1221 replies to this topic

[shadowhawk]

 

 

 

 

 

Serp777:  " Mutation and chance can do it. You made an assertion that they can't so its your job to prove otherwise. My evidence? All of evolution." 

Well I have gone through this before in detail.  You are the one making the clam that mutation + chance can produce new information enough to explain life and its diversity.  Do it.  All you need to do to falsify ID is to do it.  So lets end this debate, do it.  ID can be disproved.  Do it.
 

 
I agree I made a claim and I can support it with clear evidence; finally some common ground. Computer simulations of evolution show this quite clearly. 
 
I can write a computer program that copies itself, but each time it copies itself through a string (a string that contains its entire program from the previous copy), it either adds or subtracts the string length, and or then randomly changes some of the characters that compose the string. Eventually some of the new programs generated will have a new function or new lines of code that are novel, purely from random number generators and a basic algorithm, which then compete for cpu and memory resources. THis is essentially the same logic that evolution uses to generate new information. Considering these programs have already been written in the 90s, Im glad you agree it disproves ID. Here is the link that discusses Tierra, a program that does exactly what i described above. 
 
http://en.wikipedia....ter_simulation)
 
Quite interesting actually; the goal of this was to auto optimize functions through random mutations, which would eventually lead to better performance. THis is completely new information not created by the original programmer. 
 
 
 

Yes, ID designed the computer program.  It did not do so by random chance.  It remains the same program it was designed by intelligence to be.  My son is a computer scientist and I know how it works.

Clearly you did not understand the argument at all or you don't understand the computer science. You argued that random chance and mutations cannot lead to new information and diversity. I gave you computer simulations demonstrating it does. Did ypu forget where the argument was? Now you suddenly revert back to the beginning of life.
This evidence shows any self replicating entity that randomly changes evolves to eventually generate new information. Weve given you signficant evidence that advanced organic molecules from randomly. Some of them can then self replicate

 

Did you forget the intelligent computer programers who designed the program?

Where is the evolution?

 

 

 

No i did not forget; that has nothing to do with the argument that we were having. The argument wasn't about the beginning of life. The argument was that competition, and random mutations CAN produce diversity and new information once a context exists for it to occur. Furthermore, again, we've given you ample evidence that advanced organic molecules form randomly all over the universe. Since we know that organic molecules make up RNA, we can deduce that it's possible advanced organic molecules can randomly form in such a way, although unlikely, to start copying themselves and eventually produce life. You're dismissing scientific evidence and instead produced a chart that is not relevant. 

 

It follows logically that since organic molecules can randomly form, and that some organic molecules can self replicate, and that self replicating competing organisms can produce diversity and new information, that intelligent design is not required at all for the development and evolution of life. Even if intelligent design was proven, that would still leave open the question of where that intelligence came from, which would lead us back to this in an infinite regression, unless it came about through natural means. 

 

Random mutation alone can not create new information from which natural selection can choose to explain diversity of life as we find it.  Show me the evidence.  Orgsnic molicules alone have never produced life that I am aware of.  That was the claim of the Miller-Urey experment.  What does it mean, DEDUCE?  My point is it takes Intelligence to produce new information in the form of a code and without ID life is not happening.  There is diversity in the gene pool but it has its limits which it does not go beyond.  The point on the chart.  Evolution demands the tree on the lower half of the chart but the actual evidence is on the upper half.

[serp777]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Serp777:  " Mutation and chance can do it. You made an assertion that they can't so its your job to prove otherwise. My evidence? All of evolution." 

Well I have gone through this before in detail.  You are the one making the clam that mutation + chance can produce new information enough to explain life and its diversity.  Do it.  All you need to do to falsify ID is to do it.  So lets end this debate, do it.  ID can be disproved.  Do it.
 

 
I agree I made a claim and I can support it with clear evidence; finally some common ground. Computer simulations of evolution show this quite clearly. 
 
I can write a computer program that copies itself, but each time it copies itself through a string (a string that contains its entire program from the previous copy), it either adds or subtracts the string length, and or then randomly changes some of the characters that compose the string. Eventually some of the new programs generated will have a new function or new lines of code that are novel, purely from random number generators and a basic algorithm, which then compete for cpu and memory resources. THis is essentially the same logic that evolution uses to generate new information. Considering these programs have already been written in the 90s, Im glad you agree it disproves ID. Here is the link that discusses Tierra, a program that does exactly what i described above. 
 
http://en.wikipedia....ter_simulation)
 
Quite interesting actually; the goal of this was to auto optimize functions through random mutations, which would eventually lead to better performance. THis is completely new information not created by the original programmer. 
 
 
 

Yes, ID designed the computer program.  It did not do so by random chance.  It remains the same program it was designed by intelligence to be.  My son is a computer scientist and I know how it works.

Clearly you did not understand the argument at all or you don't understand the computer science. You argued that random chance and mutations cannot lead to new information and diversity. I gave you computer simulations demonstrating it does. Did ypu forget where the argument was? Now you suddenly revert back to the beginning of life.
This evidence shows any self replicating entity that randomly changes evolves to eventually generate new information. Weve given you signficant evidence that advanced organic molecules from randomly. Some of them can then self replicate

 

Did you forget the intelligent computer programers who designed the program?

Where is the evolution?

 

 

 

No i did not forget; that has nothing to do with the argument that we were having. The argument wasn't about the beginning of life. The argument was that competition, and random mutations CAN produce diversity and new information once a context exists for it to occur. Furthermore, again, we've given you ample evidence that advanced organic molecules form randomly all over the universe. Since we know that organic molecules make up RNA, we can deduce that it's possible advanced organic molecules can randomly form in such a way, although unlikely, to start copying themselves and eventually produce life. You're dismissing scientific evidence and instead produced a chart that is not relevant. 

 

It follows logically that since organic molecules can randomly form, and that some organic molecules can self replicate, and that self replicating competing organisms can produce diversity and new information, that intelligent design is not required at all for the development and evolution of life. Even if intelligent design was proven, that would still leave open the question of where that intelligence came from, which would lead us back to this in an infinite regression, unless it came about through natural means. 

 

Random mutation alone can not create new information from which natural selection can choose to explain diversity of life as we find it.  Show me the evidence.  Orgsnic molicules alone have never produced life that I am aware of.  That was the claim of the Miller-Urey experment.  What does it mean, DEDUCE?  My point is it takes Intelligence to produce new information in the form of a code and without ID life is not happening.  There is diversity in the gene pool but it has its limits which it does not go beyond.  The point on the chart.  Evolution demands the tree on the lower half of the chart but the actual evidence is on the upper half.

 

"Random mutation alone can not create new information from which natural selection can choose to explain diversity of life as we find it."

I just showed you computer simulation evidence which demonstrates that random chance can generate new information and diversity when competition is a factor. Do you know how a random number generator work? 

 

computer simulations are a valid form of evidence. They use computer simulations to do mathematical proofs, they use them to simulate neutron stars, or weather, or planetary bodies, or the human brain,or any other system imaginable. It does not matter that they were originally created by an intelligence; it does not mean neutron stars were intelligently designed simply because they were simulated on a computer. What is your logic here exactly?

 

"Orgsnic molicules alone have never produced life that I am aware of."

All that means is that you're not aware of it.  The argument is that it CAN occur without intelligent design, so intelligent design is not needed. Furthermore, what lead to the creation of the original intelligence then. You're back to the infinite regression.

 

"My point is it takes Intelligence to produce new information in the form of a code and without ID life is not happening. "

No it doesn't. That's your assertion which has absolutely no evidence. There is a non zero probability than any organic molecule will form.

 

http://www.scienceda...11026143721.htm

 

Evidence that complex organic matter is present throughout the universe. Since life is made out of organic matter, and it is random, eventually, given enough time and organic matter, it will form a self replicating molecule. This is simply the infinite monkey theorem

 

The infinite monkey theorem states that a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type a given text, such as the complete works of William Shakespeare.

 

If you have 10^60 monkeys randomly typing for 13.6 billion years, then you will probably get a full text or two, maybe even the bible. Likewise 10^60 organic molecules randomly changing and chemically reacting for 13.6 billion years will likely produce a self replicating organic molecule. 

Edited by serp777, 18 July 2014 - 12:54 AM.

[shadowhawk]

Monkey theorem nonsense.

 

[serp777]

Monkey theorem nonsense.







 

No rebuttal, no logic; SH clearly is not capable of coming up with a counterargument and reverts back to unjustified denial. A nonsense nonsense claim.

[addx]

 

computer simulations are a valid form of evidence. They use computer simulations to do mathematical proofs, they use them to simulate neutron stars, or weather, or planetary bodies, or the human brain,or any other system imaginable. It does not matter that they were originally created by an intelligence; it does not mean neutron stars were intelligently designed simply because they were simulated on a computer. What is your logic here exactly?

 

 

 

 

He requires a demonstration of evolution and this demonstration must be spontaneous. If it is in any way "arranged" for him to see it, he will say it was designed and would not happen without intelligence.

 

The only way for him to change his mind is to have some completely dead and isolated areas, like other planets, spontaneously spawn life in front of his eyes.

 

So, to persuade shadowhawk, we need to place cameras all over mars or titan or wherever, get shadowhawk to approve of the location to be dead and to have no interference from known intelligence agencies and then wait for the location to spontaneously produce living bacteria or something to that effect. And even then I trust shadowhawk would find some way to deny it. 

 

Yet, shadowhawk blindly follows christianity, for which no demonstration of resurrection or any supernatural events is required and 2000 year old hear say is accepted as "adequate evidence". 

 

So, extreme double standards are in question here, requiring him to divide and conquer these issues across multiple threads. 

[maxwatt]

 

ID explains nothing that cannot be explained without it.  Just as epicycles can explain the retrograde motion of the planets, but a heliocentric theory makes astronomical calculations a lot easier.

 

 

The issue is what is the truth.  You are comparing different and non related things.

 

 

 

Not at all.  How do we know truth?  The branch of philosophy dealing with abstract  reasoning since William of Occam  has posited what has come to be known as Occam's razor, that we do not multiply entities:  if two theories explain the same phenomena, choose the simpler.  Your version of ID is like the "ghost in the machine" of Descarte's realism.  It is fine if you want to believe it, but it cannot be part of science which demands an elegant simplicity to its theories (better called models) of reality.  Thus ID is more properly relegated to theology.  As is the creationist theory that God created the universe, with all the internally consistent evidence that it is billions of years old, exactly 6000 and some odd years ago.  Believe it if you will, but it's an odd way for a deity to run things.
 

[shadowhawk]

 

Monkey theorem nonsense.







 

No rebuttal, no logic; SH clearly is not capable of coming up with a counterargument and reverts back to unjustified denial. A nonsense nonsense claim.

 

Your monkey theorem is nonsense.  That is all you have.

Edited by shadowhawk, 18 July 2014 - 08:44 PM.

[shadowhawk]

 

 

computer simulations are a valid form of evidence. They use computer simulations to do mathematical proofs, they use them to simulate neutron stars, or weather, or planetary bodies, or the human brain,or any other system imaginable. It does not matter that they were originally created by an intelligence; it does not mean neutron stars were intelligently designed simply because they were simulated on a computer. What is your logic here exactly?

 

 

 

 

He requires a demonstration of evolution and this demonstration must be spontaneous. If it is in any way "arranged" for him to see it, he will say it was designed and would not happen without intelligence.

 

The only way for him to change his mind is to have some completely dead and isolated areas, like other planets, spontaneously spawn life in front of his eyes.

 

So, to persuade shadowhawk, we need to place cameras all over mars or titan or wherever, get shadowhawk to approve of the location to be dead and to have no interference from known intelligence agencies and then wait for the location to spontaneously produce living bacteria or something to that effect. And even then I trust shadowhawk would find some way to deny it. 

 

Yet, shadowhawk blindly follows christianity, for which no demonstration of resurrection or any supernatural events is required and 2000 year old hear say is accepted as "adequate evidence". 

 

So, extreme double standards are in question here, requiring him to divide and conquer these issues across multiple threads. 

 

More nonsense.  I said nothing like this straw man you created.

[shadowhawk]

 

 

ID explains nothing that cannot be explained without it.  Just as epicycles can explain the retrograde motion of the planets, but a heliocentric theory makes astronomical calculations a lot easier.

 

 

The issue is what is the truth.  You are comparing different and non related things.

 

 

 

Not at all.  How do we know truth?  The branch of philosophy dealing with abstract  reasoning since William of Occam  has posited what has come to be known as Occam's razor, that we do not multiply entities:  if two theories explain the same phenomena, choose the simpler.  Your version of ID is like the "ghost in the machine" of Descarte's realism.  It is fine if you want to believe it, but it cannot be part of science which demands an elegant simplicity to its theories (better called models) of reality.  Thus ID is more properly relegated to theology.  As is the creationist theory that God created the universe, with all the internally consistent evidence that it is billions of years old, exactly 6000 and some odd years ago.  Believe it if you will, but it's an odd way for a deity to run things.
 

 

I am not multiplying entities when I suggest a painter painted a picture but I do not know her name.  Nor am I violating Occam's razor when I suggest a programer created code which added information for a new program.  That is how we get diversity in programs.  I do not know who the programer or painter is but I have good reason to suggest they exist.  Science deals with the unknown.

[serp777]

 

 

Monkey theorem nonsense.







 

No rebuttal, no logic; SH clearly is not capable of coming up with a counterargument and reverts back to unjustified denial. A nonsense nonsense claim.

 

Your monkey theorem is nonsense.  That is all you have.

 

YOu've failed to understand my post.

 

You looked at one small example and ignored the rest. THe infinite monkey typing was the not the basis of my argument, just an example that given enough time any possibility will occur. And in what way is it inherently wrong? Your youtube video doesnt prove anything. THis is nonsense. No rebuttal, no logic here. 

Edited by serp777, 18 July 2014 - 11:39 PM.

[serp777]

 

 

 

ID explains nothing that cannot be explained without it.  Just as epicycles can explain the retrograde motion of the planets, but a heliocentric theory makes astronomical calculations a lot easier.

 

 

The issue is what is the truth.  You are comparing different and non related things.

 

 

 

Not at all.  How do we know truth?  The branch of philosophy dealing with abstract  reasoning since William of Occam  has posited what has come to be known as Occam's razor, that we do not multiply entities:  if two theories explain the same phenomena, choose the simpler.  Your version of ID is like the "ghost in the machine" of Descarte's realism.  It is fine if you want to believe it, but it cannot be part of science which demands an elegant simplicity to its theories (better called models) of reality.  Thus ID is more properly relegated to theology.  As is the creationist theory that God created the universe, with all the internally consistent evidence that it is billions of years old, exactly 6000 and some odd years ago.  Believe it if you will, but it's an odd way for a deity to run things.
 

 

I am not multiplying entities when I suggest a painter painted a picture but I do not know her name.  Nor am I violating Occam's razor when I suggest a programer created code which added information for a new program.  That is how we get diversity in programs.  I do not know who the programer or painter is but I have good reason to suggest they exist.  Science deals with the unknown.

 

Nonsense. You're analogously suggesting intelligence behind a snowflake or geodesic dome.

 

"Nor am I violating Occam's razor when I suggest a programer created code which added information for a new program."

 

You don't understand the computer science. The programmar added a random number generator and a string copy function. From there  it generates new information without the programmar being involved. 

 

Just because something is simulated by a computer does not mean it requires intelligence to begin wtih. Again, neutron star simulations, chemical reaction simulations, orbitting planet simulations, etc, etc. None of those things require intelligence. 

[addx]

Bacteria have the adaptive ability to defend against various situations, it is in their genes.  So they did and have been doing this for a very long time.  They have not become anything but bacteria.  

 

Yes they have, they merged with another similar life form to produce eukaryotic life. In which the original bacteria still resides in the form of todays mitochondria. 

 

You're a complete ignorant idiot to deny this.

 

Another interesting fact: bacteria in your intestines allow you to live, if you remove them, you will die within a few days if not sooner. 

 

Do you understand how much knowledge you lack to talk about these things?

[addx]

 

 

 

computer simulations are a valid form of evidence. They use computer simulations to do mathematical proofs, they use them to simulate neutron stars, or weather, or planetary bodies, or the human brain,or any other system imaginable. It does not matter that they were originally created by an intelligence; it does not mean neutron stars were intelligently designed simply because they were simulated on a computer. What is your logic here exactly?

 

 

 

 

He requires a demonstration of evolution and this demonstration must be spontaneous. If it is in any way "arranged" for him to see it, he will say it was designed and would not happen without intelligence.

 

The only way for him to change his mind is to have some completely dead and isolated areas, like other planets, spontaneously spawn life in front of his eyes.

 

So, to persuade shadowhawk, we need to place cameras all over mars or titan or wherever, get shadowhawk to approve of the location to be dead and to have no interference from known intelligence agencies and then wait for the location to spontaneously produce living bacteria or something to that effect. And even then I trust shadowhawk would find some way to deny it. 

 

Yet, shadowhawk blindly follows christianity, for which no demonstration of resurrection or any supernatural events is required and 2000 year old hear say is accepted as "adequate evidence". 

 

So, extreme double standards are in question here, requiring him to divide and conquer these issues across multiple threads. 

 

More nonsense.  I said nothing like this straw man you created.

 

 

Pathetic liar, heres your quotes you lying weasel, just 2 pages ago.

 

 

Yep. I remember I've seen studies producing self-replicating molecules with less than 150-200 base pairs, I think this on e is even smaller... so that's not that difficult... given enough time, temperature. We're talking pure RNA here, no cellular membrane. That's a soup of self-replicating evolving, cannibalising molecules. Once it starts it turns into an insane soup of evolution until one of the free RNAs manages to get surrounded by a membrane or something. Without membranes it's evolutionary mayhem.

Intelligence created the soup.  Not chance.  the membrane remains a problem.  This does not explain how life started.

 

 

 

And another one

 

 

Addx response.

In evolution random chance caused life.  Yes, I expect random chance not intelligent design to produce the result if your theory holds up.  There are other problems but I wont go into them unless brought up.  ID is still in.

You have not spawned life as you claim.  So your negative comments on ID are imagination

 

 

 

LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR, you'll go to hell.

 

GG.

[serp777]

 

 

 

 

computer simulations are a valid form of evidence. They use computer simulations to do mathematical proofs, they use them to simulate neutron stars, or weather, or planetary bodies, or the human brain,or any other system imaginable. It does not matter that they were originally created by an intelligence; it does not mean neutron stars were intelligently designed simply because they were simulated on a computer. What is your logic here exactly?

 

 

 

 

He requires a demonstration of evolution and this demonstration must be spontaneous. If it is in any way "arranged" for him to see it, he will say it was designed and would not happen without intelligence.

 

The only way for him to change his mind is to have some completely dead and isolated areas, like other planets, spontaneously spawn life in front of his eyes.

 

So, to persuade shadowhawk, we need to place cameras all over mars or titan or wherever, get shadowhawk to approve of the location to be dead and to have no interference from known intelligence agencies and then wait for the location to spontaneously produce living bacteria or something to that effect. And even then I trust shadowhawk would find some way to deny it. 

 

Yet, shadowhawk blindly follows christianity, for which no demonstration of resurrection or any supernatural events is required and 2000 year old hear say is accepted as "adequate evidence". 

 

So, extreme double standards are in question here, requiring him to divide and conquer these issues across multiple threads. 

 

More nonsense.  I said nothing like this straw man you created.

 

 

Pathetic liar, heres your quotes you lying weasel, just 2 pages ago.

 

 

Yep. I remember I've seen studies producing self-replicating molecules with less than 150-200 base pairs, I think this on e is even smaller... so that's not that difficult... given enough time, temperature. We're talking pure RNA here, no cellular membrane. That's a soup of self-replicating evolving, cannibalising molecules. Once it starts it turns into an insane soup of evolution until one of the free RNAs manages to get surrounded by a membrane or something. Without membranes it's evolutionary mayhem.

Intelligence created the soup.  Not chance.  the membrane remains a problem.  This does not explain how life started.

 

 

 

And another one

 

 

Addx response.

In evolution random chance caused life.  Yes, I expect random chance not intelligent design to produce the result if your theory holds up.  There are other problems but I wont go into them unless brought up.  ID is still in.

You have not spawned life as you claim.  So your negative comments on ID are imagination

 

 

 

LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR, you'll go to hell.

 

GG.

 

I'll answer for SH because even though your points are valid, they dont matter to SH: "ad hominem, simply using an insult does not mean I am wrong. ID had to create the soup initially. ID is in =) =)=)=)=)=)=)=)=)=)=)=)=)=)=)=)=)=)=)=)=)=)=)=)=)=)=)=)=)=)=)=)=)=)=)"

[addx]

Well, I'll try summing up this whole debate.

 

 

spontaneity

 

 

Each spontaneity of behaviour observed can be explained as a random occurrence that inevitably happens over time or "Gods work". 

 

Simple as that.

 

Even if aminoacids form genes and genes form DNA and it starts to multiply in front of SHs eyes inside a pond that has never been touched by a human hand or created by it, only looked at by SH, he would still say that God directed the chemistry to behave like that. 

 

That's the crux of the matter. His argument can never be defeated because it lies outside the realm of reality. Ironically he'd like to make a science branch out of it...

[shadowhawk]

Well, I'll try summing up this whole debate.

 

 

spontaneity

 

 

Each spontaneity of behaviour observed can be explained as a random occurrence that inevitably happens over time or "Gods work". 

 

Simple as that.

 

Even if aminoacids form genes and genes form DNA and it starts to multiply in front of SHs eyes inside a pond that has never been touched by a human hand or created by it, only looked at by SH, he would still say that God directed the chemistry to behave like that. 

 

That's the crux of the matter. His argument can never be defeated because it lies outside the realm of reality. Ironically he'd like to make a science branch out of it...

How scientific,  Where is your evidence?  None. 

[shadowhawk]

A lot of evidence for name calling and adhominim.  Little against ID,  Usual

[serp777]

A lot of evidence for name calling and adhominim.  Little against ID,  Usual

Little for ID as usual. Why did you bother answering? You're so predictable that I answered for you. See above.

 

"I'll answer for SH because even though your points are valid, they dont matter to SH: "ad hominem, simply using an insult does not mean I am wrong. ID had to create the soup initially. ID is in =) =)=)=)=)=)=)=)=)=)=)=)=)=)=)=)=)=)=)=)=)=)=)=)=)=)=)=)=)=)=)=)=)=)=)""

Edited by serp777, 22 July 2014 - 02:04 AM.

[shadowhawk]

 

A lot of evidence for name calling and adhominim.  Little against ID,  Usual

Little for ID as usual. Why did you bother answering? You're so predictable that I answered for you. See above.

 

"I'll answer for SH because even though your points are valid, they dont matter to SH: "ad hominem, simply using an insult does not mean I am wrong. ID had to create the soup initially. ID is in =) =)=)=)=)=)=)=)=)=)=)=)=)=)=)=)=)=)=)=)=)=)=)=)=)=)=)=)=)=)=)=)=)=)=)""

 

I couldn't have predicted this unique response.    This is about ID not me.

[Duchykins]

On the contrary, ID is all about people like you.

[DukeNukem]

ID is clever red-herring by Christians who are not quite stupid enough to believe the Biblical creation story, but still grasping for a way to keep a god involved.

 

ID is not science.

 

Evolution is science.

 

 

[shadowhawk]

On the contrary, ID is all about people like you.

More evidence.

[shadowhawk]

ID is clever red-herring by Christians who are not quite stupid enough to believe the Biblical creation story, but still grasping for a way to keep a god involved.

 

ID is not science.

 

Evolution is science.

 

 

Red Herring
A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
    Topic A is under discussion.
    Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
    Topic A is abandoned.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.
http://www.nizkor.or...ed-herring.html
 
This charge that Christians have created a red herring is itself a Red Herring.  ID has made it very clear that the source of the designer is not known yet but there is evidence that intelligence is involved.  That is a question of science.

[wigglywinks]

"Is Intelligent Design Science or is it purely religion?"

 

If we're talking about "Intelligent Design" as in the fundamentalist Christian attempt to have their religion taught in science classes alongside evolution, then yes it's purely religion. The story behind it is that in the US, the teaching of creationism was deemed unconstitutional (because it was pushing a particular religion in public schools). So what the Christian fundamentalists decided to do was re-brand creationism with the name "intelligent design" to make it seem less religious and more sciencey. Look up the Dover school trial, it's pretty ugly stuff, the creationists basically had to lie their assholes off to try and make it seem like they weren't trying to get their religion taught in schools. Thankfully they were exposed as liars. 

 

If you mean just the belief in an intelligent designer (instead of the evolution denying crusade), then that's a philosophical interpretation of scientific findings. It's still not a valid scientific hypothesis, let alone a scientific theory (a theory is a hypothesis that has been experimentally confirmed). A scientific hypothesis has to be falsifiable, meaning that there should be some experiment that you can do which could potentially disprove the hypothesis. Can you think of an experiment that can be done to disprove the idea that God created the world, which all intelligent design advocates will agree is a valid disproof of a creator God? Also, the predictions that the hypothesis makes have to be at least logically rigorous and objective (in hard sciences, they would be mathematical predictions). A lot of the "predictions" that ID supposedly makes are extremely subjective (such as saying that everything has "complexity"), and the ones that aren't completely subjective have been shown to be wrong (such as irreducible complexity), that's nowhere near the level of scientific rigour that actual sciences employ.

 

[Duchykins]

They changed the definition of irreducible complexity a few times after it was pointed out how retarded their definitions were. Their definitions are always self-defeating because they're never based on an accurate representation of evolutionary mechanisms. But the current definition of 'irreducible complexity' describes systems in organisms that can evolve, so with that we found several examples of 'irreducible complexity' in nature that the creationists never pointed out before.

http://www.talkdesig...st/ICDmyst.html

[addx]

 

 

computer simulations are a valid form of evidence. They use computer simulations to do mathematical proofs, they use them to simulate neutron stars, or weather, or planetary bodies, or the human brain,or any other system imaginable. It does not matter that they were originally created by an intelligence; it does not mean neutron stars were intelligently designed simply because they were simulated on a computer. What is your logic here exactly?

 

 

 

 

He requires a demonstration of evolution and this demonstration must be spontaneous. If it is in any way "arranged" for him to see it, he will say it was designed and would not happen without intelligence.

 

The only way for him to change his mind is to have some completely dead and isolated areas, like other planets, spontaneously spawn life in front of his eyes.

 

So, to persuade shadowhawk, we need to place cameras all over mars or titan or wherever, get shadowhawk to approve of the location to be dead and to have no interference from known intelligence agencies and then wait for the location to spontaneously produce living bacteria or something to that effect. And even then I trust shadowhawk would find some way to deny it. 

 

Yet, shadowhawk blindly follows christianity, for which no demonstration of resurrection or any supernatural events is required and 2000 year old hear say is accepted as "adequate evidence". 

 

So, extreme double standards are in question here, requiring him to divide and conquer these issues across multiple threads. 

 

 

Answer this double standard challenge you pussy. Answer it or leave the forum. Do it now. Everything you've written falls onto this. You present hearsay as evidence and reject simulations as evidence. YOU SHOULD BE BANNED IMMEDIATELY

[shadowhawk]

addx: Answer this double standard challenge you pussy. Answer it or leave the forum. Do it now. Everything you've written falls onto this. You present hearsay as evidence and reject simulations as evidence. YOU SHOULD BE BANNED IMMEDIATELY

 

   Have a nice day.

[serp777]

addx: Answer this double standard challenge you pussy. Answer it or leave the forum. Do it now. Everything you've written falls onto this. You present hearsay as evidence and reject simulations as evidence. YOU SHOULD BE BANNED IMMEDIATELY

 

   Have a nice day.

 

Where is your evidence for ID? None. These is nothing here. No content. 

[shadowhawk]

 

addx: Answer this double standard challenge you pussy. Answer it or leave the forum. Do it now. Everything you've written falls onto this. You present hearsay as evidence and reject simulations as evidence. YOU SHOULD BE BANNED IMMEDIATELY

 

   Have a nice day.

 

Where is your evidence for ID? None. These is nothing here. No content. 

 

I have given lots of evidence for design.  What is here is ad hominem attacks. Typical

[serp777]

 

 

addx: Answer this double standard challenge you pussy. Answer it or leave the forum. Do it now. Everything you've written falls onto this. You present hearsay as evidence and reject simulations as evidence. YOU SHOULD BE BANNED IMMEDIATELY

 

   Have a nice day.

 

Where is your evidence for ID? None. These is nothing here. No content. 

 

I have given lots of evidence for design.  What is here is ad hominem attacks. Typical

 

I have given plenty of evidence against id. This is a denial and a lie. Typical. Have a nice day