes He, She, or It is judged by you who must know.  Since you were also designed by the sadist and incompetent designer what does that make you as a judge.  If evolution is the cause, you have even worse problems.  Can an incomplete and evolving brain claim to be adequate to be the judge?


We do not have all the answers and science can not address all the issues but as a subject, our topics answer is ID is in.

 

[shadowhawk]

Response to addx:

I asked the question, "when did life begin?"

You answered:

 

"1) we don't know
2) spontaneous organization of matter into a self-replicating organization which enabled further evolution
3) god(aliens, unicorns, deus ex machina) did it"

 

The first answer is a non starter as I explained.  The second is imagination.  You don't know this either.  The third is an attempt at ridicule. 

 

So let's start again.  Given that evolution is the answer, how did life begin?.

[addx]

Response to addx:
I asked the question, "when did life begin?"
You answered:
 
"1) we don't know
2) spontaneous organization of matter into a self-replicating organization which enabled further evolution
3) god(aliens, unicorns, deus ex machina) did it"
 
The first answer is a non starter as I explained.

You did not explain anything really, you reacted emotionally and emphasised how you feel towards answering a question with "I don't know".

You commented, replied or responded to nothing else except this.

I'm connecting the parts of your mind that are in cognitive dissonance.
 

The second is imagination.  You don't know this either.

The second is a process FROM ignorance of answer 1) by fist accepting it - the very same ignorance that you shun so decisively in your previous post.
 

The third is an attempt at ridicule.

The third is to endure a perpetuate state of certain conditioning to maintain the denial of ignorance of 1) by providing "deus-ex-machina" explanations of anything unexplained based on exaggerated, compromised and biased 2000 year old hearsay combined with volatile or random emotionality and schizotypal personality.
 

So let's start again.  Given that evolution is the answer, how did life begin?.

There you go, you are now on your path to reducing your ignorance of this matter. You may start to study and then maybe invest further research of evolutionary biology in an attempt to clarify this for yourself, and maybe others interested in more detail or clarification or certainty.

Edited by addx, 09 July 2014 - 10:43 PM.

[shifter]

Why can't Intelligent Design and Evolution exist together? ie that a 'creator' designed us to evolve the way we have. Why does the timescale HAVE to be a short 6000 years and that the human race and other animals (and indeed the universe) popped into existance from nothing from that time only?

 

Why cant God and Science get along? Perhaps God occupies another plain of existance or another dimension. Perhaps He/It exists outside of our universe alltogether. Perhaps He/It created it but no longer plays into it's affairs and is gone. Perhaps He/It is just the radiation or dark matter/energy holding everything together and has no conciousness or awareness as we know it.

 

Whoever God is, he is the ultimate and all knowing Scientist. Everything abut the 'big bang' as we know it was so perfect in it's spread that a fraction of a fractions difference would have made life as we know it impossible. Yes however that happened it was a master stroke of genious. 'Intelligently Designed' in the ultimate expression of the word. For Religious people to avoid and hate science is to hate God IMO. Imitation is the highest form of flattery so if you want to please God, then be the best and brightest you can be and uncover and unlock the secrets to the universe!! I.D. and Evolution/Science has no reason to not be possible to work as one. You just need to step outside the doctrines a little and open your minds to another possibility.

 

If we except that 'God' is our creator, then it shouldn't matter what it is. If a lump of 'coal' exploded and created our universe. That 'coal' is our God. You might not be happy with what your God is but it is what it is. Accept it If our universe was the result of some alien lab experiment, that alien, unknownst to him is our God. Maybe the universe is God's mind/body and we are just byproducts. Do you think the bacteria inside your body knows what it's like in the macro world or who we are or how they came to existance? We might think they live in a micro world but perhaps WE are also in somebodies micro world in an even larger macro universe then we could ever comprehend.

 

 

 

[Duchykins]

Response to sthira: "What are the biomechanisms of ID?"
 
The same as evolution except ID in place of random mutations.(RM)

Lmao, that means natural selection is part of ID? You're an idiot.