"Intelligent Design" could slip into science class

[Sky]

http://www.miamiherald.com/458/story/454417.html
The religiously tinged evolution-questioning theory of Intelligent Design could more easily be brought up in public-school science classrooms under a proposed ''academic freedom'' legislation being pushed by conservative lawmakers.

And it's not just the ACLU saying it anymore.

A leading voice for the Intelligent Design movement acknowledged as much Wednesday by saying that the theory constitutes ''scientific information,'' which the bill expressly and repeatedly says teachers should present in questioning and criticizing evolution without fear of persecution.

The remarks by Casey Luskin, an attorney with the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, were made during a press conference with actor-columnist-speechwriter-gameshow host Ben Stein, who's exhibiting a documentary in support of the legislation.

The bill was drafted after the state Board of Education voted last month to include repeated mention of evolution and natural selection in state science standards for the first time in state history. The bill expressly bans the teaching of religious theories -- which a federal court has ruled Intelligent Design is.

But the legislation also repeatedly tells instructors to teach the ''full range'' of ''scientific information'' about biological and chemical evolution.
So does Intelligent Design constitute scientific information?

''In my personal opinion, I think it does. But the intent of this bill is not to settle that question,'' said Luskin. 'The intent of this bill is... it protects the `teaching of scientific information.' It's not trying to inject itself into the debate over Intelligent Design.''

Luskin said the institute, which advocates Intelligent Design, doesn't want it ''mandated'' in schools.

Church-state separatists say religious groups are trying to use the bill as a Trojan horse to introduce religion in science classrooms.

''The Intelligent Design movement has embraced this political strategy to sneak its religious views into the science classroom, and that's what you're seeing now in Florida,'' said Howard Simon, a Florida director for the ACLU, which filed the Dover case.

''The strategy is this: Let's call Intelligent Design scientific information, and let's make sure that teachers can teach that scientific information,'' Simon said, adding that his organization would sue if the bill became law and teachers began proselytizing in class.

The Discovery Institute vigorously denies that Intelligent Design is a religious theory and says the definition of the theory holds that life shows such patterns of design that it's the result of an intelligent cause, rather than natural selection.

What's that ''intelligent cause?'' The institute's top scientists say God, but they say that's not part of the theory.

Based on that belief, days of grueling testimony and something called the Discovery Institute ''Wedge'' document outlining a strategy to make science more ''consonant with Christian and theistic convictions,'' a federal judge in a Dover, Penn., case ruled in 2005 that Intelligent Design was too close to creationism for the science classroom.

Teachers can mention Intelligent Design or biblical creationism now, as long as it's not in the science classroom. In the science classroom, it's an open question as to whether teachers can mention these evolution alternatives.

Stein said his documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed shows that the academic freedom bill is needed.

''If there were complete freedom of speech, I don't think this bill would be necessary,'' he said. ``There are plenty of people who ask what seem to be innocent, sensible questions about the flaws and gaps and lacunae in Darwinism and they get severely punished for it.''

Stein said he didn't think the bill was aimed at ''protecting'' Intelligent Design. One of the drafters of the legislation, John Stemberger, president of the evangelical Florida Family Policy Council, said Intelligent Design can't be taught, though ''criticisms'' of evolution could.

When asked who would decide what ''scientific information'' is, Stemberger said the teacher would have to follow the curriculum and only bring up ''relevant'' information about chemical and biological evolution. Stein said it was the teacher who would decide.

Republican state Sen. Ronda Storms of Brandon and Rep. Alan Hays of Umatilla say their bill's intent is not to teach alternate theories, but to ensure that teachers and students will have the ability to freely question and criticize evolution.

Indeed, natural selection is under active challenge from evolutionary-developmental biologists, who say multicellular organisms can dynamically change form under certain environmental conditions, producing major evolutionary jumps.

Simon and mainstream scientists with the National Academy of Sciences say that's science, and that Intelligent Design is not because it ultimately rests on untestable supernatural entities.

Luskin, the Discovery Institute lawyer, said that's an irony: ``One of the funniest things in my opinion is that many of the people who are claiming Intelligent Design would be taught under this bill adamantly believe Intelligent Design is not science. So in their own view, the text of this bill would not protect the teaching of Intelligent Design.''

Said Simon: ``There is no constitutional right to mis-educate Florida students. If a science teacher is teaching serious science and is censored, that's an academic-freedom issue we would defend. But if they're having Sunday school in science class, that's a problem.''


Creationism is an unscientific conception that interprets the diversity of forms of the organic world as a result of their creation by god. In its extreme form, creationism denies the variation of species and their evolution. A crushing blow was dealt to creationism by Darwin who demonstrated the variability of species and the continuity between them. Creationism in any form serves as a weapon in the ideological struggle of religion against scientific biology.
Modern creationism is characterized by attempts to “assimilate” the doctrine of evolution, subordinating it to the idea of divine creation. But even modern Catholocism has to recognize (the encyclical of Pius XII of 1950) the possibility that the human body descended from ape-like ancestors, while attributing the act of divine creation to the “soul” of man.

Marx, Engels ,and Lenin fully appreciated the significance of Darwin’s work and considered it the natural-historical basis of historical materialism. The materialist character of Darwinism made it unacceptable to conservative elements among biologists and to religious groups. Almost simultaneously with the triumph of the concept of the historical development of life, numerous anti-Darwin theories of evolution began to arise, the authors of which suggested explanations of the motive forces of the process that were different from Darwin’s. These anti-Darwinist theories were based upon idealistic or mechanistic world views.

Contemporary Darwinism is the most important theoretical basis for biology, agriculture, and medicine. Only a consistent Darwinist approach makes possible the effective transformation of breeds of domestic animals and verities of cultivated plants the introduction of new, more productive strains of microorganism producers of antibiotics.

Darwinism has a no less important methodological significance, since the theory stands completely upon the positions of dialectical materialism, constantly providing material for the further development of the philosophical and methodological problems of contemporary and natural science.

[Bud Struggle]

When the revolution comes Sky will be your Kim Jong Il. :rolleyes:

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y43/MercutioTomK/korea.jpg

Enjoy. :D

[Schrödinger's Cat]

You act remarkably immature on the internet, I hope you know.

[careyprice31]

religious people have been trying to do this for many decades, remember the infamous "monkey" trial of teacher Scopes i believe his name was, in 1925.

Ever seen the movie "Inherit the Wind?" it was based on this.

btw intelligent design is just another name for creationism. Intelligent design is just what they called it just to make it seem different than what it actually is.

There isnt any scientific basis to it and shouldnt be in science classes.

[ID-guy]

religious people have been trying to do this for many decades, remember the infamous "monkey" trial of teacher Scopes i believe his name was, in 1925.

Ever seen the movie "Inherit the Wind?" it was based on this.That movie actually had nothing to do with the trial. It's actually just propaganda made by the Evolutionists.


btw intelligent design is just another name for creationism. Intelligent design is just what they called it just to make it seem different than what it actually is.No, actually it isn't. It is a legit scientific theory. It is a theory that says that some features of te universe are better explained by an intelligent cause than by an undirected natural process.


There isnt any scientific basis to it and shouldnt be in science classes.It is actually methodological naturalism, that is based on mkaterialism that has no scientific foundation, and which by all logic shouldnt be in our classes.

Why?

Well for starters, materialism says that only matter exist. So you are automatically excluding everything else you do not know that could exist, and you are trying to explain the universe by just using matter and energy. That has proven to be false, since information is not matter and it does exist. By this very fact, materialism fails and should not be regarded any further, let alone call it science.

On the other hand ID is perfectly legit. Since we know that intelligence exist and that it causes matter to arange itself in complex and specified way. This way intelligence also creates information. So as you can see something non material like intelligence can produce other non material elements like information. Pure matter can not do that. So by saying that some enteties in universe have marks of design it is perfectly fine to use ID as a guiding theory in their investigation. If it so happens that life was intelligently designed that it would be indeed a great thing for science to use ID as a theory for further research.

[Trystan]

No, actually it isn't. It is a legit scientific theory.



It's not really. There's no evidence for "intelligent design" and therefore it is not scientific. It doesn't matter if the world "appears to have been designed".

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

That movie actually had nothing to do with the trial. It's actually just propaganda made by the Evolutionists.

There's no such thing as "Evolutionists", you brainwashed demagogue. The theory of evolution is not a political ideology, moral philosophy, or any of the other extraneous facets you creationists slap onto it in a strawman attempt to slander it. Evolution (in biology) is the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next.


No, actually it isn't. It is a legit scientific theory. It is a theory that says that some features of te universe are better explained by an intelligent cause than by an undirected natural process.It most certainly is not a scientific theory. A scientific theory originates from or is supported by experimental evidence. ID has none. A scientific theory makes predictions. ID makes none. A scientific theory is testable and falsifiable - ID has neither of these qualities.

What ID is, is a sham. A shamelessly transparent attempt to get religion into the science class. The people at the top of the ID movement use doublethink and take advantage of popular ignorance of science and the scientific method in order to get their brainwashed followers to fall in line.


Well for starters, materialism says that only matter exist. So you are automatically excluding everything else you do not know that could exist, and you are trying to explain the universe by just using matter and energy. That has proven to be false, since information is not matter and it does exist. By this very fact, materialism fails and should not be regarded any further, let alone call it science.Rubbish. Information has a material component. In hard disk drives, information is represented as a series of magnetised sections on a platter. Change those sections, and the information changes. Similarly with human brains - destroy a human brain, and you destroy the mind within it.

Information is simply ordered matter and energy, that we (and our machines) interpret as data. It has no independant existance.


On the other hand ID is perfectly legit.Is that why a vast majority of the world's scientists, especially those in the biological sciences, reject it? :rolleyes:


Since we know that intelligence exist and that it causes matter to arange itself in complex and specified way.No it doesn't. What intelligence causes snowflakes to form in the way they do? Frozen water doesn't think.


This way intelligence also creates information. So as you can see something non material like intelligence can produce other non material elements like information.Wrong. Information and intelligence are not independant of matter and energy.


Pure matter can not do that.Your brain is pure matter, yet it can still create information, even if it is garbage like you're currently posting.


So by saying that some enteties in universe have marks of design it is perfectly fine to use ID as a guiding theory in their investigation.Not without evidence. Where is your evidence?


If it so happens that life was intelligently designed that it would be indeed a great thing for science to use ID as a theory for further research.Except that it's not the case. The evidence is strongly in favour of evolution.

[ID-guy]

It's not really. There's no evidence for "intelligent design" and therefore it is not scientific. It doesn't matter if the world "appears to have been designed".There does not have to be any evidence for an idea to be scientific in the first place. If there is evidence, than the idea is accepted into a theory, if there is none, than it is discarded.

As for ID, yes there is evidence of design in universe. Almost everywhere. But let's just look at living organism for now.

One way to detect design is to find Specified Complexity (SC) in other words Complex Specified Information or CSI. By SC i mean s system that is both complex, has a number of entities, and is specified, which means it has an independently given pattern. A pattern that is in no way connected with the entity that exhibits it.

For an example, the Mount Rushmore. President Lincoln, or in this case, his face has no logical connection with the mountain. A person by the name of Abraham Lincoln is independent of the Mount Rushmore. Yet his face is on the same mountain. Since the enteties, in this case pattern of the rocks on the mountain are complex, and positioned in a way to form a familliar pattern (Lincoln) we can conclude that the mountain is a product of an intelligent agent. Which meanst the mountain exhibits CSI. Thus we detected design.

Now, in animal world, we to see a lot of CSI. And one of the most prominent one is the DNA. DNA is a genetic code. Much like code in a digital computer, which are of course built buy intelligent agents, in this case - people.

The 4 base (TCAG) genetic code is digital in nature. The TCAG nucleic acids are logically independent of proteins or regulations in a living organism. Yet thru the process of DNA translation the TCAG nucleic acids code for either proteins or regulate other precesses in a living organism. That is a mark of information, in this case CSI.

Since we know that ONLY intelligence has the power to create information, and by that, we know that it has the power to create information processing systems, by observing those systems in living organisms, we can conclude that they were indeed designed by an intelligent agent. Since we know that natural fores have now abillity to create such systems because they have no capability of planning. And you need a teleological (not theological) to be able to plan and arange matter in a complex and specified way.

So by aal logic we can conclude that there is design in living organisms.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

There does not have to be any evidence for an idea to be scientific in the first place. If there is evidence, than the idea is accepted into a theory, if there is none, than it is discarded.

There is no evidence for ID. Hence, it is discarded.


As for ID, yes there is evidence of design in universe. Almost everywhere.

If the evidence is everywhere, then it should be easy to demonstrate that evidence. But the ID crowd has been less than forthcoming.


One way to detect design is to find Specified Complexity (SC) in other words Complex Specified Information or CSI. By SC i mean s system that is both complex, has a number of entities, and is specified, which means it has an independently given pattern. A pattern that is in no way connected with the entity that exhibits it.

For an example, the Mount Rushmore. President Lincoln, or in this case, his face has no logical connection with the mountain. A person by the name of Abraham Lincoln is independent of the Mount Rushmore. Yet his face is on the same mountain. Since the enteties, in this case pattern of the rocks on the mountain are complex, and positioned in a way to form a familliar pattern (Lincoln) we can conclude that the mountain is a product of an intelligent agent. Which meanst the mountain exhibits CSI. Thus we detected design.

Now, in animal world, we to see a lot of CSI. And one of the most prominent one is the DNA. DNA is a genetic code. Much like code in a digital computer, which are of course built buy intelligent agents, in this case - people.

The 4 base (TCAG) genetic code is digital in nature. The TCAG nucleic acids are logically independent of proteins or regulations in a living organism. Yet thru the process of DNA translation the TCAG nucleic acids code for either proteins or regulate other precesses in a living organism. That is a mark of information, in this case CSI.

Since we know that ONLY intelligence has the power to create information, and by that, we know that it has the power to create information processing systems, by observing those systems in living organisms, we can conclude that they were indeed designed by an intelligent agent. Since we know that natural fores have now abillity to create such systems because they have no capability of planning. And you need a teleological (not theological) to be able to plan and arange matter in a complex and specified way.

So by aal logic we can conclude that there is design in living organisms.

This amounts to nothing more than a long-winded way of saying "It looks designed, therefore it was designed". That's not good enough. I've already addressed your claim of information being created by intelligence (snowflakes).

[Atrus]

There does not have to be any evidence for an idea to be scientific in the first place. If there is evidence, than the idea is accepted into a theory, if there is none, than it is discarded.



You are talking about proof, not evidence, and there is a VERY big difference. The only similarity being that there is neither for ID. There must be evidence otherwise I could claim that there is an invisible and undetectable elephant in my house and pass it off as a scientific theory.

[Sugar Hill Kevis]

When the revolution comes Sky will be your Kim Jong Il. :rolleyes:

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y43/MercutioTomK/korea.jpg

Enjoy. :D

That's a lot of bling.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Well for starters, materialism says that only matter exist. So you are automatically excluding everything else you do not know that could exist, and you are trying to explain the universe by just using matter and energy. That has proven to be false, since information is not matter and it does exist. By this very fact, materialism fails and should not be regarded any further, let alone call it science.
Information is an abstraction. It doesn't exist anymore than the concept of time. The mediums with which information is transmitted and interpreted - sound, sight, taste - are based on material reality. Your conclusion is hastily reached with no evidence to back it up other than information?

If you presuppose more than what can be interpreted by known senses, you can argue anything: the flying spaghetti monster being the famed internet culprit.


No, actually it isn't. It is a legit scientific theory. It is a theory that says that some features of te universe are better explained by an intelligent cause than by an undirected natural process.
I prefer some panspermia thrown in the mix. And dark magic. And invisible, flying tea kettles. Can my beliefs be incorporated into the scientific curriculum as well?


Since we know that intelligence exist and that it causes matter to arange itself in complex and specified way. Nonsense. Physical interactions create all arrangements. Organic intelligence formulates a (partially)-planned pattern. No theist has been able to prove the physical existence of god. By admission of the Abrahamic faiths god exists outside of nature. But like I earlier pointed out, you're now saying anything can exist - which is true, but it's also true you can dismiss something for its remote likelihood. Intelligent design falls into this category.


Pure matter can not do that.More nonsensical justifications for pseudo-science.


One way to detect design is to find Specified Complexity (SC) in other words Complex Specified Information or CSI. By SC i mean s system that is both complex, has a number of entities, and is specified, which means it has an independently given pattern.You expect us "evolutionists" to take serious your arbitrary grandstanding? William Dembski's childish terms don't mean snot. He defines CS so that it cannot under any circumstance occur "naturally." Of course he's wrong. There are plenty of documented examples where spontaneous generations have been documented in enzymes.


Now, in animal world, we to see a lot of CSI. And one of the most prominent one is the DNA. DNA is a genetic code. Much like code in a digital computer, which are of course built buy intelligent agents, in this case - people.And yet the structuring of DNA supports the evolutionary model, not intelligent design. Humans, who are presumed to be the most complex species according to intelligent design cultists, are extremely weak mammals in terms of physical strength - especially for our size. Dogs, ants, cats, alligators - pick your animal, if you crunch the numbers, it's most likely stronger than a human. Almost all of our energy goes towards maintaining our superior intelligence.

Taking intelligent design seriously would then call into question the intelligence of a designer. Engineers could construct better physical models. For example, to avoid choking we could have our feeding tube separate from our breathing tube.


Since we know that ONLY intelligence has the power to create information, and by that, we know that it has the power to create information processing systems, by observing those systems in living organisms, we can conclude that they were indeed designed by an intelligent agent. Since we know that natural fores have now abillity to create such systems because they have no capability of planning. And you need a teleological (not theological) to be able to plan and arange matter in a complex and specified way.Says the person who argues using a tautology. You have failed to prove how the Earth, DNA, or anything in its natural state is a product of intelligence. We could spin a nice tail about diamonds having to be made from humans. Adversely, engineers actually use the process of evolutionary observation to create intelligence in proto-androids without the use of computers. Evolutionary algorithms outperforms human intelligence. In other words, evolution beats the shit out of god's grandest creation.


So by aal logic we can conclude that there is design in living organisms.There's no logic involved. You're making shit up.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Too many medals? What the hell? :lol:

[ID-guy]

There's no such thing as "Evolutionists", you brainwashed demagogue. The theory of evolution is not a political ideology, moral philosophy, or any of the other extraneous facets you creationists slap onto it in a strawman attempt to slander it. Evolution (in biology) is the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next.1.) First of all greetings to you too, and thanks for the ad hominems...

I am not a creationist, I support ID, which is not creationism. Creationism is based on searching for evidence of a selected creed. ID is a scientific theory that is concerned with detecting design in universe. It has no connection with any religion. It CAN support a religion but it is independent of any religion by of itself. Just to be clear, I am not a theist. I do not accept any religion.

2.) Furthermore, yes Evolution is a political tool. When it was concived by Charles Darwin it really was a legit scientific theory. But it was discarded as new scientific evidence was found. The new Neo-Darwinian theory is nothing but a religion for fundamental atheists, like Richard Dawkins. His atheistic way of life has no meaning if the theory of Evolution is false, so he clings to it just like belivers in Christ or any other religion do.

3.) By your definition of evolution, yes, I must say, I do accept that what you say. But in no way, shape or form, do I accept an idea that we came from a rock 3.6 billion years ago. There is absolutly no evidence fort that claim.

4.) Yes there are Evolutionists, or Darwinists. If there are people who follow the ideas of Karl Marx and celebrate his birthday, than they are called Marxists. If some other people follow Darwins ideas and celebrate his birthday, than by all logic, they should be caled Darwinists.

Is there evidence that living organisms and populations change? Yes, absolutly! But no, there is ZERO evidence that we came from a rock 3.6 billion years ago, and no I will not accept that faith.


It most certainly is not a scientific theory. A scientific theory originates from or is supported by experimental evidence. ID has none. A scientific theory makes predictions. ID makes none. A scientific theory is testable and falsifiable - ID has neither of these qualities.

What ID is, is a sham. A shamelessly transparent attempt to get religion into the science class. The people at the top of the ID movement use doublethink and take advantage of popular ignorance of science and the scientific method in order to get their brainwashed followers to fall in line.Lets see now...

1.) ID has experimental evidence by Michael Behe, William Dembski and others. In the fields of design detection and molecular machinery. I can't post links untill i have 25 posts so you'll just have to wait.

2.) ID predicts that:

a.) High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures will be found.
b.) Forms will be found in the fossil record that appear suddenly and without any precursors.
c.) Genes and functional parts will be re-used in different unrelated organisms.
d.) The genetic code will NOT contain much discarded genetic baggage code or functionless "junk DNA".

3.) Show me a process in nature that creates information and you have falsified ID.

4.) Thank you for attacking the ID think tank. But I really have no interests in their political ideas or goals, I'm just interested in science they present, regardless of their position on politics, culture or religion.


Rubbish. Information has a material component. In hard disk drives, information is represented as a series of magnetised sections on a platter. Change those sections, and the information changes. Similarly with human brains - destroy a human brain, and you destroy the mind within it.

Information is simply ordered matter and energy, that we (and our machines) interpret as data. It has no independant existance.No, that is not information. Information is an idea. Ideas are not material.

What you were talking about is the way information is presented in a material world. And that being a complex and specified order. Just like holes on a CD. Yes they are material, but the way they are ordered, has nothing to do with them. They were ordered in that way by a non material force, and that is intelligence.


Is that why a vast majority of the world's scientists, especially those in the biological sciences, reject it? :rolleyes:No, they reject it because they are either fundamental atheists or scared to lose their jobs if the accept ID. Furthermore, what does the majority know? Does the majority opinion equals truth?


No it doesn't. What intelligence causes snowflakes to form in the way they do? Frozen water doesn't think.Yes it does. There is a natural process that makes snowflakes. If there is a natural process for a snowflake, than there is no need to call it designed. Furthermore there is no CSI in a snowflake. It represents nothing. It carries no abstract information, thus this is a strawman.


Wrong. Information and intelligence are not independant of matter and energy.It does not make any difference if they are or not. They are not the same, that is the point. Furthermore, yes they are independant. Are your ideas in any way connected with your brain? Of course they are not. Beacause they are not matter.

What is the fealing of a touch? If you touch a table with your hand, does the hand feal the table, or does the brain feal it? You are not touching the table with your brain that is for sure. So how can matter "feal" things anyway? It can't, that's the point. There is an immaterial part to the brain that makes it capable of fealing.

Your brain is pure matter, yet it can still create information, even if it is garbage like you're currently posting.


Not without evidence. Where is your evidence?DNA translation exhibits CSI. And some enteties, like bacterial flagellum exhibit irreducible complexity (IC).


Except that it's not the case. The evidence is strongly in favour of evolution.Show me one evidence for evolution.

[Atrus]

Show me one evidence for evolution.

Go back to a GCSE science class.
Whats wrong with countless fossils?

[ID-guy]

There is no evidence for ID. Hence, it is discarded.Yes there is. CSI and IC systems.


If the evidence is everywhere, then it should be easy to demonstrate that evidence. But the ID crowd has been less than forthcoming.Explain to me how bacterial flagellum came to be.


This amounts to nothing more than a long-winded way of saying "It looks designed, therefore it was designed". That's not good enough. I've already addressed your claim of information being created by intelligence (snowflakes).1.) No it does not. Something may look designet but it does not have to be designed. We have to have relieable marks of design to say that it is designed. If we see CSI that has a chance of under 1:10(150) of being created by chance, we can conclude design. Natural process does not create information. Please show me where it does.

2.) No snowflakes are not information. They do not mean anything. What do snowflakes mean? Nothing. You created an idea of a snowflake in your head. And that is information. A snowflake is a material object, and everytime you see it, you create an idea about it in your mind, thus creating information. But a snowflake by itself is not information, since id has no meaning by itself.

[ID-guy]

You are talking about proof, not evidence, and there is a VERY big difference. The only similarity being that there is neither for ID. There must be evidence otherwise I could claim that there is an invisible and undetectable elephant in my house and pass it off as a scientific theory.If we know that only intelligence can create information that it is not like saying that there is an elephant in your house. If we see design in nature, and know that only intelligence can make it, than it is a logical conclusion that it was done by an intelligent agent. Even if we didn't see him design it.

[Atrus]

and know that only intelligence can make it

That's the entire point. We DON'T know that only intelligence can make it. You're basing your argument on an incorrect assumption.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I am not a creationist, I support ID, which is not creationism. Creationism is based on searching for evidence of a selected creed. ID is a scientific theory that is concerned with detecting design in universe. It has no connection with any religion. It CAN support a religion but it is independent of any religion by of itself. Just to be clear, I am not a theist. I do not accept any religion.Some scientific theory! Not one article in support of intelligent design has been published for scrutiny in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Maybe once your beloved theocrats - err scientists - actually acquire the gonads their designer supposedly made them, we can talk about calling it science.


2.) Furthermore, yes Evolution is a political tool. When it was concived by Charles Darwin it really was a legit scientific theory. But it was discarded as new scientific evidence was found.Baseless claim. There doesn't exist one shred of evidence that disputes scientific evolution. Or are you now reversing your previous statement and throwing some weight behind the creationist movement?


The new Neo-Darwinian theory is nothing but a religion for fundamental atheists, like Richard Dawkins. His atheistic way of life has no meaning if the theory of Evolution is false, so he clings to it just like belivers in Christ or any other religion do.Evolution is widely acknowledged by agnostics and sensible theists. The latter group can at least distinguish between evolution and abiogenesis. It's pretty pathetic that you can't.

You attack NoXion for ad hominems but then construct your own against Dawkins? Nice.


3.) By your definition of evolution, yes, I must say, I do accept that what you say. But in no way, shape or form, do I accept an idea that we came from a rock 3.6 billion years ago. There is absolutly no evidence fort that claim.A rock would be more sensible than a fairytale. That said, this supposed rock is just another simplification you use. Life was likely formed by a combination of all basic forms of matter. A rock is just one.


1.) ID has experimental evidence by Michael Behe, William Dembski and others. In the fields of design detection and molecular machinery. I can't post links untill i have 25 posts so you'll just have to wait.
Michael Behe admitted that intelligent design is religious and not science, you twat. :laugh: William Dembski has a grocery list of biologists, chemists, and mathematicians who disown his work. Oh, and he broke copyright law. Not too "intelligent" for a Baylor professor.

Why don't you expand on the "and others" statement so I can topple more of your beloved theocrats?


4.) Thank you for attacking the ID think tank. But I really have no interests in their political ideas or goals, I'm just interested in science they present, regardless of their position on politics, culture or religion.Right.


3.) Show me a process in nature that creates information and you have falsified ID.I pointed out two cases above.

Debunked.

[bcbm]

No, they reject it because they are either fundamental atheists or scared to lose their jobs if the accept ID. Furthermore, what does the majority know? Does the majority opinion equals truth?Yes, millions of scientists subjected to peer review and having to prove with evidence their theories are all part of a massive conspiracy to suppress Intelligent Design. You should probably learn about 911-Truth too, as long as we're talking batshit insane conspiracy theories. :glare:


Are your ideas in any way connected with your brain? Of course they are not. Beacause they are not matter.So if you lose your brain, your ideas will still be floating around? Of course they won't. Its just electrons firing in your brain.


What is the fealing of a touch? If you touch a table with your hand, does the hand feal the table, or does the brain feal it? You are not touching the table with your brain that is for sure. So how can matter "feal" things anyway? It can't, that's the point. There is an immaterial part to the brain that makes it capable of fealing.No, it interprets what is sent to it by nerves, via electrical impulses if I remember biology correctly.


If we see design in nature, and know that only intelligence can make it, than it is a logical conclusion that it was done by an intelligent agent.

This is a logical fallacy. Strictly on evidence, design in nature proves that design can be made without intelligence, unless you are already looking to prove that said design must be the product of intelligence.

Beyond that, on an extremely large or extremely small scale, design goes right out the window.

[ID-guy]

Information is an abstraction. It doesn't exist anymore than the concept of time. The mediums with which information is transmitted and interpreted - sound, sight, taste - are based on material reality. Your conclusion is hastily reached with no evidence to back it up other than information?

If you presuppose more than what can be interpreted by known senses, you can argue anything: the flying spaghetti monster being the famed internet culprit. 1.) By saying that information does not exist you are sying that a dictionary is a same thing as a block of paper smeared with ink. That is of course not the case.

2.) In material world yes, information is presented by matter (ink, sound etc.) but it transcends the matter and has a meaning.

3.) No it is not the case of FSM. There is no evidence for it.


I prefer some panspermia thrown in the mix. And dark magic. And invisible, flying tea kettles. Can my beliefs be incorporated into the scientific curriculum as well?1.) No, since it has no base in reality. No proof that those things exist.

2.) Tell me have you ever seen an intelligence act? Have you ever seen that an intelligent agent can design things? If you have, than tell me why is it not scientific to say that an object X is designed, since we know that intelligence can design.


Nonsense. Physical interactions create all arrangements. Organic intelligence formulates a (partially)-planned pattern. No theist has been able to prove the physical existence of god. By admission of the Abrahamic faiths god exists outside of nature. But like I earlier pointed out, you're now saying anything can exist - which is true, but it's also true you can dismiss something for its remote likelihood. Intelligent design falls into this category.Physical interactions ar only objects that are USED to modify other material objects. But the information for that action, and energy used for it, that meaning, the plan, or the source of that plan, comes form an immaterial mind.


More nonsensical justifications for pseudo-science.Explain why.


You expect us "evolutionists" to take serious your arbitrary grandstanding? William Dembski's childish terms don't mean snot. He defines CS so that it cannot under any circumstance occur "naturally." Of course he's wrong. There are plenty of documented examples where spontaneous generations have been documented in enzymes.1.) No, the point is that the rejection region he sets is 1:10(150). Which means that if you find a CSI that needs an 1:10(150) chance to exist, which is not possible, it means you found a design. There can be less than the UPB rejection reging CSI, but for the UPB one, you can be sure it was designed, not just modified.

2.) Spontanious generation of what? What is your poin?


And yet the structuring of DNA supports the evolutionary model, not intelligent design. Humans, who are presumed to be the most complex species according to intelligent design cultists, are extremely weak mammals in terms of physical strength - especially for our size. Dogs, ants, cats, alligators - pick your animal, if you crunch the numbers, it's most likely stronger than a human. Almost all of our energy goes towards maintaining our superior intelligence.

Taking intelligent design seriously would then call into question the intelligence of a designer. Engineers could construct better physical models. For example, to avoid choking we could have our feeding tube separate from our breathing tube.1.) How does DNA support Evolution?

2.) Subjective argument. You cant say that we are poorly designed and thus say there was no design at all. That is your subjective opinion, not an objective fact, and can't be used against an objective design argument.

If you see a poorly designed car or a picture, will you conclude that there was no designer, just beacause a picture, or a car is bad? No, of course you won't. Same here.


Says the person who argues using a tautology. You have failed to prove how the Earth, DNA, or anything in its natural state is a product of intelligence. We could spin a nice tail about diamonds having to be made from humans. Adversely, engineers actually use the process of evolutionary observation to create intelligence in proto-androids without the use of computers. Evolutionary algorithms outperforms human intelligence. In other words, evolution beats the shit out of god's grandest creation.1.) Where did I use a tautology?

2.) What do you see as a proof of a designed DNA? I mean, if we know that only intelligence creates information, and DNA is information (a carrier of it, just like a CD) that the ONLY logical conclusion is that it was designed, since nothing else can do it. Do you know anything else that can?

3.) Diamonds have no CSI. A strawman argument.

4.) Actually the evolutionary algorithms are designed, thus non-random. Evolution is supposed to be random. A strawman argument.


There's no logic involved. You're making shit up.No, you just don't understand it.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

The problem is, evolution confines itself to explaining life we can detect.

So, while it is a vast task to explain detectable life, it is an even more mighty task to explain undetectable life.


evolution requires no motive, ID does require motive. An explanation for the motive and subsequent confirmation of the motive at the moment seems impossible.

we are, even if we did accept ID, trapped into the problem of finding the source of the design.

and for the moment, evolution provides a vast amount of evidence with out the problems we face when looking for the life/entity that designed it.

however, ID guy is right to say that evolution is political. But, it is only one theory in science that is political, huge arrays of scientists both secular and religious who impart ideological positions into science.

Dawkins is ace in terms of defending evolution against rival theories, but awful at the political side of the debate.

[ID-guy]

Go back to a GCSE science class.
Whats wrong with countless fossils?What would be wrong with them? Nothing, what do they have to do with evolution? Nothing also...

[ID-guy]

That's the entire point. We DON'T know that only intelligence can make it. You're basing your argument on an incorrect assumption.What else can? Which force except intelligenc has a teleologica capability? Natural forces don't so what does?

[bcbm]

Natural forces don't

No, you're back to the logical fallacy I mentioned earlier.

[Publius]

No, actually it isn't.

Yes, it actually is.

Read the "Wedge Document" from the Discovery Institute, or watch the PBS documentary on the Dover PA trial where it demonstrates that the standard ID text (Of Pandas and People) merely did a find and replace to change the word "creationism" to "intelligent design."

Notice how many of the activists behind ID are religiously motivated. Look at what they mean when they say "intelligent designer."

I suspect that you yourself are highly religious.



It is a legit scientific theory.

No it isn't.


It is a theory that says that some features of te universe are better explained by an intelligent cause than by an undirected natural process.

That's not a theory, that's a hypothesis.

Do you even know the difference?



It is actually methodological naturalism, that is based on mkaterialism that has no scientific foundation, and which by all logic shouldnt be in our classes.

Why?

Well for starters, materialism says that only matter exist.

That would be what it states.


So you are automatically excluding everything else you do not know that could exist, and you are trying to explain the universe by just using matter and energy.

Please tell me something that exists (to have an ontology is to be made OF something) that isn't matter or energy. Demonstrate it for me, don't just assert it.



That has proven to be false, since information is not matter and it does exist.

Show me a piece of information that is not instantiated either as matter or energy.

I'll be waiting.



By this very fact, materialism fails and should not be regarded any further, let alone call it science.

No, that's the very reason why materialism succeeds: it doesn't resort to positing unprovable and unscientific bullshit.



On the other hand ID is perfectly legit. Since we know that intelligence exist

You make me doubt it.


and that it causes matter to arange itself in complex and specified way.

Contradiction.

IF matter is arranged by "intelligence" then matter didn't arrange "itself", now did it?

Furthermore, prove to me that there is such thing as a non-physical intelligence, don't just assume it.



This way intelligence also creates information. So as you can see something non material like intelligence can produce other non material elements like information.

Information is material.

Take your DVD, drop it in some acid, and watch as the information is destroyed. Do this to all copies of the DVD and the information encoded on it no longer exists.



Pure matter can not do that.

You saying it doesn't make it so.


So by saying that some enteties in universe have marks of design it is perfectly fine to use ID as a guiding theory in their investigation.

Slow down.

I'm not of the opinion that entities weren't designed. I think they were designed by evolution.

How can you make such a stupid mistake?



If it so happens that life was intelligently designed that it would be indeed a great thing for science to use ID as a theory for further research.

Meaningless nonsense.

[ID-guy]

Some scientific theory! Not one article in support of intelligent design has been published for scrutiny in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Maybe once your beloved theocrats - err scientists - actually acquire the gonads their designer supposedly made them, we can talk about calling it science.Actuall it has. I can't post links since I haven't reached 25 posts yet, so you should wait a bit.


Baseless claim. There doesn't exist one shred of evidence that disputes scientific evolution. Or are you now reversing your previous statement and throwing some weight behind the creationist movement?There is. Homologous structures are often controled by non homologous genes. If we all came from a common ancestor, that why is that?


Evolution is widely acknowledged by agnostics and sensible theists. The latter group can at least distinguish between evolution and abiogenesis. It's pretty pathetic that you can't.

You attack NoXion for ad hominems but then construct your own against Dawkins? Nice.1.) Of course I can, but the theory of evolution has no meaning if it does not start with abiogenesis. Because if it doesn't the forst living cell would have to be designed. Thus ID wolud be true.

2.) That was not an ad hominem, that was the truth. He really is a fundamental atheist. What's wrong with truth?


A rock would be more sensible than a fairytale. That said, this supposed rock is just another simplification you use. Life was likely formed by a combination of all basic forms of matter. A rock is just one.Where is the evidence for that it happened? Actually where is the evidence that it can happen!? You don't have any, yet you stil beLIEve in the theory, that's the point.


Michael Behe admitted that intelligent design is religious and not science, you twat. :laugh: William Dembski has a grocery list of biologists, chemists, and mathematicians who disown his work. Oh, and he broke copyright law. Not too "intelligent" for a Baylor professor.No he did not, you are using darwinist sources. So what if other scientists do not accept Dembskis work, that doesn't mean it's wrogn. Does majority = truth?


Why don't you expand on the "and others" statement so I can topple more of your beloved theocrats?What? What did you exactlly tople? You just said a bunch of ad hominems, that's all. I want you to disprove irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum. That would be nice.


Right. Yes, right.


I pointed out two cases above.

Debunked.No, you did NOTHING. You just insulted me, and the two scientist i mentioned. If that's the way you debate than fine. But I don't think that's very productive.

[ID-guy]

Yes, millions of scientists subjected to peer review and having to prove with evidence their theories are all part of a massive conspiracy to suppress Intelligent Design. You should probably learn about 911-Truth too, as long as we're talking batshit insane conspiracy theories. :glare:No this is not a conspiracy. Guilermo Gonzalez was denied tenure, and William Dembski lost his job beacuse of their pro ID views.


So if you lose your brain, your ideas will still be floating around? Of course they won't. Its just electrons firing in your brain.The idea does not exist in the material world anyway. Please explain to me how electrons create ideas. You can't, beacause ideas are not matter.


No, it interprets what is sent to it by nerves, via electrical impulses if I remember biology correctly.Yes that is right. But who, and how feals the sense of "touch". How does pure matter do it?


This is a logical fallacy. Strictly on evidence, design in nature proves that design can be made without intelligence, unless you are already looking to prove that said design must be the product of intelligence.Can you show me a case of natural forces creating design? If no, than I have a great candidate for all design in universe, and that is intelligence, since we know it can design.


Beyond that, on an extremely large or extremely small scale, design goes right out the window.Explain why.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

1.) By saying that information does not exist you are sying that a dictionary is a same thing as a block of paper smeared with ink. That is of course not the case.Why is it that intelligent design advocates always - without fail - build up a straw man and try to blow it over? I said quite specifically, "Information is an abstraction. It doesn't exist anymore than the concept of time." Information is an abstract concept. Like time. Like love even. It's just a means of simplifying the way with which senses communicate. The words I'm typing are real. The way with which my brain processes these words is real. The idea of information is just a product of chemical actions.


2.) In material world yes, information is presented by matter (ink, sound etc.) but it transcends the matter and has a meaning.Meaning that is determined by electronic and chemical messages - in other words, material substance. Yes.


3.) No it is not the case of FSM. There is no evidence for it.There is no evidence for a creator, either. At least the FSM doesn't have a stick up his ass when it comes to granting babies a proper birth.


1.) No, since it has no base in reality. No proof that those things exist.Neither your things.


2.) Tell me have you ever seen an intelligence act?Relatively speaking.


If you have, than tell me why is it not scientific to say that an object X is designed, since we know that intelligence can design.It wouldn't be scientific to tell me uncut diamonds were made by man. You're creating a different realm that can't be proven. Everything you said amounts to hypothesizing at best, and whimsical religious nonsense at worst.


Physical interactions ar only objects that are USED to modify other material objects. But the information for that action, and energy used for it, that meaning, the plan, or the source of that plan, comes form an immaterial mind.Immaterial mind? Have you never heard of neuroscience? Your mind is entirely material. If every organism on Earth instantly died due to wide scale volcanism, the ideas we're throwing around right now go out with our bodies. Thoughts, ideas, emotions - these are all interactions of chemical and electrical receptors.


1.) How does DNA support Evolution?Engineers can construct better physical models. They certainly do with six-limbed androids.


2.) Subjective argument. You cant say that we are poorly designed and thus say there was no design at all. That is your subjective opinion, not an objective fact, and can't be used against an objective design argument.There is no such thing as objectivity. All arguments are based on the presumption you and the other person share similar sensory methods. Perhaps my problem lies in the fact I'm arguing with lunatics...


If you see a poorly designed car or a picture, will you conclude that there was no designer, just beacause a picture, or a car is bad? No, of course you won't. Same here.The "picture" could be a berry squished on some hard surface for all you know. Monkeys have thrown their own fecal matter on paper before and won awards by famed art exhibits.


1.) Where did I use a tautology?CS is a tautology. It already presumes that evolution is wrong. Thus arguing against it is pointless.


3.) Diamonds have no CSI. A strawman argument.
CSI is a shitty show to start with. :D


4.) Actually the evolutionary algorithms are designed, thus non-random. Evolution is supposed to be random. A strawman argument. No, they're not. The original products are designed. We're arguing evolution, not abiogenesis.

[ID-guy]

No, you're back to the logical fallacy I mentioned earlier.Show me where is the evidence that they can create design. If you can't than you can't say they can.

[Publius]

There does not have to be any evidence for an idea to be scientific in the first place.

Yes there does.


If there is evidence, than the idea is accepted into a theory, if there is none, than it is discarded.Exactly. And so ID is discareded.



As for ID, yes there is evidence of design in universe. Almost everywhere. But let's just look at living organism for now.

One way to detect design is to find Specified Complexity (SC) in other words Complex Specified Information or CSI. By SC i mean s system that is both complex, has a number of entities, and is specified, which means it has an independently given pattern. A pattern that is in no way connected with the entity that exhibits it.A pattern must, by definition, be connected by the entity that exhibits it.

A pattern does not have a separate ontology from the entities that exhibit, a pattern just IS the entities that exhibit it.



For an example, the Mount Rushmore. President Lincoln, or in this case, his face has no logical connection with the mountain.Yes it does.

Mt. Rushmore has the logical relation of identity to the mountain in which it is carved.

Stop talking nonsense.


A person by the name of Abraham Lincoln is independent of the Mount Rushmore. Yet his face is on the same mountain.No it isn't. Abraham Lincoln's face has long sense decayed and evaporated. What's carved on on the mountain is an etching that looks on vaguely like him.

It's not "the same" at all. For example, Lincoln's nose wasn't 20 feet long, wasn't made of granite, wasn't located in South Dakota, etc.



Since the enteties, in this case pattern of the rocks on the mountain are complex, and positioned in a way to form a familliar pattern (Lincoln) we can conclude that the mountain is a product of an intelligent agent.Yeah, we carved it a few dozen years ago.


Which meanst the mountain exhibits CSI. Thus we detected design.No shit -- we designed it.



Now, in animal world, we to see a lot of CSI.No we don't.


And one of the most prominent one is the DNA. DNA is a genetic code. Much like code in a digital computer, which are of course built buy intelligent agents, in this case - people.In what way is DNA like computer code? How are they at all similar?

Read this: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/02/the_genome_is_not_a_computer_p.php



The 4 base (TCAG) genetic code is digital in nature.No, it isn't.

Digital, in this context, means binary. Digital ('having to do with digits') in the context of computer code means that the code is binary in nature -- that's how it interacts at the assembly level.

The human genome is nothing like that -- it's quanary, I guess you'd say.



The TCAG nucleic acids are logically independent of proteins or regulations in a living organism.No they are not.

If you have no proteins or regulations (and thus no living organisms) you have none of the base pairs.

So the TCAG nucleic acids are LOGICALLY DEPENDENT ON proteins and the regulations in a living organism, proving my point.

Yet thru the process of DNA translation the TCAG nucleic acids code for either proteins or regulate other precesses in a living organism. That is a mark of information, in this case CSI.



Since we know that ONLY intelligence has the power to create information, Begging the question.

"We" don't know that, "you" just assume it.

Prove it.


and by that, we know that it has the power to create information processing systems, by observing those systems in living organisms, we can conclude that they were indeed designed by an intelligent agent.Bullshit.

Natural selection can just as easily account for this. In fact, more easily sense it's backed up by data and doesn't posit entities unecessarily.



Since we know that natural fores have now abillity to create such systems because they have no capability of planning. And you need a teleological (not theological)I know the difference. You don't have to tell me.


to be able to plan and arange matter in a complex and specified way.Natural selection can do just that. The environment acts like the planning agent and gives rise to teleology in its productions, ie, in us.



So by aal logic we can conclude that there is design in living organisms.False. By YOUR logic we can conclude that, but your logic isn't any logic at all.

[ID-guy]

Yes, it actually is.

Read the "Wedge Document" from the Discovery Institute, or watch the PBS documentary on the Dover PA trial where it demonstrates that the standard ID text (Of Pandas and People) merely did a find and replace to change the word "creationism" to "intelligent design."

Notice how many of the activists behind ID are religiously motivated. Look at what they mean when they say "intelligent designer."

I suspect that you yourself are highly religious.1.) Again, that is something that has to do with te Discovery institute itself. That is their political view, and it has no connection with the scientific work of the scientists that are being funded by the same institute. So no I don't care about their political ideas if the science is good.

2.) No I'm not religious.


No it isn't.Why not?


That's not a theory, that's a hypothesis.

Do you even know the difference?Yes I do, and why is it not a theory?


Please tell me something that exists (to have an ontology is to be made OF something) that isn't matter or energy. Demonstrate it for me, don't just assert it.Ideas, that is, information is non material. Of course, we are living in a material world, so we present information by matter, but the information transends the matter. Beacuse it has a meaning. A meaning that comes from the mind which is not material.


Show me a piece of information that is not instantiated either as matter or energy.

I'll be waiting.That's the point. This is a material worl, and if I show you any information, it has to be on matter! You are asking me to do impossible. But the point is that the information itself came from an immaterial cause. And that is the mind. Rocks are matter, brain is matter, yet rock don't create information, but brains do. That is beacuse there is a non material part to the brain that is called a mind.


No, that's the very reason why materialism succeeds: it doesn't resort to positing unprovable and unscientific bullshit.Oh really? Than why can't you exlain how natural porcess can create information?


You make me doubt it.Very adult like...


Contradiction.

IF matter is arranged by "intelligence" then matter didn't arrange "itself", now did it?

Furthermore, prove to me that there is such thing as a non-physical intelligence, don't just assume it.1.) Not a contradiction, just wrong usage of words.

2.) What does it take to prove it to you that there is a non material mind? Do you wan to SEE IT?


Information is material.

Take your DVD, drop it in some acid, and watch as the information is destroyed. Do this to all copies of the DVD and the information encoded on it no longer exists.1.) No it's not. Information is an idea. Ideas are not material. Can you touch an idea?

2.) Strawman. DVD is a carrier of information. It only represents information in a material world, but the information represented on that DVD was put there not by a material process, but by an intelligence.


You saying it doesn't make it so.Give proof othervise.


Slow down.

I'm not of the opinion that entities weren't designed. I think they were designed by evolution.

How can you make such a stupid mistake?Evolution can't design since it has no teleological capability to do so. Explain how can evolution design.


Meaningless nonsense.Why, explain.

[Publius]

1.) First of all greetings to you too, and thanks for the ad hominems...

You're welcome and fuck off.



I am not a creationist, I support ID, which is not creationism.

ID is creationism.


Creationism is based on searching for evidence of a selected creed. ID is a scientific theory that is concerned with detecting design in universe. It has no connection with any religion. It CAN support a religion but it is independent of any religion by of itself. Just to be clear, I am not a theist. I do not accept any religion.

So what are you, then? A deist? A pantheist?

Please tell me what this intelligent designer is like. That's a necessary component of a scientific theory -- explaining the mechanism.



2.) Furthermore, yes Evolution is a political tool.

False. Intelligent Design is often used a political tool by republican cretins, but not evolution.


When it was concived by Charles Darwin it really was a legit scientific theory. But it was discarded as new scientific evidence was found. The new Neo-Darwinian theory is nothing but a religion for fundamental atheists, like Richard Dawkins. His atheistic way of life has no meaning if the theory of Evolution is false, so he clings to it just like belivers in Christ or any other religion do.

Bullshit speculation. You can't prove any of this. Furthermore there are numerous religious people who don't accept ID and in fact fully embrace evolution.



3.) By your definition of evolution, yes, I must say, I do accept that what you say. But in no way, shape or form, do I accept an idea that we came from a rock 3.6 billion years ago. There is absolutly no evidence fort that claim.

You're right, there's no evidence for the claim that, 3.6 billion years ago, a rock made us.

Whew.



4.) Yes there are Evolutionists, or Darwinists. If there are people who follow the ideas of Karl Marx and celebrate his birthday, than they are called Marxists. If some other people follow Darwins ideas and celebrate his birthday, than by all logic, they should be caled Darwinists.

They don't "follow Darwinian ideas". A lot of Darwin's ideas were wrong. They use some of his basic theories and terminology, but they don't follow his creed, as Marxians do.



Is there evidence that living organisms and populations change? Yes, absolutly! But no, there is ZERO evidence that we came from a rock 3.6 billion years ago, and no I will not accept that faith.

Lets see now...

Strawman. No evolutionist believes we "came from a rock 3.6 billion years ago."

What we believe is that we evolved up from single-celled organisms. We don't have take this on faith, but on evidence.



1.) ID has experimental evidence by Michael Behe, William Dembski and others. In the fields of design detection and molecular machinery. I can't post links untill i have 25 posts so you'll just have to wait.

Trust me, I've seen the "evidence". It's bullshit.



2.) ID predicts that:

a.) High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures will be found.

First of all they can't even properly define irreducibly complex in a meaingful way.

And nothing like this has ever been found.



b.) Forms will be found in the fossil record that appear suddenly and without any precursors.

False. The fossil record is very consistent.



c.) Genes and functional parts will be re-used in different unrelated organisms.

This is actually a prediction of evolution.



d.) The genetic code will NOT contain much discarded genetic baggage code or functionless "junk DNA".

This is a total misunderstanding of the idea of "junk DNA."



3.) Show me a process in nature that creates information and you have falsified ID.

Evolution.

That was easy.



4.) Thank you for attacking the ID think tank. But I really have no interests in their political ideas or goals, I'm just interested in science they present, regardless of their position on politics, culture or religion.

They aren't a scientific institution, are they?



No, that is not information. Information is an idea. Ideas are not material.

Show me one immaterial idea. Ooops, you'll have do that via your COMPUTER, which is physical, coming up with something from a BOOK or a BRAIN which are also physical.



What you were talking about is the way information is presented in a material world. And that being a complex and specified order. Just like holes on a CD. Yes they are material, but the way they are ordered, has nothing to do with them.

Yes it does. Order is form, and form IS information.


They were ordered in that way by a non material force, and that is intelligence.

Intelligence isn't non-material: see, the human brain.

Prove to me there exist non-material intelligences.



No, they reject it because they are either fundamental atheists or scared to lose their jobs if the accept ID.

But there are more theistic evolutionists then there are IDers. Numerous religious individuals completely reject ID and accept Darwinian evolution.


Furthermore, what does the majority know? Does the majority opinion equals truth?

In some instances. For example, the majority belief the earth is round. Also, the earth is round.



Yes it does. There is a natural process that makes snowflakes. If there is a natural process for a snowflake, than there is no need to call it designed.

But it was designed, by that natural process.


Furthermore there is no CSI in a snowflake. It represents nothing. It carries no abstract information, thus this is a strawman.

Of course it carries "abstract" information. That's what "abstract" information means. I could take a picture of that snowflake and make it a letter in a language. Then it would become information.



What is the fealing of a touch? If you touch a table with your hand, does the hand feal the table, or does the brain feal it? You are not touching the table with your brain that is for sure. So how can matter "feal" things anyway? It can't, that's the point. There is an immaterial part to the brain that makes it capable of fealing.

You're just asserting this, you're not proving it.

We all know you're a deluded dualist, but please prove to me that the brain cannot feel. My brain feels just fine. Maybe yours is broken.



Your brain is pure matter, yet it can still create information, even if it is garbage like you're currently posting.

Exactly. The brain, which is pure matter, can produce information. Thanks.



DNA translation exhibits CSI. And some enteties, like bacterial flagellum exhibit irreducible complexity (IC).



Show me one evidence for evolution.

Endogenous retroviruses.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I am not a creationist, I support ID, which is not creationism. Creationism is based on searching for evidence of a selected creed. ID is a scientific theory that is concerned with detecting design in universe. It has no connection with any religion. It CAN support a religion but it is independent of any religion by of itself. Just to be clear, I am not a theist. I do not accept any religion.

I suspect you're lying for Jeezus, but I have no way of proving that.

So who was the designer?

And who designed the designer?

And who designed the designer who designed the designer?

ID is a recipe for an infinite regression of absurdity.


2.) Furthermore, yes Evolution is a political tool. When it was concived by Charles Darwin it really was a legit scientific theory. But it was discarded as new scientific evidence was found.What evidence is this?


The new Neo-Darwinian theory is nothing but a religion for fundamental atheists, like Richard Dawkins. His atheistic way of life has no meaning if the theory of Evolution is false, so he clings to it just like belivers in Christ or any other religion do.You're talking out of your ass. There is no "atheistic way of life". Atheism is nothing but a lack of belief in god/s.


3.) By your definition of evolution, yes, I must say, I do accept that what you say. But in no way, shape or form, do I accept an idea that we came from a rock 3.6 billion years ago. There is absolutly no evidence fort that claim.Evolutionary theory does not make that claim. Please learn about what Evolution actually is. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution) Yes, it's a Wikipedia article, but check out the citations, of which there are many.


4.) Yes there are Evolutionists, or Darwinists. If there are people who follow the ideas of Karl Marx and celebrate his birthday, than they are called Marxists. If some other people follow Darwins ideas and celebrate his birthday, than by all logic, they should be caled Darwinists.People who support evolutionary theory (what you call "Evolutionists") do not, as far as I know, celebrate Darwin's birthday anymore than they celebrate any other eminent scientist's birthday. By your definition, I am not an "Evolutionist" because I do not celebrate Darwin's birthday, yet I accept the claims of evolutionary theory.

Also, Marxists do not celebrate Marx's birthday as far as I know. Of course, any Marxists round here are free to correct me.

Also, evolutionary theory has moved beyond Darwin's discoveries, important as they were.


Is there evidence that living organisms and populations change? Yes, absolutly! But no, there is ZERO evidence that we came from a rock 3.6 billion years ago, and no I will not accept that faith.Again, that's not what evolution claims.


1.) ID has experimental evidence by Michael Behe, William Dembski and others. In the fields of design detection and molecular machinery. I can't post links untill i have 25 posts so you'll just have to wait.Oh, the waiting is killing me. :rolleyes:


2.) ID predicts that:

a.) High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures will be found.
b.) Forms will be found in the fossil record that appear suddenly and without any precursors.
c.) Genes and functional parts will be re-used in different unrelated organisms.
d.) The genetic code will NOT contain much discarded genetic baggage code or functionless "junk DNA".A) No irreducibly complex structure has been found.

B) The fossil record is incomplete, due to low likelyhood that any given organism will be fossilised, and the fact that we can't search the entirety of the earth's crust. Nevertheless the fossils that have been found are all related in some way.

C) This ignores convergent evolution. No matter what your ancestry, a fin or a wing is going to look pretty much the same.

D) "junk" DNA has been found in varying amounts in various different species.


3.) Show me a process in nature that creates information and you have falsified ID.Evolution seems to be pretty good at "creating information", whatever that's supposed to mean. Information is not the same as meaning, which is something that humans assign arbitrarily to things.


4.) Thank you for attacking the ID think tank. But I really have no interests in their political ideas or goals, I'm just interested in science they present, regardless of their position on politics, culture or religion.And I think you're a liar. You say you're a non-theist but go on about the "atheistic lifestyle" Whatever the fuck that is.


No, they reject it because they are either fundamental atheists or scared to lose their jobs if the accept ID. Furthermore, what does the majority know? Does the majority opinion equals truth?"Fundamental atheists"? You're coming out with a right parade of strawmen today aren't you? How many times does do you have to be told that the only tenet of atheism is a lack of belief in gods?

Further from your assumptions that scientists only support evolution to keep their jobs, the vast majority of biological scientists genuinely support evolution. (some of them are called Steve - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve)

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution (check out the citations)

But what's important about this majority level of support is that unlike the public, scientists know what the hell they're talking about - thus their opinion becomes more important than that of the average Joe.


Yes it does. There is a natural process that makes snowflakes. If there is a natural process for a snowflake, than there is no need to call it designed. Furthermore there is no CSI in a snowflake. It represents nothing. It carries no abstract information, thus this is a strawman.There is a natural process that creates the variety of living (and extinct) organisms that we see today. Yet I don't see you arguing for Intelligent snowflake formation.

How is a snowflake having a complex, consistent structure not constitute information? Words printed on a page represent nothing except what representation humans assign to it by common consensus.


It does not make any difference if they are or not. They are not the same, that is the point. Furthermore, yes they are independant. Are your ideas in any way connected with your brain? Of course they are not. Beacause they are not matter.My thought processes are not independant of matter. If I ingest some LSD, a material substance, then my thought process are effected in a roughly predictable way - therefore, my thought processes (or "ideas" if you will) are intimately bound up with my brain.

Similarly, if I were to run a powerful magnet over a hard drive, a physical the data within would become corrupted or erased.

I'm sorry, but vitalism is dead.


What is the fealing of a touch? If you touch a table with your hand, does the hand feal the table, or does the brain feal it? You are not touching the table with your brain that is for sure. So how can matter "feal" things anyway? It can't, that's the point. There is an immaterial part to the brain that makes it capable of fealing.The brain processes electrochemical signals recieved from sensors in the hand. Really, neuroscientists are studying this sort of thing as we speak. Look it up already.


Your brain is pure matter, yet it can still create information, even if it is garbage like you're currently posting.And if everything containing the information is destroyed, the data goes along with it. It has no existance independant of matter.


DNA translation exhibits CSI. And some enteties, like bacterial flagellum exhibit irreducible complexity (IC).You lot are still going on about the bacterial flagella? Hahaha. (http://www.asm.org/ASM/files/ccLibraryFiles/Filename/000000003179/znw00707000335.pdf)


Show me one evidence for evolution.I take it you've never visited a natural history museum, and slept through science classes.


1.) No it does not. Something may look designet but it does not have to be designed. We have to have relieable marks of design to say that it is designed. If we see CSI that has a chance of under 1:10(150) of being created by chance, we can conclude design. Natural process does not create information. Please show me where it does."Random chance" is not how evolution works.


2.) No snowflakes are not information. They do not mean anything. What do snowflakes mean? Nothing. You created an idea of a snowflake in your head. And that is information. A snowflake is a material object, and everytime you see it, you create an idea about it in your mind, thus creating information. But a snowflake by itself is not information, since id has no meaning by itself.A particular snowflake has no meaning in of itself, but information is not the same as meaning. By studying a snowflake I can reveal it has six-fold rotational symmetry and an intricate pattern. How is that not information?

As for the idea of the snowflake in my mind, that's a product of physical processes within my brain. Interfere with those processes (drugs, physical shocks etc) and you interfere with the "idea".

TL;DR: Damn, too slow.

[Bud Struggle]

You act remarkably immature on the internet, I hope you know.

Life is a party, my friend. For some reason I have a tendancy to reinvent the world I happen to be in at the moment. Nothing malicious, I assure you.

On the other Gene, hand I believe you walk around with your butt cheeks squeezed a bit too tight for your own good. :)

[ID-guy]

Why is it that intelligent design advocates always - without fail - build up a straw man and try to blow it over? I said quite specifically, "Information is an abstraction. It doesn't exist anymore than the concept of time." Information is an abstract concept. Like time. Like love even. It's just a means of simplifying the way with which senses communicate. The words I'm typing are real. The way with which my brain processes these words is real. The idea of information is just a product of chemical actions.1.) Time is real. If there was no time, you wouldn't exist now.

2.) Please explain to me how chemical reactions create ideas.


Meaning that is determined by electronic and chemical messages - in other words, material substance. Yes.No, the meaning is given by intelligence.


There is no evidence for a creator, either. At least the FSM doesn't have a stick up his ass when it comes to granting babies a proper birth.Actually the design is evidence of a designer.


Neither your things.So you are saying that design does not exist?


Relatively speaking.Great!


It wouldn't be scientific to tell me uncut diamonds were made by man. You're creating a different realm that can't be proven. Everything you said amounts to hypothesizing at best, and whimsical religious nonsense at worst.Now, now, let's take it slowly.

1.) Uncut diamonds are a strawman, beacuse nobody says the were designed. So that's a strawman.

2.) No, it doesn't amount to that. It amounts to pure logic. If you find CSI, than you found design. Design is only made by intelligence.

So I ask you again, why isn't it scientific to say that object X (anything that has marks of design) is designed?


Immaterial mind? Have you never heard of neuroscience? Your mind is entirely material. If every organism on Earth instantly died due to wide scale volcanism, the ideas we're throwing around right now go out with our bodies. Thoughts, ideas, emotions - these are all interactions of chemical and electrical receptors.If that is true, than explain to me how do chemicals and electric impulese create a fealing of touch.

[quope]Engineers can construct better physical models. They certainly do with six-limbed androids.[/quote]Good for them, not so good for you. Explain to me how does DNA support evolution.


There is no such thing as objectivity. All arguments are based on the presumption you and the other person share similar sensory methods. Perhaps my problem lies in the fact I'm arguing with lunatics...Numbers are objective. Your opinion if the number is large or not is subjective. The point is that design is objective. Either something is designed or it isn't. The is no third option. But your opinion of that design, wether you like it or not, is entierly subjective. And no it has nothing do do with the actual object being designed or not.

Wether you like the design or not, that doesn't change the objective fact, that if the object was designed, that it was designed.


The "picture" could be a berry squished on some hard surface for all you know. Monkeys have thrown their own fecal matter on paper before and won awards by famed art exhibits.Yes, and that doesn't change the fact that somebody, even monkies did it. If they did it, they designed it. And it remains an objective fact, wether you like teir fecal matter on paper or not.


CS is a tautology. It already presumes that evolution is wrong. Thus arguing against it is pointless.What!? CSI does not talk about evolution at all!? Explain yourself please.


CSI is a shitty show to start with. :DI agree. But that has nothing to do that you used a strawman...


No, they're not. The original products are designed. We're arguing evolution, not abiogenesis.Yes, the original products were designed, that is the case of ID, which makes the whole process non-random, and evolution is supposed to be random. Furthermore algorithms are non-random also, so the final product is a product of a design. A that design made them to change over time. A case of ID.

[Publius]

1.) Again, that is something that has to do with te Discovery institute itself.

Who do you think invented the term? Where did it originate?

If Evolution originated with Darwin, then ID originated with the DI.

So I guess that makes you a DI-ist, right?



That is their political view, and it has no connection with the scientific work of the scientists that are being funded by the same institute. So no I don't care about their political ideas if the science is good.But you DO care about Dawkins' politicals and beliefs?

Uh-huh. So you don't care about your sides political and social beliefs, but you blame the other side's errors on "atheism"?

Moron.



2.) No I'm not religious.

You should be. You exhibit the same muddle-headed nonsense as the average religious person, what with your insipid dualism, your unrepentant Platonism and your continued use of basic logical fallacies.



Yes I do, and why is it not a theory?It has no evidence to support it.



Ideas, that is, information is non material.Prove it.

Show me an immaterial idea.


Of course, we are living in a material world, so we present information by matter, but the information transends the matter.Prove it.

I'm not interested in hearing you spout off your opinions, I want you reasons.


Beacuse it has a meaning. A meaning that comes from the mind which is not material.But the mind is material. The mind is the brain. I should know, this is what I'm studying.



That's the point. This is a material worl, and if I show you any information, it has to be on matter! You are asking me to do impossible.Yes, and in the process I am proving you wrong, making you look foolish, etc.


But the point is that the information itself came from an immaterial cause.Prove it.


And that is the mind. Rocks are matter, brain is matter, yet rock don't create information, but brains do. That is beacuse there is a non material part to the brain that is called a mind.No, it's because a rock doesn't have the computational power a brain has.

A calculator is just matter, it has no mind, yet it can do math. Why? Because it's arranged that way. A rock isn't.

So your point is fatuous.



Oh really? Than why can't you exlain how natural porcess can create information?I can: through evolution.

Really through the brain.

There are numerous viable theories. Functionalism, connectionism, identity theory, etc. on how the brain creates and uses information.



Very adult like...

1.) Not a contradiction, just wrong usage of words.So you're being unclear. Not my fault.



2.) What does it take to prove it to you that there is a non material mind? Do you wan to SEE IT?I have no idea. The onus isn't on me to do your work for you.



1.) No it's not. Information is an idea. Ideas are not material. Can you touch an idea?Sure. If your brain is having an idea, and I touched your brain, I would touch that idea. Say that idea were localized in one sector (highly unlikely), then I could touch that part.

Now if you mean the IDEA ITSELF in a Platonic sense, no. But that's just confusion on your part. I can't touch Beethoven's 5th Symphony, but I can touch copies of it. But that doesn't mean that Beethoven's 5th is non-physical -- it most certainly is.



2.) Strawman. DVD is a carrier of information.False. A DVD is information.


It only represents information in a material world, but the information represented on that DVD was put there not by a material process, but by an intelligence.No, it was put there by a laser.

Do you know anything about how DVD's work?



Give proof othervise.Alright.

If ideas were not matter, then ideas could be shown to have an ontology distinct from matter.

Say, for example, the idea "love." If you destroyed every person on earth, this idea would no longer exist, ergo, it is based in human minds.

OR the fact that ideas can change. "Love", as an idea, has changed drastically in the last few hundred years. How? Because of physical changes in how people mate and court.

ALso, if I were to alter your brain, say with a hallucinagin, I would alter your mind, your ideas. You would start to perceive things that didn't actually exist.



Evolution can't design since it has no teleological capability to do so. Stop begging the question you idiot, it doesn't impress me.

"Your argument is wrong because mine is right."


Explain how can evolution design.

Why, explain.Through natural selection.

[ID-guy]

Yes there does.Explain why?


Exactly. And so ID is discareded.No there is evidence for ID. And they are CSI and IC systems.


A pattern must, by definition, be connected by the entity that exhibits it.

A pattern does not have a separate ontology from the entities that exhibit, a pattern just IS the entities that exhibit it.No, you do not understand what I'm saying.

Does the person of Tom Cruise have any logical connection with a blank peace of paper? No, it does not. He is a person, a separate object form a blank peace of paper. Now if somebody were to draw Tom Cruise on that peace of paper, the person of Tom Cruise, the object, still has no connection with the paper. Tom Cruise and the piece of paper were created independantly and have no connection to each other.

But if he is drawn on that piece of paper, that only means that the patter that represents Tom cruise is created, which means, designed using that peace of paper (and ink).

Now that is called an independantly given pattern.


Yes it does.

Mt. Rushmore has the logical relation of identity to the mountain in which it is carved.

Stop talking nonsense.Again wrong. Im not talking about the relationship between the mountain to itself! Im talking about Abe Lincoln and the mountain! What do they have in common? Nothing! What's the logical connection between them? None whatsoever.

If everything was left to nature his face should NOT be there! Yet his face is there! And even if we didn't see who made that, we know it was designed. Because that represents a part fo CSI which in an independantly given pattern.


No it isn't. Abraham Lincoln's face has long sense decayed and evaporated. What's carved on on the mountain is an etching that looks on vaguely like him.

It's not "the same" at all. For example, Lincoln's nose wasn't 20 feet long, wasn't made of granite, wasn't located in South Dakota, etc.That's not the point! The point is that somebody made the mountain look like Lincoln! The abstractly aranged the parts of the mountai to represent Lincolns face. That is a mark of design.


Yeah, we carved it a few dozen years ago.

No shit -- we designed it.Exactly, it was designed. So when you see something that has similar features in other parts of universe it is logical to say that they were designed also!


No we don't.Yes we do. We find it in DNA. What is thge connection between TCAG nucleic acids and proteins? None! There is no connection. Yet when they are put in a process of DNA translation they form proteins! That's CSI, beacuse DNA is just an abstract genetic code that represents proteins!


In what way is DNA like computer code? How are they at all similar?

Read this:I read the text but it does not explain why the DNA is not a code. Instead it makes insults. Can you please quote the parts that you think are relevant?


No, it isn't.

Digital, in this context, means binary. Digital ('having to do with digits') in the context of computer code means that the code is binary in nature -- that's how it interacts at the assembly level.

The human genome is nothing like that -- it's quanary, I guess you'd say.No, digital means that is in digits. It means that it has states. Yes computer code has 2 digit base, and DNA code has a 4 digit base. What's you point, that DNA is not a code because it's not using 2 bases? It could have used 8 or 16 bases for god's sake and it would still be a code. It doesn't matter how many bases you use! It's still a code!


No they are not.

If you have no proteins or regulations (and thus no living organisms) you have none of the base pairs.[quote]Only in living organisms, you have got none of that in nature, outside of living things.

[quote]So the TCAG nucleic acids are LOGICALLY DEPENDENT ON proteins and the regulations in a living organism, proving my point.Only in living organisms! Not in nature! If you want to have a living organism than yes, you need nucleic acid. But proteins have no connection with nucleic acid IN NATURE!

Do you find nucleic acid in nature? Sure you do! Do you find proteins in nature, that are not in living cells? No, you do not! A nucleic acid has nothing to do with proteins on its own! And no it can not become a protein if it is not translated by ribosome that creates proteins by amino acids.

Nucleic acid has nothing to do with proteins in nature.


Yet thru the process of DNA translation the TCAG nucleic acids code for either proteins or regulate other precesses in a living organism. That is a mark of information, in this case CSI.Exactly, and where in NATURE do you see that happening EXCEPT in living organisms?


Begging the question.

"We" don't know that, "you" just assume it.

Prove it.No, you need to prove that something else can. I don't have to prove a negative statement. By that logic you would have to prove that a floating tea pot does not exist in earth orbit. Prove to me that natural forces create information.


Bullshit.

Natural selection can just as easily account for this. In fact, more easily sense it's backed up by data and doesn't posit entities unecessarily.No it can't. Show me where it did something like that.


I know the difference. You don't have to tell me.

Natural selection can do just that. The environment acts like the planning agent and gives rise to teleology in its productions, ie, in us.No it doesn't. What does nature plan? It plan's nothing. Natural selection only selects what there is to select. It doesn't choose willingly, it chooses randomly! You can't get design by random selection.


False. By YOUR logic we can conclude that, but your logic isn't any logic at all.Why is it false?

[RevMARKSman]

The second part is the funny part, but I'll post both just in case...
http://youtube.com/watch?v=U3PnKswZtPI
http://youtube.com/watch?v=924Nz5WPxcQ


and DNA code has a 4 digit base. What's you point, that DNA is not a code because it's not using 2 bases? It could have used 8 or 16 bases for god's sake and it would still be a code. It doesn't matter how many bases you use! It's still a code!

Cytosine, adenine, guanine and thymine are not "digits." They're chemicals. Just because we don't know exactly what reaction in mRNA takes place, doesn't mean there must be an "intelligence" involved.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/10/Cytosine_chemical_structure.png/448px-Cytosine_chemical_structure.png

By the way, how exactly do you define "intelligence"?

[ID-guy]

You're welcome and fuck off.Thanks, you too! :D


ID is creationism.Proove it.


So what are you, then? A deist? A pantheist?

Please tell me what this intelligent designer is like. That's a necessary component of a scientific theory -- explaining the mechanism.1.) I don't like to label myself with anything. But I'd go with a Deist...

2.) a.) No, only for a materialistic theory is it important. You can not ape a teleological theory into materialistic thinking of methodological naturalism.

b.) I can't say that, because with ID I'm detecting design, not the designer. You can't say who is a designer by observing design. But than again you don't need to know the designer in order to detect design.


False. Intelligent Design is often used a political tool by republican cretins, but not evolution.I will not deny that ID can be used as a political tool, but so can evolution, and it is. Richard Dawkins is a prime example.


Bullshit speculation. You can't prove any of this. Furthermore there are numerous religious people who don't accept ID and in fact fully embrace evolution.1.) You do know that Dawkins is out to destreoy religion, don't you?

2.) That's beacause they have no idea what hteire talikng about.


You're right, there's no evidence for the claim that, 3.6 billion years ago, a rock made us.

Whew.Than why do you believe it?


They don't "follow Darwinian ideas". A lot of Darwin's ideas were wrong. They use some of his basic theories and terminology, but they don't follow his creed, as Marxians do.They still follow the core idea, that is of the common descent and randomness. Yes, they are Darwinists...


Strawman. No evolutionist believes we "came from a rock 3.6 billion years ago."

What we believe is that we evolved up from single-celled organisms. We don't have take this on faith, but on evidence.Oh, really now! :laugh:

1.) What did this "single celled organism" came from?

2.) Show me the evidence...




Trust me, I've seen the "evidence". It's bullshit.Explain why.


First of all they can't even properly define irreducibly complex in a meaingful way.

And nothing like this has ever been found.1.) It means that if you lose one part of the system, the system looses its original function.

2.) Bacterial flagellum. Explain, why not.


False. The fossil record is very consistent.Have you ver heard of the Cambrian Explosion? How about the Avalon explosion?


This is actually a prediction of evolution.Good for you!


This is a total misunderstanding of the idea of "junk DNA."Explain why.


Evolution.

That was easy.OK, now show me the evidence.


They aren't a scientific institution, are they?They are a center for science and culture. So yes the are both scientific and cultural institution.


Show me one immaterial idea. Ooops, you'll have do that via your COMPUTER, which is physical, coming up with something from a BOOK or a BRAIN which are also physical. You don't get it do you? It's like asking me: "Show me a light in the dark!" It can't be done ok? It's a logical fallacy! We are living in a material world, and I CAN NOT show you an immaterial idea!

I can only show you matter that represents information, that is, the idea, created by our immaterial mind! Can you touch an idea!? Can yopu move an idea? Can you turn an idea around and rotate it? No you cant, beacuse it does not have physical properties! And it doesn't have them because it's not matter!


Yes it does. Order is form, and form IS information.No form does not equal information. Snowflake has a form yet id does not have any information.


Intelligence isn't non-material: see, the human brain.

Prove to me there exist non-material intelligences.1.) Can matter have free will? No it can't! Do people have free will? Yes we do. Do computers process information and execute commands? Yes they do. But can the create self-commands? No they can't. They can only execute what commands the have been given. Matter does not THINK for itself.

But guess what, people have the abillity to create self-commands. We can command ourselves to do tasks that we want. Thus showing you that our brain has an immaterial part that makes us do that. If it was just matter that we could not THINK, we could only process information, like computers do.


But there are more theistic evolutionists then there are IDers. Numerous religious individuals completely reject ID and accept Darwinian evolution.Majority opinion = truth?


In some instances. For example, the majority belief the earth is round. Also, the earth is round.Oh, I see. So when the mojority believed the it was flat, it was flat? Goo one! :D


But it was designed, by that natural process.It wasn't designed because there was no teleological force used. You need teleology to design. A snowflake is a simple product of natural processes.


Of course it carries "abstract" information. That's what "abstract" information means. I could take a picture of that snowflake and make it a letter in a language. Then it would become information.1.) What information does a snowflake carry.

2.) Yes, you would make that. But you would be making information than with your mind. Thus you would than be an intelligent agent making CSI, not the snowflake of the picture itself.


You're just asserting this, you're not proving it.

We all know you're a deluded dualist, but please prove to me that the brain cannot feel. My brain feels just fine. Maybe yours is broken.How can matter feel?


Exactly. The brain, which is pure matter, can produce information. Thanks.Than explain how. And explain or capability of creating self-commands which computers can't do.


Endogenous retroviruses.Explain please...

[ID-guy]

I suspect you're lying for Jeezus, but I have no way of proving that.

So who was the designer?

And who designed the designer?

And who designed the designer who designed the designer?

ID is a recipe for an infinite regression of absurdity.1.) Well you suspect wrong.

2.) ID is not about finding who the designer is.

3.) Again, not the part of ID. Nobody know that the designer had to be designed. If I asked you who designed a computer, and you said a person, and I asked you, well where did the person come from, and you would say, I don't know, would that invalidate your claim that a person designed a computer?


What evidence is this?Different genes for same homologous structures.


You're talking out of your ass. There is no "atheistic way of life". Atheism is nothing but a lack of belief in god/s.No, it is a belief in evolution. You got no logical ground for Atheism if you do not believe in evolution. Show me one atheist that does not believe in evolution.


Evolutionary theory does not make that claim. Please learn about what Evolution actually is. Yes, it's a Wikipedia article, but check out the citations, of which there are many.I already know thank you. What do you belive, where did we come from?


People who support evolutionary theory (what you call "Evolutionists") do not, as far as I know, celebrate Darwin's birthday anymore than they celebrate any other eminent scientist's birthday. By your definition, I am not an "Evolutionist" because I do not celebrate Darwin's birthday, yet I accept the claims of evolutionary theory.

Also, Marxists do not celebrate Marx's birthday as far as I know. Of course, any Marxists round here are free to correct me.

Also, evolutionary theory has moved beyond Darwin's discoveries, important as they were.Google "Darwin day"...


Again, that's not what evolution claims.Than where did we come from?


A) No irreducibly complex structure has been found.

B) The fossil record is incomplete, due to low likelyhood that any given organism will be fossilised, and the fact that we can't search the entirety of the earth's crust. Nevertheless the fossils that have been found are all related in some way.

C) This ignores convergent evolution. No matter what your ancestry, a fin or a wing is going to look pretty much the same.

D) "junk" DNA has been found in varying amounts in various different speciesa.) Bacterial flagellum.

b.) Explain how are they "related"

c.) Convergent evolution makes evolution unfalsifiable. Basicly you can find a rabbit in a Cambrian period and say that it's just a proof of convergent evolution.

d.) Yes, and the more we know about it, the more we find it's not "junk".


Evolution seems to be pretty good at "creating information", whatever that's supposed to mean. Information is not the same as meaning, which is something that humans assign arbitrarily to things.1.) Where does evolution create information?

2.) Meaning is part of information, it is the semantic part.


And I think you're a liar. You say you're a non-theist but go on about the "atheistic lifestyle" Whatever the fuck that is.Well you are wrong again. Not my fault...


"Fundamental atheists"? You're coming out with a right parade of strawmen today aren't you? How many times does do you have to be told that the only tenet of atheism is a lack of belief in gods?

Further from your assumptions that scientists only support evolution to keep their jobs, the vast majority of biological scientists genuinely support evolution. (some of them are called Steve -

See: (check out the citations)

But what's important about this majority level of support is that unlike the public, scientists know what the hell they're talking about - thus their opinion becomes more important than that of the average Joe.1.) No, it is not. It is belief in evolution. Show me one atheist that does not believe in evolution.

2.) I know project Steve. How does that proove that scientists do not get fiered for rejecting evolution?

3.) Again, I don't care about what the majority thinks...

4.) Yet, they could still be wrong, right?


There is a natural process that creates the variety of living (and extinct) organisms that we see today. Yet I don't see you arguing for Intelligent snowflake formation.

How is a snowflake having a complex, consistent structure not constitute information? Words printed on a page represent nothing except what representation humans assign to it by common consensus.1.) Show me that process.

2.) Snowflakes are not carry abstract information.

3.) Yes, exactly, and a snowflake has none of that...


My thought processes are not independant of matter. If I ingest some LSD, a material substance, then my thought process are effected in a roughly predictable way - therefore, my thought processes (or "ideas" if you will) are intimately bound up with my brain.

Similarly, if I were to run a powerful magnet over a hard drive, a physical the data within would become corrupted or erased.

I'm sorry, but vitalism is dead.No, that is just you processes being modified by foreign substance. You did not affect your mind. Youst your brain. So the same ideas that your mind creates, have a different outcome because of your brain.


The brain processes electrochemical signals recieved from sensors in the hand. Really, neuroscientists are studying this sort of thing as we speak. Look it up already.I know that, but how does a signal create a feeling? Can you touch a feling?


And if everything containing the information is destroyed, the data goes along with it. It has no existance independant of matter.You how do you know your ideas dissapear. They are not in the brain, that's for sure, but how do you know they are destroyed?


You lot are still going on about the bacterial flagella? Hahaha.Sorry, I saw no proof of evolution of the flagellum. The TTSS used as a previous form of flagellum is actually younger than the flagellum by all estimates, so it couldn't have evolved from it.

Furthermore, where does it say how many mutations was it needed to evolve from TTSS to a flagellum? If they were statistically impossible, than you can't say it evolved.


I take it you've never visited a natural history museum, and slept through science classes.Answer my question.


"Random chance" is not how evolution works.Than how does it work.


A particular snowflake has no meaning in of itself, but information is not the same as meaning. By studying a snowflake I can reveal it has six-fold rotational symmetry and an intricate pattern. How is that not information?

As for the idea of the snowflake in my mind, that's a product of physical processes within my brain. Interfere with those processes (drugs, physical shocks etc) and you interfere with the "idea".

TL;DR: Damn, too slow.1.) Meaning is the semantics of information, syntx being the structure. Remember that.

2.) By learning about the snowflake YOU are the one creating information ABOUT the snowflake in your mind. That's information. Not the snowflake.

3.) Again, you didi not show how pure matter creates immaterial ideas. Ideas can not be touched, and can not be seen. They are not matter.

[ID-guy]

Who do you think invented the term? Where did it originate?

If Evolution originated with Darwin, then ID originated with the DI.

So I guess that makes you a DI-ist, right?No, because I'm not a member of DI.


But you DO care about Dawkins' politicals and beliefs?

Uh-huh. So you don't care about your sides political and social beliefs, but you blame the other side's errors on "atheism"?1.) Not one bit...

2.) No I just say that he is a fundamental atheist, that's all.


Moron.LOL, no, that's you! :D


You should be. You exhibit the same muddle-headed nonsense as the average religious person, what with your insipid dualism, your unrepentant Platonism and your continued use of basic logical fallacies.Ad hominem galore...


It has no evidence to support it.It has, you just don't want to accept it.


Prove it.

Show me an immaterial idea.Show me a light in the dark. That is the same thing you are asking me.


Prove it.

I'm not interested in hearing you spout off your opinions, I want you reasons.I told you already. Matter can't create ideas. Beacuse matter does not think. A rock does not think. Can you show me how matter thinks? NO you can't. That mean' that there is an immaterial mind that creates ideas. That's pure logic.


But the mind is material. The mind is the brain. I should know, this is what I'm studying.Well you should quit, you ain't good at it. Show me how pure matter creates feelings.


Yes, and in the process I am proving you wrong, making you look foolish, etc.NO YOU ARE MAKING A LOGICAL FALLACY! Can I show you a light in complete darkness!?


Prove it.Again, just for you. Information came from the mind. And we only know that it comes from the mind. Since everything else around us in material, and we know that it cant create information, we conclude that mind is immaterial.

If you can show how pure matter creates feeling, than you are right, if not, im right.


No, it's because a rock doesn't have the computational power a brain has.

A calculator is just matter, it has no mind, yet it can do math. Why? Because it's arranged that way. A rock isn't.

So your point is fatuous.1.) Does a computer have a computational power of a brain?

2.) Oh a calc can process information!? Great! But can it create information?


I can: through evolution.

Really through the brain.

There are numerous viable theories. Functionalism, connectionism, identity theory, etc. on how the brain creates and uses information.Well give me one example.


I have no idea. The onus isn't on me to do your work for you.You have to tell me what to you see as proof.


Sure. If your brain is having an idea, and I touched your brain, I would touch that idea. Say that idea were localized in one sector (highly unlikely), then I could touch that part.

Now if you mean the IDEA ITSELF in a Platonic sense, no. But that's just confusion on your part. I can't touch Beethoven's 5th Symphony, but I can touch copies of it. But that doesn't mean that Beethoven's 5th is non-physical -- it most certainly is.Well that's my point! You can't touch ideas! You can't touch and idea of a car, or an apple, you're just touching a brain, not the idea! Thus the ideas are immaterial.


False. A DVD is information.No it is not. A DVD by itself has no meaning. Holes on the DVD have no meaning. The holes on the DVD represent information. They represent something that somebody has aranged to represent.


No, it was put there by a laser.

Do you know anything about how DVD's work?LOL! Laser was the tool that was used in the process! Who the hell do you think directed the process!? Where do you think the ultimate source is for the whole process? The human intelligence ofcourse! Geez! :D


Alright.

If ideas were not matter, then ideas could be shown to have an ontology distinct from matter.

Say, for example, the idea "love." If you destroyed every person on earth, this idea would no longer exist, ergo, it is based in human minds.

OR the fact that ideas can change. "Love", as an idea, has changed drastically in the last few hundred years. How? Because of physical changes in how people mate and court.

ALso, if I were to alter your brain, say with a hallucinagin, I would alter your mind, your ideas. You would start to perceive things that didn't actually exist.1.) That just means you killed everybody, not that you changed the idea of love...

2.) No, you would not change the mind, you would just change the way the brain outputs the information.


Stop begging the question you idiot, it doesn't impress me.

"Your argument is wrong because mine is right."Do ou even know what design is? Design is a conscious arrangements of parts. Where is the conscious par in evolution?


Through natural selection.Explain how.

[ID-guy]

The second part is the funny part, but I'll post both just in case...Yes, very funny thank you...


Cytosine, adenine, guanine and thymine are not "digits." They're chemicals. Just because we don't know exactly what reaction in mRNA takes place, doesn't mean there must be an "intelligence" involved.1.) Um, yes they are. They represent digit bases in a DNA double helix. Anything could be used to represent digits. Bricks, stones, chemicals, ink etc. In this case we have TCAG nucleic acids.

2.) We know happens during DNA translation. I'm not saying that theire is intelligence involved in that process I'm saying that intelligence created that process in the first place.


By the way, how exactly do you define "intelligence"?An ability to create and modify information.

[apathy maybe]

I'll jump in and say,

Atheists are people who don't believe in a god or gods. By definition they don't have to be materialists as such (or believe in evolution). Of course, most atheists reject god/s out of a thought out process, and similarly accept evolution through the same process. They aren't tied to evolution though, and if a better theory came along, they would support it. Much in the same way that people jumped ship from Newton's theory of gravity, and moved to Einstein's.

Of course, when we talk about evolution, we are talking about something that is very broad, with actually a few different theories in it (but all sharing the same basic features).

The great thing about evolution, is that we can prove that it is happening. Just get a bunch of fruit flies, breed them for some generations in a slightly colder environment then normal, and watch as they adapt. Evolution is a scientific theory because it can be tested.

Can we test "ID"?

[ID-guy]

I'll jump in and say,

Atheists are people who don't believe in a god or gods. By definition they don't have to be materialists as such (or believe in evolution). Of course, most atheists reject god/s out of a thought out process, and similarly accept evolution through the same process. They aren't tied to evolution though, and if a better theory came along, they would support it. Much in the same way that people jumped ship from Newton's theory of gravity, and moved to Einstein's.The point is that if you don't believe in evolution you have no logical ground for your atheism. If you don't believe that somebody created us, and you don't believe we evolved, than what do you believe? I mean, as an atheis you either take evolution, or you can't be an atheist.


Of course, when we talk about evolution, we are talking about something that is very broad, with actually a few different theories in it (but all sharing the same basic features).

The great thing about evolution, is that we can prove that it is happening. Just get a bunch of fruit flies, breed them for some generations in a slightly colder environment then normal, and watch as they adapt. Evolution is a scientific theory because it can be tested.Oh, I'm sure that it's happening. I'm sure that living things adapt to their enviroment. But no, I do not believe we came from a single cell 3.6 billion years ago.


Can we test "ID"?Yes, you can search for IC or CSI structures in living organisms.

[jake williams]

Look, we know random gene mutations occur. We know that gene mutations affect the development of the organism. We know that changes in an organism can differentiate its ability to survive and reproduce - a change in an organism can be basically neutral, but it can also be harmful or beneficial. And just logically, if some organisms are better at surviving and reproducing, and some are worse, the better ones will spread their genes more and the worse off ones will do it less. So you have a spread of genes that make an organism better at surviving. That's called evolution. By combining very elementary logic - "organisms that are good at reproducing reproduce more" is a tautology - with genetics, which is certainly a science, we can predict that evolution of some sort will definitely occur, given some assumptions about the natural properties of the organisms and so on. So we know it happens, and in very tiny amounts (evolution tends to show real changes on scales of hundreds of thousands or millions of years, but we've only been talking about it for less than two hundred years) we've even observed it.

Note: it's a different question what the entire genetic and life history of all life on earth is. Evolution provides a basically perfect, and certainly sufficient, explanation for it. Moreover, the observations of virtually every legitimate scientist to have studied it confirm the idea that evolution is what led to the organisms we see now, for their entire history since the genesis of protein (a slightly different phenomenon).

Is an "intelligent designer" plausible? Not really. Possible? Yes. If it was "intelligent" then it would have to have been aware, however, that it was setting up an elaborate scam that certainly made it look like evolution was the only meaningful process acting on the history of species. That would be strange.

And here's is something that the general anti-science/theist/religionist/"intelligent design" camp doesn't generally understand. Evolution provides a very good explanation, the best. "Intelligent design" provides a possible explanation (at least some of its incarnations), but there's no suggestion that it's actually true.

By parable: suppose I get home from a walk. My mother is upstairs. I walk into the kitchen, and on the counter is a half-eaten bag of chips. I know my mother had been out to get groceries, and it's not unusual for her to buy chips. Since it's a Friday, she's tired from the week, and when she's in that sort of mood, she often eats these sorts of foods. Further, she tends to leave things out on the counter. The "theory" that my mom went out, bought herself some chips, ate some, and left the rest in the bag on the counter makes perfect sense. It accords with everything I know. Do I know everything about the process of her eating chips? No. Do I know where she got the money to buy the chips, or what store she went to? No, it doesn't matter though.

Now. Suppose someone told me "Actually, it wasn't your mother that ate those chips and left them on your counter. An alien made a half-eaten bag of chips in his Matter Synthesizer in his spaceship, broke into your house, left them on your counter, left your house, fixed the wall with his UFO's Magic Beam, and then left back to Zargon". They provide no evidence that this actually occurred, at all. Nothing suggests this alien. Is it possible? Why wouldn't it be possible? But should I believe it? Absolutely not, especially when I have a perfectly sensible theory that explains everything I actually observed.

[Bud Struggle]

An ability to create and modify information.

Well said.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Well this will be solved through a conflict between the religious community and pseudo science against the scientific community and real science.

I wonder which will come out on top...lol.

[ID-guy]

Look, we know random gene mutations occur. We know that gene mutations affect the development of the organism. We know that changes in an organism can differentiate its ability to survive and reproduce - a change in an organism can be basically neutral, but it can also be harmful or beneficial. And just logically, if some organisms are better at surviving and reproducing, and some are worse, the better ones will spread their genes more and the worse off ones will do it less. So you have a spread of genes that make an organism better at surviving. That's called evolution. By combining very elementary logic - "organisms that are good at reproducing reproduce more" is a tautology - with genetics, which is certainly a science, we can predict that evolution of some sort will definitely occur, given some assumptions about the natural properties of the organisms and so on. So we know it happens, and in very tiny amounts (evolution tends to show real changes on scales of hundreds of thousands or millions of years, but we've only been talking about it for less than two hundred years) we've even observed it.I don't dispute any of this.


Note: it's a different question what the entire genetic and life history of all life on earth is. Evolution provides a basically perfect, and certainly sufficient, explanation for it. Moreover, the observations of virtually every legitimate scientist to have studied it confirm the idea that evolution is what led to the organisms we see now, for their entire history since the genesis of protein (a slightly different phenomenon).This is where you go out of science and into religion. You have no proof that we ALL came from a common ancestor 3.6 billion years ago. Just speculations.

And not it is not a suficient explanation. There has never observed an evolution of molecular machinery. And you need new molecular machinery for new functions. You can't constantly change old ones and get completly new ones. Yes you can modify old ones, but not to get completly new ones. You can't modify one cell to become a human in 3.6 billion years. Since you have no proof evolution can create molecular machinery.

Furthermore there is a limit to what evolution can do. Michael Behe tested plasmodium falciparum (malaria virus) and concluded that it changed very little. It was able to get CRQ (cloroquine resistance) in 1:10(20) chance. And that's just 2 mutations. So basicly you can't get more than 2 positive mutations because it isn't statisticaly possible in a population of that amount. And p. falciparums have a high rate of mutations. Equaled to millions of years in humans. Humans have 3 billion base pairs of DNA, so with just 2 mutations being the limit, you can't really expect to get the difference from the "ape man" in few million years. Chimps have about 96 tp 97% same DNA as we doo. There was no time to change that much DNA.


Is an "intelligent designer" plausible? Not really. Possible? Yes. If it was "intelligent" then it would have to have been aware, however, that it was setting up an elaborate scam that certainly made it look like evolution was the only meaningful process acting on the history of species. That would be strange.Explain why.


And here's is something that the general anti-science/theist/religionist/"intelligent design" camp doesn't generally understand. Evolution provides a very good explanation, the best. "Intelligent design" provides a possible explanation (at least some of its incarnations), but there's no suggestion that it's actually true.What is so great that evolution tells us?


By parable: suppose I get home from a walk. My mother is upstairs. I walk into the kitchen, and on the counter is a half-eaten bag of chips. I know my mother had been out to get groceries, and it's not unusual for her to buy chips. Since it's a Friday, she's tired from the week, and when she's in that sort of mood, she often eats these sorts of foods. Further, she tends to leave things out on the counter. The "theory" that my mom went out, bought herself some chips, ate some, and left the rest in the bag on the counter makes perfect sense. It accords with everything I know. Do I know everything about the process of her eating chips? No. Do I know where she got the money to buy the chips, or what store she went to? No, it doesn't matter though.That's a clear case of design detection. In this case, your mother was an intelligent agent.


Now. Suppose someone told me "Actually, it wasn't your mother that ate those chips and left them on your counter. An alien made a half-eaten bag of chips in his Matter Synthesizer in his spaceship, broke into your house, left them on your counter, left your house, fixed the wall with his UFO's Magic Beam, and then left back to Zargon". They provide no evidence that this actually occurred, at all. Nothing suggests this alien. Is it possible? Why wouldn't it be possible? But should I believe it? Absolutely not, especially when I have a perfectly sensible theory that explains everything I actually observed.Well ID is not doing that. ID is not saying who the designer is. It is not saying that, beacuse it can't. And it doesn't need to. All that is saying is that an intelligent agent was involved.

[ID-guy]

Well this will be solved through a conflict between the religious community and pseudo science against the scientific community and real science.

I wonder which will come out on top...lol.Evolution is not science. They have no proof. They just assert things. It is a religion in randomness and a lot of time. With that two ingredients, you can make everything! Or so the evolutionists believe...

[bcbm]

The idea does not exist in the material world anyway. Please explain to me how electrons create ideas. You can't, beacause ideas are not matter.Ideas are formed via electrons and chemicals in your brain. They exist in the material world because they exist only in your brain. When your brain stops, ideas stop. People who are braindead but still alive do not have "ideas," they are incapable of all thought, because it is the brain that forms them.


Yes that is right. But who, and how feals the sense of "touch". How does pure matter do it?Interpreting electrical impulses. I'm not sure what you're suggesting is there that interprets it, be specific.


Can you show me a case of natural forces creating design?The evolutionary processes that created DNA and larger lifeforms.

What do you define as design?


Explain why.Because all of the "order" and design you're so fond of breaks down completely.


Evolution is not science. They have no proof. They just assert things.

What do they assert and how is it wrong? Please support with proof.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Evolution is not science. They have no proof. They just assert things. It is a religion in randomness and a lot of time. With that two ingredients, you can make everything! Or so the evolutionists believe...

Of course it is a science.

But you are obviously new to science or you are naive of it.

Proof is very hard to acquire, instead science puts a theory forward and seeks to test it in the hope of disproving it, or verifying some of the theories predictions.

So far, the evidence suggests to a very high degree that the theory is correct. the predictions constantly match newly uncovered findings.

the scientific community overwhelmingly are convinced that evolution theory stands head and shoulders above other explanations. If it did not, they would abandon evolution theory.

utra dawinism is akin to a religion because it attempts to explain far more than the general development of life over time, which is wrong i agree. but for explaining the general development of life over time, evolution it is the best explanation.

ID got left behind because it cannot produce as strong set of test results as evolution, its not political, just the hard truth.

[ID-guy]

Ideas are formed via electrons and chemicals in your brain. They exist in the material world because they exist only in your brain. When your brain stops, ideas stop. People who are braindead but still alive do not have "ideas," they are incapable of all thought, because it is the brain that forms them.1.) OK, so what does an idea look like?

2.) No they don't have ideas because their mind can't produce ideas in the material world without the brain.


Interpreting electrical impulses. I'm not sure what you're suggesting is there that interprets it, be specific.No, electrical impulses are electrical impulses, they are not the touch. How do we feel electrical impulses as touch?


The evolutionary processes that created DNA and larger lifeforms.

What do you define as design?1.) Do you have ani proof of that?

2.) Design is meaningful arrangement of parts.


Because all of the "order" and design you're so fond of breaks down completely.Explain why.


What do they assert and how is it wrong? Please support with proof.That's easy. Evolutionists say that we came from a cell 3.6 billion years ago. There is no proof of that.

[apathy maybe]

The point is that if you don't believe in evolution you have no logical ground for your atheism. If you don't believe that somebody created us, and you don't believe we evolved, than what do you believe? I mean, as an atheis you either take evolution, or you can't be an atheist.
Why not? Why stops an atheist from believing that everything around us spontaneously came into existence two weeks ago? Oh right, fuck all. And there are a lot of good arguments (better then for ID, that's for sure...), that everything did spontaneously 'pop' into existence two weeks ago. Of course, there is no actual evidence, but that doesn't matter, it is still a plausible theory. (Oh, and I notice you ignore my point about Newton and Einstein.)


Oh, I'm sure that it's happening. I'm sure that living things adapt to their enviroment. But no, I do not believe we came from a single cell 3.6 billion years ago.So you admit that evolution happens, but you dispute that we all "came from a single cell 3.6 billion years ago". Evolution doesn't require such a thing you know... Theoretically, we could all have come from multiple single cells that spontaneously (the interaction between organic chemicals and electricity) came into being.

But more to the point, the beginning doesn't matter! Evolution is a process that we can prove (for a given definition of proof, not the mathematical one), happens. Adoption over generations is evolution. If you say that it doesn't happen (and you admitted it does), then you are ignoring proof (something which you seem to love...).


Yes, you can search for IC or CSI structures in living organisms.
I'm not a scientist, and I don't know what IC or CSI structures are. But I do know, using simple common (though it doesn't seem that common around you...) sense to say that it proves fuck all for ID. Fuck all.

And, by continuing to argue that ID is a scientific theory, you show your ignorance of what science actually is. But enjoy your ignorance, I won't be back as I've got other things to do.

[ID-guy]

Of course it is a science.

But you are obviously new to science or you are naive of it.

Proof is very hard to acquire, instead science puts a theory forward and seeks to test it in the hope of disproving it, or verifying some of the theories predictions.

So far, the evidence suggests to a very high degree that the theory is correct. the predictions constantly match newly uncovered findings.Tell me what is there to support the idea of us coming from a single cell 3.6 billion years ago?


the scientific community overwhelmingly are convinced that evolution theory stands head and shoulders above other explanations. If it did not, they would abandon evolution theory.No, they wouldn't. Richard Dawkins is a prime example.


utra dawinism is akin to a religion because it attempts to explain far more than the general development of life over time, which is wrong i agree. but for explaining the general development of life over time, evolution it is the best explanation. Well that is my point also. Of course there is "evolution" in a sense that living organisms change over time. There is evidence for that.

But there is no evidence for such ideas as common ancestor of all life on Earth!


ID got left behind because it cannot produce as strong set of test results as evolution, its not political, just the hard truth.There are results. The other side just doesn't want to see them.

[ID-guy]

Why not? Why stops an atheist from believing that everything around us spontaneously came into existence two weeks ago? Oh right, fuck all. And there are a lot of good arguments (better then for ID, that's for sure...), that everything did spontaneously 'pop' into existence two weeks ago. Of course, there is no actual evidence, but that doesn't matter, it is still a plausible theory. (Oh, and I notice you ignore my point about Newton and Einstein.)1.) So what is your basic argument for atheism if you don't accept evolution?

2.) What point about Einstein and Newton?


So you admit that evolution happens, but you dispute that we all "came from a single cell 3.6 billion years ago". Evolution doesn't require such a thing you know... Theoretically, we could all have come from multiple single cells that spontaneously (the interaction between organic chemicals and electricity) came into being. But the problem is that there is no evidence for that!


I'm not a scientist, and I don't know what IC or CSI structures are. But I do know, using simple common (though it doesn't seem that common around you...) sense to say that it proves fuck all for ID. Fuck all.

And, by continuing to argue that ID is a scientific theory, you show your ignorance of what science actually is. But enjoy your ignorance, I won't be back as I've got other things to do.1.) CSI - Complex Specified Information
IC - Irreducible Complexity

It proves design...

2.) Well fine than, tell me, what is science if ID is not it?

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Tell me what is there to support the idea of us coming from a single cell 3.6 billion years ago?

I believe they are still in the process of explaining this.


No, they wouldn't. Richard Dawkins is a prime example.

okay, but that kind of is your word against the previous generations of scientists who have accepted their theories were wrong.



But there is no evidence for such ideas as common ancestor of all life on Earth!
maybe not yet.


There are results. The other side just doesn't want to see them.

is it just evolutionary biologists who fail to uphold the scientific method and drop incorrect theories or does this extend to the wider scientific community?

unless it is the latter, you are looking like a representative of a small bitter and uninfluential group of pseudo scientists.

[ID-guy]

I believe they are still in the process of explaining this.Than why do they say that it's a fact?


okay, but that kind of is your word against the previous generations of scientists who have accepted their theories were wrong.I don't understand this...


maybe not yet.Than they shouldn't call it a fact.


is it just evolutionary biologists who fail to uphold the scientific method and drop incorrect theories or does this extend to the wider scientific community?

unless it is the latter, you are looking like a representative of a small bitter and uninfluential group of pseudo scientists.It's obvious that a lot of science is deluted these days by methodological naturalism, so yeah, it's a wider range...

[Dystisis]

The phrase "intelligent design" is incredibly stupid.

The material conditions today is a result of all the stuff that has happened previously. Things change over time. Is it really that hard to grasp?

Evolution can be perplexing and beautiful. I see it as sort of a universal quest for perfection, towards that of a perfect circle. This "intelligent design" rubbish does not compare to that.

[bcbm]

1.) OK, so what does an idea look like?

A bunch of chemicals mixing, and firing electrons in your brain.


2.) No they don't have ideas because their mind can't produce ideas in the material world without the brain.

You're positing that the mind exists independently of the brain and outside of the material world, but needs the brain to produce ideas? Why not cut out the middle man? :rolleyes:


No, electrical impulses are electrical impulses, they are not the touch. How do we feel electrical impulses as touch?

The brain interprets them which produces the sensation of touch.


1.) Do you have ani proof of that?

Yes. The fossil record, the work of various biologists in evolving creatures with short life cycles, etc.


2.) Design is meaningful arrangement of parts.

Do bees possess intelligence?


Explain why.

The basic laws that apply (Newton) no longer apply, particles become subjective- that is, they change based on how they are observed and seem to occupy multiple spaces at once... a variety of things. Look up Quantum Physics.


That's easy. Evolutionists say that we came from a cell 3.6 billion years ago. There is no proof of that.

And there is proof that something instigated life on the planet then sat around for a few billion years helping it along, fucking up many times along the way and is now...? There are a variety of theories on the origin of life- none of them accepted as absolutely true at this point. But evolution as a process is accepted, because there is substantial evidence for it.

[jake williams]

This is where you go out of science and into religion.
Religion isn't just an epithet, it's an actual thing. Explain how what I said has anything to do with religion.


You have no proof that we ALL came from a common ancestor 3.6 billion years ago. Just speculations.
I'm not a biologist and I don't have a "fact sheet" on some crazy's website that I quote on internet forums to pretend I know what I'm talking about. Virtually everything we know about the world is in a sense "just speculation", but there's reasonable speculation and unreasonable speculation. Common descent makes sense partly for genetic history reasons, and partly because the natural generation of chemicals capable of causing "life" probably is a very rare event.


And not it is not a suficient explanation. There has never observed an evolution of molecular machinery. And you need new molecular machinery for new functions. You can't constantly change old ones and get completly new ones. Yes you can modify old ones, but not to get completly new ones. You can't modify one cell to become a human in 3.6 billion years. Since you have no proof evolution can create molecular machinery.

Furthermore there is a limit to what evolution can do. Michael Behe tested plasmodium falciparum (malaria virus) and concluded that it changed very little. It was able to get CRQ (cloroquine resistance) in 1:10(20) chance. And that's just 2 mutations. So basicly you can't get more than 2 positive mutations because it isn't statisticaly possible in a population of that amount. And p. falciparums have a high rate of mutations. Equaled to millions of years in humans. Humans have 3 billion base pairs of DNA, so with just 2 mutations being the limit, you can't really expect to get the difference from the "ape man" in few million years. Chimps have about 96 tp 97% same DNA as we doo. There was no time to change that much DNA.
Here you're talking about the mechanics of genetic mutation. It's a sort of technical thing, but not being a qualified geneticist myself, I "err" on the side of believing that there's no elaborate conspiracy of every geneticist on earth save two or three to fabricate some big lie. I also don't suspect you've got a graduate degree in biochemistry, or even really understand any of what you're talking about here.

On the particular question about "molecular machinery", however, I know that to be false, and in this area I know Behe has been discredited.

Also, it's a very poor understanding of probability to think that because evolution requires some "luck" it can't happen. But again, I don't know the technical details of genetics and I have the humility to admit as much. Does anyone know some microbio deets?


Explain why.
So you're saying you really think there's an extraplanetary conspiracy to engineer a species to make it think it hasn't been engineered? And that that's more plausible then natural processes we already know occur?


What is so great that evolution tells us?
It tells us how organisms and species come to exist and change, which is very useful for biologists.


That's a clear case of design detection. In this case, your mother was an intelligent agent.
That reminds me, it's known among scientists, though like most science, not among creationists, that humans have a cognitive bias to project "intent" onto natural phenomena. This is partly because, like my every day example, we tend to observe things in our every day life that involve an intelligent agent. Evolution is one of those things that exists outside of the view of every day human life. Humans just can't directly observe phenomena that take millions of years to occur. Does that mean they don't occur? No. Does that mean that a more likely explanation is one that makes more sense intuitively to humans? No.

Which reminds me actually, there's a great example of a use for evolution. It gives us some hints about the history of the development of the human mind, which can give us a clearer picture of our likely cognitive biases. Anyway.

I used an imperfect analogy to explain some general principles. When you scale up to extremely complex natural phenomena occurring in huge systems over billions of years, the analogy loses some of its explanatory power. The general principle holds. I never said "these two things are identical".

If you want a different example, there's what has been called a "road-like" rock formation somewhere in the Atlantic, near the Bahamas I think? Geologists have confirmed it could be and almost certainly is the result of natural processes. But to some observers it "looks" human-made. There are actually people who believe that there was a secret Chinese voyage a few hundred years ago and they built a massive road in the middle of nowhere and it sank. Is "intent" more plausible here? No.


Well ID is not doing that. ID is not saying who the designer is. It is not saying that, beacuse it can't. And it doesn't need to. All that is saying is that an intelligent agent was involved.
That's because "intelligent design" is a transparent fraud developed as a cover for a bunch of evangelical fuckups from the more backwatery parts of the U.S. Does the "counterargument" in my example become better if the person tags onto the end "... well maybe it was an alien. It's possible! And maybe he was from Zargon or maybe he was from a whole other galaxy! Or maybe, maybe it was God! Or Xeno! It's all possible. But it definitely involved a mystical fabrication, and not, you know, something that makes sense".

[ID-guy]

The phrase "intelligent design" is incredibly stupid.

The material conditions today is a result of all the stuff that has happened previously. Things change over time. Is it really that hard to grasp?

Evolution can be perplexing and beautiful. I see it as sort of a universal quest for perfection, towards that of a perfect circle. This "intelligent design" rubbish does not compare to that.Thank you for your objective ideas which you made even stronger with a lot of facts...

Anyway...

1.) What's the point in calling ID a stupid title?

2.) Yeah, things do change over time, thank's for inventing warm water. Now tell everyone of us here how does that explain us coming from a rock 4.6 billion years ago.

3.) What does ID not compare to? A perfect cirlce? Well that would sure be true, it's because perfect circles do not exist, just like our common ancestor with fishes, unlike a scientific theory of ID...

[ID-guy]

A bunch of chemicals mixing, and firing electrons in your brain.Wait, but when I have an idea of a car, I see a car, not bunch of chemicals mixing. Explain this part to me...


You're positing that the mind exists independently of the brain and outside of the material world, but needs the brain to produce ideas? Why not cut out the middle man? :rolleyes:Because that would youst be false.


The brain interprets them which produces the sensation of touch.How does the brain interpret them, and what feels the touch?


Yes. The fossil record, the work of various biologists in evolving creatures with short life cycles, etc.Explain to me, what does the fissil record prove and how.


Do bees possess intelligence?Yes.


The basic laws that apply (Newton) no longer apply, particles become subjective- that is, they change based on how they are observed and seem to occupy multiple spaces at once... a variety of things. Look up Quantum Physics.Newtons laws still apply on larger scale. And now, world is not subjective on the quantum level, you just can meassure it. Because just by trying to meassure something you change it. Like trying to find out whats the temperature of a swimming pool. You dip your termometer in it and you find out. But you actually changed the temperature by inserting a foreign object into what you wanted to meassure. Of course, the difference is meaningless, but on the quantum level it certanly isn't the case.

So the point is, the world is not subjective, we just don't have technology do understand it yet.


And there is proof that something instigated life on the planet then sat around for a few billion years helping it along, fucking up many times along the way and is now...? There are a variety of theories on the origin of life- none of them accepted as absolutely true at this point. But evolution as a process is accepted, because there is substantial evidence for it.1.) Well there is proof that there was design in any case.

2.) Yeah, evolution as a process, but not the whole package...

[ID-guy]

Religion isn't just an epithet, it's an actual thing. Explain how what I said has anything to do with religion.Easy, you have ZERO proof that we came from a rock 4.6 billion years ago, but you believe it.


I'm not a biologist and I don't have a "fact sheet" on some crazy's website that I quote on internet forums to pretend I know what I'm talking about. Virtually everything we know about the world is in a sense "just speculation", but there's reasonable speculation and unreasonable speculation. Common descent makes sense partly for genetic history reasons, and partly because the natural generation of chemicals capable of causing "life" probably is a very rare event.1.) Oh I bet it's rare, I doesn't happen, that's how rare it is!

2.) Show me proof how genetic history supports common descent...


Here you're talking about the mechanics of genetic mutation. It's a sort of technical thing, but not being a qualified geneticist myself, I "err" on the side of believing that there's no elaborate conspiracy of every geneticist on earth save two or three to fabricate some big lie. I also don't suspect you've got a graduate degree in biochemistry, or even really understand any of what you're talking about here.

On the particular question about "molecular machinery", however, I know that to be false, and in this area I know Behe has been discredited.

Also, it's a very poor understanding of probability to think that because evolution requires some "luck" it can't happen. But again, I don't know the technical details of genetics and I have the humility to admit as much. Does anyone know some microbio deets?1.) So you are saying Behe is lying? Heh, actually he just analysed Nicholas J. White's work on malaria. And, no he is not supporting ID. That is a fact. If you are saying NJ's work is wrong, than proove it.

2.) Please do not question my knowledge, ok?

3.) Oh you do, huh? Some molecular machinery evolved? Proof?

4.) No, it's not poor understanding of probability. It is accepted in mathematics that events that need 1:10(50) are statistically impossible.


So you're saying you really think there's an extraplanetary conspiracy to engineer a species to make it think it hasn't been engineered? And that that's more plausible then natural processes we already know occur?1.) What? When did I say that? There is no conspiracy...

2.) What is the name of the process that creates DNA?


It tells us how organisms and species come to exist and change, which is very useful for biologists.Great! I love that part. Now just tell me how does us coming from a single cell 3.6 billion years ago tie into this?


That reminds me, it's known among scientists, though like most science, not among creationists, that humans have a cognitive bias to project "intent" onto natural phenomena. This is partly because, like my every day example, we tend to observe things in our every day life that involve an intelligent agent. Evolution is one of those things that exists outside of the view of every day human life. Humans just can't directly observe phenomena that take millions of years to occur. Does that mean they don't occur? No. Does that mean that a more likely explanation is one that makes more sense intuitively to humans? No.Yeah, but you still have no proof that we came from a rock...


Which reminds me actually, there's a great example of a use for evolution. It gives us some hints about the history of the development of the human mind, which can give us a clearer picture of our likely cognitive biases. Anyway.

I used an imperfect analogy to explain some general principles. When you scale up to extremely complex natural phenomena occurring in huge systems over billions of years, the analogy loses some of its explanatory power. The general principle holds. I never said "these two things are identical".

If you want a different example, there's what has been called a "road-like" rock formation somewhere in the Atlantic, near the Bahamas I think? Geologists have confirmed it could be and almost certainly is the result of natural processes. But to some observers it "looks" human-made. There are actually people who believe that there was a secret Chinese voyage a few hundred years ago and they built a massive road in the middle of nowhere and it sank. Is "intent" more plausible here? No.It doesn't matter if its plausible or not. What matters is did it happen or not. Is there proof or not.



That's because "intelligent design" is a transparent fraud developed as a cover for a bunch of evangelical fuckups from the more backwatery parts of the U.S. Does the "counterargument" in my example become better if the person tags onto the end "... well maybe it was an alien. It's possible! And maybe he was from Zargon or maybe he was from a whole other galaxy! Or maybe, maybe it was God! Or Xeno! It's all possible. But it definitely involved a mystical fabrication, and not, you know, something that makes sense".Well if its just a "fuckup" than prove it wrong.

[bcbm]

Wait, but when I have an idea of a car, I see a car, not bunch of chemicals mixing. Explain this part to me...

The electrons and chemicals cause you to see the image of a car via specific pulses and combinations.


Because that would youst be false.

What?


How does the brain interpret them, and what feels the touch?

Why don't you read a book on neurobiology and save me the trouble of remembering science I learned about awhile ago in an effort to explain the most basic shit to you?

How do you think we "feel?"


Explain to me, what does the fissil record prove and how.

It shows minor changes over a long period of time in a number of species, showing how modern forms came to be and what their ancestors were.


Yes.

So our world could be the result of bees?


Newtons laws still apply on larger scale.

Not especially. Einstein showed this.


So the point is, the world is not subjective, we just don't have technology do understand it yet.

Could be. Its still in the early phases, so we'll have to wait I guess.


Well there is proof that there was design in any case.

Via logical fallacy... we've been here before. Its a circular argument.


Yeah, evolution as a process, but not the whole package...

The past gets trickier the further back we go and requires more conjecture but what evidence exists generally supports the conclusions. When there is less evidence, multiple theories arise.

[ID-guy]

The electrons and chemicals cause you to see the image of a car via specific pulses and combinations.Cause WHO to see a car!? What am I? Am I not just matter? Is my mind not just a material brain? Do I not see with my material brain? How does my material brain, which functions by chemicals an electricity experience an idea of a car.

Basicly you are saying chemicals can think... :lol:


What?To say that mind is not immaterial.


Why don't you read a book on neurobiology and save me the trouble of remembering science I learned about awhile ago in an effort to explain the most basic shit to you?

How do you think we "feel?"1.) The point I'm trying to make, is that you won't remember it, and that is beacuse you CAN'T! Do you know why you can't? Because it does not say that in the books you read! Nobody knows, that's the point! And they can't know it, because it' isn't true.

2.) I have no idea, nor did I ever say I know. I actually don't care. I just wan't to show you that you are wrong. I don't know what mind is made of. But I do know what is it NOT made of. And it is NOT matter. What ever it is, i don't know, but it is not matter.


It shows minor changes over a long period of time in a number of species, showing how modern forms came to be and what their ancestors were.Can you give me an example from what we came?


So our world could be the result of bees?No, beacuse they have very low intelligence.


Not especially. Einstein showed this.Well the 3 laws of Newton still do stand. Don't you think they would not be called laws if they were wrong?


Could be. Its still in the early phases, so we'll have to wait I guess.It can't be subjective since is something created by the mind.


Via logical fallacy... we've been here before. Its a circular argument.Oh really? Where is the fallacy here?


The past gets trickier the further back we go and requires more conjecture but what evidence exists generally supports the conclusions. When there is less evidence, multiple theories arise.Can you giv e me one evidence that we came from a rock?

[Bud Struggle]

Cause WHO to see a car!? What am I? Am I not just matter? Is my mind not just a material brain? Do I not see with my material brain? How does my material brain, which functions by chemicals an electricity experience an idea of a car.

Basicly you are saying chemicals can think... :lol:



I own a chemical company, are you saying my chemicals are Communists!

:lol::lol::lol:

[careyprice31]

That movie actually had nothing to do with the trial. It's actually just propaganda made by the Evolutionists.

No, actually it isn't. It is a legit scientific theory. It is a theory that says that some features of te universe are better explained by an intelligent cause than by an undirected natural process.

It is actually methodological naturalism, that is based on mkaterialism that has no scientific foundation, and which by all logic shouldnt be in our classes.

Why?

Well for starters, materialism says that only matter exist. So you are automatically excluding everything else you do not know that could exist, and you are trying to explain the universe by just using matter and energy. That has proven to be false, since information is not matter and it does exist. By this very fact, materialism fails and should not be regarded any further, let alone call it science.

On the other hand ID is perfectly legit. Since we know that intelligence exist and that it causes matter to arange itself in complex and specified way. This way intelligence also creates information. So as you can see something non material like intelligence can produce other non material elements like information. Pure matter can not do that. So by saying that some enteties in universe have marks of design it is perfectly fine to use ID as a guiding theory in their investigation. If it so happens that life was intelligently designed that it would be indeed a great thing for science to use ID as a theory for further research.

From my university biology textbook "Human Biology: Concepts and Current Issues, second Edition" by Michael D Johnson

"A theory is a broad hypothesis that has been extensively tested and supported over time and that explains a broad range of scientific facts with a high degree of reliability. A theory is the highest status a hypothesis can achieve."

Intelligent design is not a theory. You are brainwashed sorry. Ive been studying science for a long time, and I went to a catholic school for a while as well. I know about these things.

ID does not fit this definition of theory (or any good definition for that matter.)

ID can pretty much be likened to lysenkoism, also even lysenkoism has some evidencxe for it, since that is proven that living conditions around them can change species. Even Lysenkoism has more evidence for it than ID. nd thats saying something, cause I dont even like Lysenko. Or Lamarck, for that matter. But even their theories hold some water. ID has zero evidence. It cant be tested and proven again and again with high degrees of reliability.

and "intelligent design" is just another word for creationism, another attempt to fool people into thinking its something different than creationism when it is not.

[ID-guy]

I own a chemical company, are you saying my chemicals are Communists!

:lol::lol::lol:Well I don't know, ask them if they can see a car if they try hard enough! :laugh:

[ID-guy]

From my university biology textbook "Human Biology: Concepts and Current Issues, second Edition" by Michael D Johnson

"A theory is a broad hypothesis that has been extensively tested and supported over time and that explains a broad range of scientific facts with a high degree of reliability. A theory is the highest status a hypothesis can achieve."

Intelligent design is not a theory. You are brainwashed sorry. Ive been studying science for a long time, and I went to a catholic school for a while as well. I know about these things.

ID does not fit this definition of theory (or any good definition for that matter.)Which part does not fit the description?


ID can pretty much be likened to lysenkoism, also even lysenkoism has some evidencxe for it, since that is proven that living conditions around them can change species. Even Lysenkoism has more evidence for it than ID. nd thats saying something, cause I dont even like Lysenko. Or Lamarck, for that matter. But even their theories hold some water. ID has zero evidence. It cant be tested and proven again and again with high degrees of reliability.Let's see now...

Oh, look here ID research (http://www.researchintelligentdesign.org/wiki/ID_research)! And what is this we find here? Could it be some evidence for ID (http://www.researchintelligentdesign.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity_in_biology)!


and "intelligent design" is just another word for creationism, another attempt to fool people into thinking its something different than creationism when it is not.Explain why does Creationism equal ID.

[bcbm]

Cause WHO to see a car!? What am I? Am I not just matter? Is my mind not just a material brain? Do I not see with my material brain? How does my material brain, which functions by chemicals an electricity experience an idea of a car.

Basicly you are saying chemicals can think... :lol:

You use sets of electrons and chemicals to have the "thought" of a car. It is you as a human that "thinks," via chemicals and electrical impulses.


To say that mind is not immaterial.

The mind is material, yes.


The point I'm trying to make, is that you won't remember it, and that is beacuse you CAN'T! Do you know why you can't? Because it does not say that in the books you read! Nobody knows, that's the point! And they can't know it, because it' isn't true.

Actually we do have an understanding of how the nervous system works in regards to senses. Cells in your skin feel them, pass a charge through the system to the brain which interprets it and sends information back.


I have no idea, nor did I ever say I know. I actually don't care. I just wan't to show you that you are wrong. I don't know what mind is made of. But I do know what is it NOT made of. And it is NOT matter. What ever it is, i don't know, but it is not matter.

The mind is just a part of the brain. Given that it is entirely reliant on brain processes, it cannot exist independently of the brain. You don't have any theory to back any of this up, let alone evidence.


Can you give me an example from what we came?

A common ancestor we share with apes.


No, beacuse they have very low intelligence.

What is the required level of intelligence to design the world, and why?


Well the 3 laws of Newton still do stand. Don't you think they would not be called laws if they were wrong?

They don't apply at very large and very small scale, otherwise they do.


It can't be subjective since is something created by the mind.

Why?


Oh really? Where is the fallacy here?

I believe this is a case of affirming the consequent, or more likely weak analogy.



Can you giv e me one evidence that we came from a rock?

Who said we came from a rock?

[Bud Struggle]

Well I don't know, ask them if they can see a car if they try hard enough! :laugh:

They see cars all of the time, but for some reason they only see Fords.

Where can I get chemicals that see Bugattis? :lol:

ID YOU are a wlecome addition to RevLeft.

Stick around.

[bcbm]

Could it be some evidence for ID (http://www.researchintelligentdesign.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity_in_biology)!

Biologists have refuted Behe left and right, sorry. Niall Shanks and Karl H. Joplin, for starters. There's a reason that irreducible complexity hasn't caught on in the scientific community- its bullshit.

[ID-guy]

You use sets of electrons and chemicals to have the "thought" of a car. It is you as a human that "thinks," via chemicals and electrical impulses.What human!? By your logic, human = chemical + electricity. So that means that chemical and electricity see cars!

Wow, that's a great theory you got there, would you like to elaborat on it a bit. The par where chemicals and electricity can actually see is what im really interested in...


The mind is material, yes.Do you have any proof of this.


Actually we do have an understanding of how the nervous system works in regards to senses. Cells in your skin feel them, pass a charge through the system to the brain which interprets it and sends information back.No that's just the mechanism that passes the impulses! Explain to me how does the part where chemicals and electricity actually FEEL the touch.


The mind is just a part of the brain. Given that it is entirely reliant on brain processes, it cannot exist independently of the brain. You don't have any theory to back any of this up, let alone evidence.Really now. People who have benn clinicly diagnosed as braindead and came back to life expirienced out of body sensations. I'm not saying that they went to heaven or something. I'm just saying that their mind still worked, even if their brain didn't.


A common ancestor we share with apes.Great. Where is the proof?


What is the required level of intelligence to design the world, and why?Extremly high that's for sure. Why? Well beac use if you don't have it you can't create a world obviously.


They don't apply at very large and very small scale, otherwise they do.Well that's my point.


Why?Because matter is not subjective, it is objective, it exist wether you think of it or not.


I believe this is a case of affirming the consequent, or more likely weak analogy.Explain please...


Who said we came from a rock?Atheists do. You know, the abiogenesis says that it rained for millions of years on the rocks and that minerals melted from it, and the randomly came together to form primitive life. And later that life evolved int humans.

That's basicly saying that we came from a rock

[ID-guy]

They see cars all of the time, but for some reason they only see Fords.

Where can I get chemicals that see Bugattis? :lol:

ID YOU are a wlecome addition to RevLeft.

Stick around.Maybe they are capitalists than? Wasn't Ford a capitalis!?

Don't worry I'll stick around, it's fun here. :D

[ID-guy]

Biologists have refuted Behe left and right, sorry. Niall Shanks and Karl H. Joplin, for starters. There's a reason that irreducible complexity hasn't caught on in the scientific community- its bullshit.Oh no, I don't think so. It's because the got NO IDEA what they are talking about. Your word against Behe, won't work here. Show me the proof that Behe is wrong. Does it exist? I don't think so...

[bcbm]

What human!? By your logic, human = chemical + electricity. So that means that chemical and electricity see cars!

Wow, that's a great theory you got there, would you like to elaborat on it a bit. The par where chemicals and electricity can actually see is what im really interested in...

You're either being stupid on purpose, or you're just stupid. I'm saying that the sensation of "seeing" (you aren't really seeing anything) a car when you think about it is caused by chemical and electrical processes in your brain.


Do you have any proof of this.

Well, you admit that the mind cannot exist without the brain. So its part of the brain, right? And what is the brain...


No that's just the mechanism that passes the impulses! Explain to me how does the part where chemicals and electricity actually FEEL the touch.

Mechanoreceptors detect the force, then translate that physical force into nerve impulses.


Really now. People who have benn clinicly diagnosed as braindead and came back to life expirienced out of body sensations. I'm not saying that they went to heaven or something. I'm just saying that their mind still worked, even if their brain didn't.

People who have been pronounced dead may do that. Braindead is something else.


Great. Where is the proof?

The study of fossils, tools, habited sites, etc.


Extremly high that's for sure. Why? Well beac use if you don't have it you can't create a world obviously.

So what created the world?


Well that's my point.

Then you missed mine. "Design" breaks down at some levels, or so current data suggests.


Because matter is not subjective, it is objective, it exist wether you think of it or not.

An electron's position is subjective based on what is being used to measure it.


Explain please...

Affirming the consequent is based on the forumla:

A then B
B
therefore,
A.

and weak analogy is based on the comparison:

A and B are similar
A has a certain characteristic
therefore,
B must have that characteristic

I think the weak analogy one is probably the closer one here. You're essentially arguing that some human designed items resemble things in nature, and that since humans possess intelligence, nature must have been designed intelligently. But there isn't any proof of that beyond such a hypothesis, and the similarities can prove to be, well, pretty weak.


Atheists do. You know, the abiogenesis says that it rained for millions of years on the rocks and that minerals melted from it, and the randomly came together to form primitive life. And later that life evolved int humans.

That's basicly saying that we came from a rock

There's a number of theories.

[bcbm]

Oh no, I don't think so. It's because the got NO IDEA what they are talking about. Your word against Behe, won't work here. Show me the proof that Behe is wrong. Does it exist? I don't think so...

Not my word. I noted two biologists who had refuted the claims. You can start there. When you've figured out a way around that (good luck), I've got plenty more.

[RevMARKSman]

es, very funny thank you...
You don't find the "fish with fins and scales" funny?
Perhaps because it skewers your statements about the politics of "intelligent design"?

1.) Um, yes they are. They represent digit bases in a DNA double helix. Anything could be used to represent digits. Bricks, stones, chemicals, ink etc. In this case we have TCAG nucleic acids.
We can say electrons represent digits and the fact that most substances bond by the octet rule is proof of "intelligent design." But that doesn't mean anything. We can say hairbrushes represent digits, but digits are an entirely human structure. The fact that you can find digits in DNA does not prove that an intelligence created them; it's proof that you're human. I can look at random scratchings on a wall and say they're information.

2.) We know happens during DNA translation. I'm not saying that theire is intelligence involved in that process I'm saying that intelligence created that process in the first place.[/quote]
So this isn't true then:

3.) Show me a process in nature that creates information and you have falsified ID.
There is one (by your own admission not mine), DNA replication, and you have just said that can be explained away by intelligence even though it's a natural process.

An ability to create and modify information.

So what is this "information," and how can it be modified?

[ID-guy]

You're either being stupid on purpose, or you're just stupid. I'm saying that the sensation of "seeing" (you aren't really seeing anything) a car when you think about it is caused by chemical and electrical processes in your brain.Trust me, I DO see a car. Now explain how chemicals in my brain "see" or whatever word you want to use, percive the car.


Well, you admit that the mind cannot exist without the brain. So its part of the brain, right? And what is the brain...1.) No, I said that mind can not work in a material world without the brain. It can still work, just not in the material world.

2.) The brain is that piece of matter ih our heads...


Mechanoreceptors detect the force, then translate that physical force into nerve impulses.And what are nerve impulses? Electricity. Does it feel somethig? Can you explain to me how does electricity feel a touch? What is the mechanism of electrones that feel the touch?


People who have been pronounced dead may do that. Braindead is something else.If you're braindead than you really won't be moving or thinking, now will you? So even if the brain ain't working, the mind is.


The study of fossils, tools, habited sites, etc.Explain to me what does that prove? What can you prove from a bone you found in the dirt?


So what created the world?Don't know, ID is not looking into that.


Then you missed mine. "Design" breaks down at some levels, or so current data suggests.No, you are the one suggesting that. I never heard that anyone else said that.


An electron's position is subjective based on what is being used to measure it.So let's see...

If I use 1 electron to measure where another one is I will not get the same result if i use another electron? How exactly did that other electron effect the electron i was measuring?


Affirming the consequent is based on the forumla:

A then B
B
therefore,
A.

and weak analogy is based on the comparison:

A and B are similar
A has a certain characteristic
therefore,
B must have that characteristic

I think the weak analogy one is probably the closer one here. You're essentially arguing that some human designed items resemble things in nature, and that since humans possess intelligence, nature must have been designed intelligently. But there isn't any proof of that beyond such a hypothesis, and the similarities can prove to be, well, pretty weak.Oh I see, you actually think I'm saying that if something looks designed, it is designed!

No, that is just our intuition speaking. In ID we have scientific ways to detect design. We call it CSI (Complex Specified Information).

You see if some system has a number of parts it is complex. If it exhibits an independantly given pattern, than it is said to be specified. If the chance of that system arising by chance is under 1:10(150) than that means that there is no way that it could have possibly came about by chance. That means it must have been some other cause for existence of this system. Since we know that only intelligence designs, when we see marks of design (CSI) we can say that that system was designed.

You see, it's not just saying that "it looks designed, it's designed" it's actually using a scientific way to find that out.


There's a number of theories.What's the other one?

[ID-guy]

Not my word. I noted two biologists who had refuted the claims. You can start there. When you've figured out a way around that (good luck), I've got plenty more.Yes it is your word. YOU are SAYING they refuted him. Do you have links for that please?

[ID-guy]

You don't find the "fish with fins and scales" funny?
Perhaps because it skewers your statements about the politics of "intelligent design"?I'm not interested in politics...


We can say electrons represent digits and the fact that most substances bond by the octet rule is proof of "intelligent design." But that doesn't mean anything. We can say hairbrushes represent digits, but digits are an entirely human structure. The fact that you can find digits in DNA does not prove that an intelligence created them; it's proof that you're human. I can look at random scratchings on a wall and say they're information.No this is completely wrong. I'm not saying that DNA is a digital code because I'm just saying it. I'm saying it, beacuse IT IS a digital code and the TCAG acids do represent the digits.

Why?

Well because when you put a strand of DNA thru a DNA translation process, that means that you are processing information. And information is constructed by digits. Every information you process, you get results. The result here being proteins.


So this isn't true then:Yes it is.


There is one (by your own admission not mine), DNA replication, and you have just said that can be explained away by intelligence even though it's a natural process.You don't get it. First of all, DNA replication does not create new information, it only copies, replicates the old information into the same information.

Furthermore I asked you about a NATURAL process, and by that I meant a process that is done by natural forces, not inside living organisms. If abiogenesis be true, you must show me how natural forces can create information. That means, show me proof that natural forces could have created the first DNA translation system.



So what is this "information," and how can it be modified?Information is a knowledge about something. You modify it in your mind by thinking.

[careyprice31]

Which part does not fit the description?

Let's see now...

Oh, look here ID research (http://www.researchintelligentdesign.org/wiki/ID_research)! And what is this we find here? Could it be some evidence for ID (http://www.researchintelligentdesign.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity_in_biology)!

Explain why does Creationism equal ID.

None of it fits.

ID research, I just read the thing. There is no actual proof here, just possibles, maybes, and "if this......then that has to be true as well" kind of stuff. But no actual proof.

Irreducible complexity is not evidence of a creator. The world is complex. It is complicated. There is much we do not yet understand. But this in itself is not actual proof of a creator, a designer, and intelligent designer. It is utter speculation.

[Bud Struggle]

Irreducible complexity is not evidence of a creator. The world is complex. It is complicated. There is much we do not yet understand. But this in itself is not actual proof of a creator, a designer, and intelligent designer. It is utter speculation.

That's what makes it interesting...there is no evidence of a creator and there is no evidence of no creator. We honestly don't know. And when we don't know we have to be honest about all the possibilities--all this might have started from nothing, but then someone might have started all this also.

Personally, I wasn't there so I don't know how it all got started--I am thus happy to explore all possibilies.

[Dystisis]

You see if some system has a number of parts it is complex. If it exhibits an independantly given pattern, than it is said to be specified. If the chance of that system arising by chance is under 1:10(150) than that means that there is no way that it could have possibly came about by chance. That means it must have been some other cause for existence of this system. Since we know that only intelligence designs, when we see marks of design (CSI) we can say that that system was designed.

There are a number of fallacies to this line of thinking. First off, you say "there is no way that it could have possibly came about by chance" when there is a chance of a system arising that is under 1:10(150)... That is wrong, but anyways. Tell me, how many chances are given?

In every branch and scope of the universe we see patterns repeating themselves in various forms (through time/rhythm and space, 2d, 3d), manifesting material reality. From the microscope in the order of atoms and molecules through DNA and beyond in space and the ordering of the planets. We can study the patterns with our own applied methods. We use numbers and geometry, even though these days it is mostly used to accommodate our own immediate needs.

The reality is that it's all a single mechanic. The irrational categorizing and separation of micro/macro fields is a scientific disease. Further, it is not the particular systems or patterns in certain scopes that should be of most theoretical importance (although interesting), it is the fact that there is order at all.

Anyways, you are on thin ice, or have submerged below the water. You claim that there must be some "intelligent design" (a laughable name, the evolution of hundreds of thousands of years - cause and effect - would be far more "intelligent") but would obviously fail to state how that intelligent designer came to be. It seems irrational to me, would he/she/it also have been designed, then?

[jake williams]

I'd also interject two things. First, we have zero understanding of consciousness. There is plenty of valid, important, useful neurological research. It's at the extreme periphery of understanding what consciousness actually is though, to the point that I think we should consider a specific part of our understanding of the "mind" to be totally blank. It may be a "substance" inaccessible to physical human senses. It may be a "substance" accessible to human senses, but of which we're as of yet unaware. It may be the product of certain concentrations of organization of matter within systems, in a very abstract sense analogous to magnetism perhaps. It could be all kinds of things, and we have no idea, at all. We may never, but we shouldn't pretend we do.

But second - it has nothing to do with evolution, except very very indirectly. Philosophical materialism is not the theory that every concept describable is made of particles, it's far more nuanced than that. It means things that exist actually have to exist, and that you can't just make shit up, but "exist" here is a lot more abstract. Materialism certainly allows that new sorts of "things" could exist, new particles, new forces, new organizations of things giving rise to new sorts of phenomena, and so on. These would be integrated into a materialistic, scientific understanding of the world if there's sufficient reason given.

Look, if you actually had magical powers, and you actually made things disappear in properly organized circumstances, scientists could eventually be convinced, and they would integrate it into a scientific understanding of the world. That's how science works. It's not some conspiratorial Darwin cult with little committees set up to declare truth and persecute lonely people arguing on the internet with strangers. It's about honest attempts to understand the nature of the world.

[RevMARKSman]

I'm not interested in politics...
It's still funny.

No this is completely wrong. I'm not saying that DNA is a digital code because I'm just saying it. I'm saying it, beacuse IT IS a digital code and the TCAG acids do represent the digits.

Why?

Well because when you put a strand of DNA thru a DNA translation process, that means that you are processing information. And information is constructed by digits. Every information you process, you get results. The result here being proteins.

Bullshit. I can say logs on a beach represent digits, and the waves are processing that information to give me the result of differently eroded logs. I can say that electrons represent digits ("information"), and the process of electron transfer gives me the result of an ionic bond. "Information" is a concept we humans have made up.


Information is a knowledge about something. You modify it in your mind by thinking.
So DNA isn't information then. For example, DNA polymerase doesn't go around thinking, "I'd better add this nucleotide to the end of this primer because it's complimentary to the nucleotide on the template." It just does it.


Furthermore I asked you about a NATURAL process, and by that I meant a process that is done by natural forces, not inside living organisms. If abiogenesis be true, you must show me how natural forces can create information. That means, show me proof that natural forces could have created the first DNA translation system.



So you want me to show you a "natural force" (which by the way includes living organisms, but I'll shut up and assume you mean abiotic things) that creates information.

The process of wave motion on a beach creates the information of eroded logs.

What's that you say? That's not information? Why? Because it's not "ordered" enough? If so, your argument boils down to "Things have order, therefore intelligent design!" If not, give me a reason.

[bcbm]

Trust me, I DO see a car. Now explain how chemicals in my brain "see" or whatever word you want to use, percive the car.

I have.


1.) No, I said that mind can not work in a material world without the brain. It can still work, just not in the material world.

You believe the mind exists somewhere else?


And what are nerve impulses? Electricity. Does it feel somethig? Can you explain to me how does electricity feel a touch? What is the mechanism of electrones that feel the touch?

Electricity doesn't. The mechanoreceptors I mentioned do. They register the force and pass a signal to the brain which is then interpreted.


If you're braindead than you really won't be moving or thinking, now will you? So even if the brain ain't working, the mind is.

Prove that braindead people's minds still work.


Explain to me what does that prove? What can you prove from a bone you found in the dirt?

A great many things. You can note common features with other species over a period of time, showing evolution, for one.


Don't know, ID is not looking into that.

How convenient. :rolleyes:


No, you are the one suggesting that. I never heard that anyone else said that.

Well if all the rules we standardly use break down, what does that imply?


So let's see...

If I use 1 electron to measure where another one is I will not get the same result if i use another electron? How exactly did that other electron effect the electron i was measuring?

It changes its position based on what or how you're measuring, and may appear to occupy multiple positions at the same time.

Oh I see, you actually think I'm saying that if something looks designed, it is designed!


You see if some system has a number of parts it is complex. If it exhibits an independantly given pattern, than it is said to be specified. If the chance of that system arising by chance is under 1:10(150) than that means that there is no way that it could have possibly came about by chance.

"
The soundness of Dembski's concept of specified complexity and the validity of arguments based on this concept are widely disputed. A frequent criticism (see Elsberry and Shallit) is that Dembski has used the terms "complexity", "information" and "improbability" interchangeably. These numbers measure properties of things of different types: Complexity measures how hard it is to describe an object (such as a bitstring), information measures how close to uniform (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_distribution_%28discrete%29) a random probability distribution is and improbability measures how unlikely an event is given a probability distribution.
When Dembski's mathematical claims on specific complexity are interpreted to make them meaningful and conform to minimal standards of mathematical usage, they usually turn out to be false. Dembski often sidesteps these criticisms by responding that he is not "in the business of offering a strict mathematical proof (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof) for the inability of material mechanisms to generate specified complexity".[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_specified_information#cite_note-20) Yet on page 150 of No Free Lunch he claims he can prove his thesis mathematically: "In this section I will present an in-principle mathematical argument for why natural causes are incapable of generating complex specified information." Others have pointed out that a crucial calculation on page 297 of No Free Lunch is off by a factor of approximately 1065.[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_specified_information#cite_note-shallit-21)
Dembski's calculations show how a simple smooth function (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smooth_function) cannot gain information, he therefore concludes that there must be a designer to obtain CSI. However, natural selection has a branching mapping from one to many (replication) followed by pruning mapping of the many back down to a few (selection). These increasing and reductional mappings were not modeled by Dembski. In other words, Dembski's calculations do not model birth and death. This basic flaw in his modeling renders all of Dembski's subsequent calculations and reasoning in No Free Lunch irrelevant because his basic model does not reflect reality. Since the basis of No Free Lunch relies on this flawed argument, the entire thesis of the book collapses.[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_specified_information#cite_note-22)
According to Martin Nowak, a Harvard professor of mathematics and evolutionary biology "We cannot calculate the probability that an eye came about. We don't have the information to make the calculation".[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_specified_information#cite_note-23)
Dembski's critics note that specified complexity, as originally defined by Leslie Orgel, is precisely what Darwinian evolution is supposed to create. Critics maintain that Dembski uses "complex" as most people would use "absurdly improbable". They also claim that his argument is a tautology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_%28logic%29): CSI cannot occur naturally because Dembski has defined it thus. They argue that to successfully demonstrate the existence of CSI, it would be necessary to show that some biological feature undoubtedly has an extremely low probability of occurring by any natural means whatsoever, something which Dembski and others have almost never attempted to do. Such calculations depend on the accurate assessment of numerous contributing probabilities, the determination of which is often necessarily subjective. Hence, CSI can at most provide a "very high probability", but not absolute certainty.
Another criticism refers to the problem of "arbitrary but specific outcomes". For example, if a coin is tossed randomly 1000 times, the probability of any particular outcome occurring is roughly one in 10300. For any particular specific outcome of the coin-tossing process, the a priori probability that this pattern occurred is thus one in 10300, which is astronomically smaller than Dembski's universal probability bound of one in 10150. Yet we know that the post hoc probability of its happening is exactly one, since we observed it happening. This is similar to the observation that it is unlikely that any given person will win a lottery, but, eventually, a lottery will have a winner; to argue that it is very unlikely that any one player would win is not the same as proving that there is the same chance that no one will win. Similarly, it has been argued that "a space of possibilities is merely being explored, and we, as pattern-seeking animals, are merely imposing patterns, and therefore targets, after the fact."[25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_specified_information#cite_note-24)
Apart from such theoretical considerations, critics cite reports of evidence of the kind of evolutionary "spontanteous generation" that Dembski claims is too improbable to occur naturally. For example, in 1982, B.G. Hall (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=B.G._Hall&action=edit&redlink=1) claimed to have demonstrated that after removing a gene that allows sugar digestion in certain bacteria, those bacteria, when grown in media rich in sugar, rapidly evolve new sugar-digesting enzymes to replace those removed.[26] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_specified_information#cite_note-25) Another widely cited example is the discovery of nylon eating bacteria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon_eating_bacteria) that produce enzymes only useful for digesting synthetic materials that did not exist prior to the invention of nylon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon) in 1935.
Other commentators have noted that evolution through selection is frequently used to design certain electronic, aeronautic and automotive systems which are considered problems too complex for human "intelligent designers"[27] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_specified_information#cite_note-26). This strongly contradicts the argument that an intelligent designer is required for the most complex systems. Such evolutionary techniques can lead to designs that are difficult to understand or evaluate since no human understands which trade-offs were made in the evolutionary process, something which mimics our poor understanding of biological systems.
Dembski's book No Free Lunch was criticised for not addressing the work of researchers who use computer simulations to investigate artificial life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_life). According to Jeffrey Shallit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Shallit):

The field of artificial life evidently poses a significant challenge to Dembski's claims about the failure of evolutionary algorithms to generate complexity. Indeed, artificial life researchers regularly find their simulations of evolution producing the sorts of novelties and increased complexity that Dembski claims are impossible.[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_specified_information#cite_note-shallit-21)"


Since we know that only intelligence designs, when we see marks of design (CSI) we can say that that system was designed.

How do we know that only intelligence designs. We don't know that. You're still assuming the consequent.


You see, it's not just saying that "it looks designed, it's designed" it's actually using a scientific way to find that out.

No, because it keeps falling back on the same fallacious argument.


What's the other one?

Do you have links for that please?

You're a big kid, you can use the internet. Its not hard.

[Zurdito]

http://i.pbase.com/v3/90/78990/1/49856439.23IntelligentDesignIthinknot.jpg (http://www.pbase.com/kayakbiker/dc_rally)
the old hippy is right bless him :)

[ID-guy]

None of it fits.What doesn't fit?


ID research, I just read the thing. There is no actual proof here, just possibles, maybes, and "if this......then that has to be true as well" kind of stuff. But no actual proof.There isn't proof there since I left that for the other link, the irreducible complexity. This is just reasearch. And yes, scientific reasearch is about possibility, maybes and what ifs... Science is about searching for the best explanation. I mean, what's your point?


Irreducible complexity is not evidence of a creator. The world is complex. It is complicated. There is much we do not yet understand. But this in itself is not actual proof of a creator, a designer, and intelligent designer. It is utter speculation.Oh yes it is. You basicly do not understand IC. The point is that something that is IC has no practical evolutionary pathway. That means, evolution couldn't have built it. But we know that IC systems can be built by intelligent agents. Look at computers, intelligence built those. So since we know that if we are going to take the best explanation for the bacterial flagellum which is IC, than we are going to take intelligence as a cause. Do you have a better explanation?

[ID-guy]

There are a number of fallacies to this line of thinking. First off, you say "there is no way that it could have possibly came about by chance" when there is a chance of a system arising that is under 1:10(150)... That is wrong, but anyways. Tell me, how many chances are given?Why is it wrong? Oh, you just said so, wow, great...

Why? Because that is the number of chances that is over the chance all the particles in the universe had to be in any position since the start of the universe. It's absolutly all combinations possible in 15 billion years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_probability_bound


In every branch and scope of the universe we see patterns repeating themselves in various forms (through time/rhythm and space, 2d, 3d), manifesting material reality. From the microscope in the order of atoms and molecules through DNA and beyond in space and the ordering of the planets. We can study the patterns with our own applied methods. We use numbers and geometry, even though these days it is mostly used to accommodate our own immediate needs.Fine...


The reality is that it's all a single mechanic. The irrational categorizing and separation of micro/macro fields is a scientific disease. Further, it is not the particular systems or patterns in certain scopes that should be of most theoretical importance (although interesting), it is the fact that there is order at all.Not the same laws govern microscpoic and macroscopic universe though...


Anyways, you are on thin ice, or have submerged below the water. You claim that there must be some "intelligent design" (a laughable name, the evolution of hundreds of thousands of years - cause and effect - would be far more "intelligent") but would obviously fail to state how that intelligent designer came to be. It seems irrational to me, would he/she/it also have been designed, then?Not of ID's interest. ID is interested in detecting design in universe, not the designer.

[ID-guy]

I'd also interject two things. First, we have zero understanding of consciousness. There is plenty of valid, important, useful neurological research. It's at the extreme periphery of understanding what consciousness actually is though, to the point that I think we should consider a specific part of our understanding of the "mind" to be totally blank. It may be a "substance" inaccessible to physical human senses. It may be a "substance" accessible to human senses, but of which we're as of yet unaware. It may be the product of certain concentrations of organization of matter within systems, in a very abstract sense analogous to magnetism perhaps. It could be all kinds of things, and we have no idea, at all. We may never, but we shouldn't pretend we do.

But second - it has nothing to do with evolution, except very very indirectly. Philosophical materialism is not the theory that every concept describable is made of particles, it's far more nuanced than that. It means things that exist actually have to exist, and that you can't just make shit up, but "exist" here is a lot more abstract. Materialism certainly allows that new sorts of "things" could exist, new particles, new forces, new organizations of things giving rise to new sorts of phenomena, and so on. These would be integrated into a materialistic, scientific understanding of the world if there's sufficient reason given.

Look, if you actually had magical powers, and you actually made things disappear in properly organized circumstances, scientists could eventually be convinced, and they would integrate it into a scientific understanding of the world. That's how science works. It's not some conspiratorial Darwin cult with little committees set up to declare truth and persecute lonely people arguing on the internet with strangers. It's about honest attempts to understand the nature of the world.What is it that you tried to say here? I mean, there certanly is a lot of text, but what is the point? Show me your argument in one line of text please...

[ID-guy]

Bullshit. I can say logs on a beach represent digits, and the waves are processing that information to give me the result of differently eroded logs. I can say that electrons represent digits ("information"), and the process of electron transfer gives me the result of an ionic bond. "Information" is a concept we humans have made up.LOL, no it's not. Information is real. If it's not, than books aren't real...

Ahem... Yes, you can say that, but that doesn't make it true! Can you not comprehend that? You are in no way connected to the waves and the logs, you three are not a part of a system. DNA, RNA ribosome, amino acids and proteins are a part of a system, and they do work like a information processing system.

You can't just take anything and claim they are digits in a system if they are not a part of a system that is interacting with all it's parts.


So DNA isn't information then. For example, DNA polymerase doesn't go around thinking, "I'd better add this nucleotide to the end of this primer because it's complimentary to the nucleotide on the template." It just does it.YES it is information for god's sakes... It is a carrier of information just like a CD. It represents information, just like a book.

Polymerase is a part of that information processing system. It doesn't create any information, just processes it.


So you want me to show you a "natural force" (which by the way includes living organisms, but I'll shut up and assume you mean abiotic things) that creates information.

The process of wave motion on a beach creates the information of eroded logs.

What's that you say? That's not information? Why? Because it's not "ordered" enough? If so, your argument boils down to "Things have order, therefore intelligent design!" If not, give me a reason.What is the meaning of eroded logs? None? Obviously. If it has no meaning, than it's not information.

[jake williams]

What is it that you tried to say here? I mean, there certanly is a lot of text, but what is the point? Show me your argument in one line of text please...
Each paragraph, roughly, contains one general, main idea. See, when you're trying to make intelligent and honest statements about the world, you can't always wrap everything you say in a short catchphrase, because the universe is complicated. Anyway.

In the first paragraph, what I'm basically saying is that humans do not currently know much at all about what "consciousness" is.

In the second, I was challenging your suggestion that this causes a problem for those arguing for the theory of evolution.

Third, I was broadly condemning "anti-science" views, views you seem to hold.

[ID-guy]

I have.No you did not. You just explained the mechanism of sending impulses from one part of the body to the brain. You did not say how that makes me see a car!


You believe the mind exists somewhere else?Obviously it's not in the material world.


Electricity doesn't. The mechanoreceptors I mentioned do. They register the force and pass a signal to the brain which is then interpreted.Yes, great. That is what you already said. You just explained the mechanics. Now tell me how does this interpretation causes me to see or feel. And which part of me actually feels or sees?


Prove that braindead people's minds still work.I told you about out of body experience.


A great many things. You can note common features with other species over a period of time, showing evolution, for one.No, common features prove common features, not evolution. You just assume that evolution is an explanation for that. But it just as easily be design.


How convenient. :rolleyes:Why should it?


Well if all the rules we standardly use break down, what does that imply?That different rules apply? How exactly does that mean - no design?


It changes its position based on what or how you're measuring, and may appear to occupy multiple positions at the same time.Exactly, it only appears that way. That is because our interpretation is subjective. But in the real world it's position is the same, thus objective.


The soundness of Dembski's concept of specified complexity and the validity of arguments based on this concept are widely disputed. A frequent criticism (see Elsberry and Shallit) is that Dembski has used the terms "complexity", "information" and "improbability" interchangeably. These numbers measure properties of things of different types: Complexity measures how hard it is to describe an object (such as a bitstring), information measures how close to uniform (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_distribution_%28discrete%29) a random probability distribution is and improbability measures how unlikely an event is given a probability distribution.
When Dembski's mathematical claims on specific complexity are interpreted to make them meaningful and conform to minimal standards of mathematical usage, they usually turn out to be false. Dembski often sidesteps these criticisms by responding that he is not "in the business of offering a strict mathematical proof (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof) for the inability of material mechanisms to generate specified complexity".[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_specified_information#cite_note-20) Yet on page 150 of No Free Lunch he claims he can prove his thesis mathematically: "In this section I will present an in-principle mathematical argument for why natural causes are incapable of generating complex specified information." Others have pointed out that a crucial calculation on page 297 of No Free Lunch is off by a factor of approximately 1065.[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_specified_information#cite_note-shallit-21)
Dembski's calculations show how a simple smooth function (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smooth_function) cannot gain information, he therefore concludes that there must be a designer to obtain CSI. However, natural selection has a branching mapping from one to many (replication) followed by pruning mapping of the many back down to a few (selection). These increasing and reductional mappings were not modeled by Dembski. In other words, Dembski's calculations do not model birth and death. This basic flaw in his modeling renders all of Dembski's subsequent calculations and reasoning in No Free Lunch irrelevant because his basic model does not reflect reality. Since the basis of No Free Lunch relies on this flawed argument, the entire thesis of the book collapses.[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_specified_information#cite_note-22)That is just plain wrong because birth is just a continuation of an already existin 2 organisms. If we are talking about sexual reproduction. When 2 organisms mate they give their own DNA material to build a new organism. It's the same information just differently ordered because of the genetic recombination that takes place. That means there is no noew information, thus no new CSI.


According to Martin Nowak, a Harvard professor of mathematics and evolutionary biology "We cannot calculate the probability that an eye came about. We don't have the information to make the calculation".[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_specified_information#cite_note-23)He doesn't get it. The point is that you take all the entities you have, take a simpler form before the eye existed and than calculate a chance.


Dembski's critics note that specified complexity, as originally defined by Leslie Orgel, is precisely what Darwinian evolution is supposed to create.Yeah, it is supposed to do that, but it can't.


Critics maintain that Dembski uses "complex" as most people would use "absurdly improbable". They also claim that his argument is a tautology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_%28logic%29): CSI cannot occur naturally because Dembski has defined it thus. They argue that to successfully demonstrate the existence of CSI, it would be necessary to show that some biological feature undoubtedly has an extremely low probability of occurring by any natural means whatsoever, something which Dembski and others have almost never attempted to do.Again wrong. it's not a tautology. The rejection region of 1:10(150) (UPB) means that if we find a CSI that has a chance less than UPB than that means we found a CSI that was designed, and not previously modified CSI by natural forces.

It is just a border so we can be sure that something is designed because it had no theoretical chance of coming about by chance.


Such calculations depend on the accurate assessment of numerous contributing probabilities, the determination of which is often necessarily subjective. Hence, CSI can at most provide a "very high probability", but not absolute certainty.UPB is certain enough...


Another criticism refers to the problem of "arbitrary but specific outcomes". For example, if a coin is tossed randomly 1000 times, the probability of any particular outcome occurring is roughly one in 10300. For any particular specific outcome of the coin-tossing process, the a priori probability that this pattern occurred is thus one in 10300, which is astronomically smaller than Dembski's universal probability bound of one in 10150. Yet we know that the post hoc probability of its happening is exactly one, since we observed it happening. This is similar to the observation that it is unlikely that any given person will win a lottery, but, eventually, a lottery will have a winner; to argue that it is very unlikely that any one player would win is not the same as proving that there is the same chance that no one will win. Similarly, it has been argued that "a space of possibilities is merely being explored, and we, as pattern-seeking animals, are merely imposing patterns, and therefore targets, after the fact."[25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_specified_information#cite_note-24)Again, that is wrong. You can't say that when it happened that the chance was 1:1. You have to what the calculate was before it happened.


Apart from such theoretical considerations, critics cite reports of evidence of the kind of evolutionary "spontanteous generation" that Dembski claims is too improbable to occur naturally. For example, in 1982, B.G. Hall (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=B.G._Hall&action=edit&redlink=1) claimed to have demonstrated that after removing a gene that allows sugar digestion in certain bacteria, those bacteria, when grown in media rich in sugar, rapidly evolve new sugar-digesting enzymes to replace those removed.[26] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_specified_information#cite_note-25)Yes, and that is the same as the bacteria that evolved nylon digesting abillity. This is not generating new information, certanly not by evolution or a darwinian process. This is done by transponsons. They modify the genome by themselves to make an organism adapt to the enviroment.

Again, this is modified information, not new information.


Another widely cited example is the discovery of nylon eating bacteria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon_eating_bacteria) that produce enzymes only useful for digesting synthetic materials that did not exist prior to the invention of nylon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon) in 1935.Just as I said above. That is NOT done by evolution. It is done by the bacteria itself. It has transponsons that do this kind of stuff. It adapts itself to the enviroment.


Other commentators have noted that evolution through selection is frequently used to design certain electronic, aeronautic and automotive systems which are considered problems too complex for human "intelligent designers"[27] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_specified_information#cite_note-26).Evolutionary algorithms = non random = design.


This strongly contradicts the argument that an intelligent designer is required for the most complex systems. Such evolutionary techniques can lead to designs that are difficult to understand or evaluate since no human understands which trade-offs were made in the evolutionary process, something which mimics our poor understanding of biological systems.No, this just shows that this whole text is wrong.



Dembski's book No Free Lunch was criticised for not addressing the work of researchers who use computer simulations to investigate artificial life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_life). According to Jeffrey Shallit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Shallit):
The field of artificial life evidently poses a significant challenge to Dembski's claims about the failure of evolutionary algorithms to generate complexity. Indeed, artificial life researchers regularly find their simulations of evolution producing the sorts of novelties and increased complexity that Dembski claims are impossible.[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_specified_information#cite_note-shallit-21)"Wrong. Evolutionary algorithms are not random natural evolution, they are designed. Furthemore they do not generate specified complexity, only increase complexity.

How do we know that only intelligence designs. We don't know that. You're still assuming the consequent.Well tell me of something else that does. If you can't than we are sticking with intelligence. Since I have no reason to BELIEVE that something else can design, just so it can fit you theory.


No, because it keeps falling back on the same fallacious argument.And that is?


You're a big kid, you can use the internet. Its not hard.Excuse me but no, I am not going to support your arguments, you should do that yourself. So do you have the links or not?

[ID-guy]

Each paragraph, roughly, contains one general, main idea. See, when you're trying to make intelligent and honest statements about the world, you can't always wrap everything you say in a short catchphrase, because the universe is complicated. Anyway.That be true!


In the first paragraph, what I'm basically saying is that humans do not currently know much at all about what "consciousness" is.Than why claim that it's a fact it's material?


In the second, I was challenging your suggestion that this causes a problem for those arguing for the theory of evolution.Well it does since it is obvious that mind is not material. Evolution is a materialistic theory, if the mind is not material, than the theory brakes down.


Third, I was broadly condemning "anti-science" views, views you seem to hold.How are my views anti-science?

[jake williams]

Evolutionary algorithms = non random = design.
If the Earth acts essentially like a giant "evolutionary algorithm" - and why couldn't it - then this is a meaningless statement.

[ID-guy]

If the Earth acts essentially like a giant "evolutionary algorithm" - and why couldn't it - then this is a meaningless statement.It doesn't act like one. The ones that are designed on the computers do...

[jake williams]

It doesn't act like one. The ones that are designed on the computers do...
What functions to human-designed evolutionary algorithms have that are not practically analogous to that which the theory of evolution claims to have occurred on earth?

[ID-guy]

What functions to human-designed evolutionary algorithms have that are not practically analogous to that which the theory of evolution claims to have occurred on earth?Evolutionary algorithms are not random. Because computers can not generate randomness. They only execute commands in given order. Algorithm ordered so they can not account for randomness in evolution.

The random part in real evolution are random mutations. Mistakes in DNA replication. They happen by chance. There is no algorithm guiding it.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

No, actually it isn't. It is a legit scientific theory. It is a theory that says that some features of te universe are better explained by an intelligent cause than by an undirected natural process.


Well, first you've made the absolutely basic error of saying that evolution is a "random process". It isn't, you have weirdly ignored the mechanism of natural selection, which means that genetic traits advantageous to survival and reproduction are more likely to survive over long periods of time. No randomness there, it's just what logically happens. If you weren't just being flippant when you said it was random, then you really do need to go back to GCSE science class - I'm not trying to be horrible to you, just honest; that's quite a shocking lack of basic knowledge.

Second, and this is a more philosophical reply I suppose, even if ID provided a "better explanation" for complexity in the universe, this is not actually relevant until direct evidence is supplied. For example, certain problems in physics, say, quantum non-locality would probably be explained quite nicely by existence of magic - but until there's evidence for that proposition, we should stick to our working models.



Explain to me how bacterial flagellum came to be.


This was explained almost immediately after Behe published his book.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_1.html

There's the long, detailed scientific 'story' of bacterial flagella, which I can't really pretend to properly understand. But here's an interesting counter-point that I can grasp:


Eubacterial flagella, archebacterial flagella, and cilia use entirely different designs for the same function. That is to be expected if they evolved separately, but it makes no sense if they were the work of the same designer.

:)

-Alex

[RevMARKSman]

LOL, no it's not. Information is real. If it's not, than books aren't real...Of course they're real. They're paper and ink.

YES it is information for god's sakes... It is a carrier of information just like a CD. It represents information, just like a book.

Polymerase is a part of that information processing system. It doesn't create any information, just processes it.

And you said information only exists if there is a mind to "know" it. If we were not here, DNA would therefore not be information and by your own admission, there would be no need for an "intelligent designer." Information is a concept humans made up, you have to understand this.




Ahem... Yes, you can say that, but that doesn't make it true! Can you not comprehend that? You are in no way connected to the waves and the logs, you three are not a part of a system. DNA, RNA ribosome, amino acids and proteins are a part of a system, and they do work like a information processing system.Of course I'm connected to the waves and logs. I'm looking at them. Put me in the water if you want to, now I'm touching the waves. Or I can pick up the logs. That's a system.


What is the meaning of eroded logs? None? Obviously. If it has no meaning, than it's not information.What the hell is "meaning" then? I can say eroded logs represent anything I want.

[ID-guy]

Well, first you've made the absolutely basic error of saying that evolution is a "random process". It isn't, you have weirdly ignored the mechanism of natural selection, which means that genetic traits advantageous to survival and reproduction are more likely to survive over long periods of time. No randomness there, it's just what logically happens. If you weren't just being flippant when you said it was random, then you really do need to go back to GCSE science class - I'm not trying to be horrible to you, just honest; that's quite a shocking lack of basic knowledge.No, it's you who should be more careful. Evolution is random. Which part do get passed on by natural selection? Those who are fit. And which ones are fit? Those who get passed on. So as you can clearly see, you don't really know which ones get passed on, untill they actually do get passed further on. And the reason they would be passed furter on is because of RANDOM mutations which are positive. So yeah, it's random.


Second, and this is a more philosophical reply I suppose, even if ID provided a "better explanation" for complexity in the universe, this is not actually relevant until direct evidence is supplied. For example, certain problems in physics, say, quantum non-locality would probably be explained quite nicely by existence of magic - but until there's evidence for that proposition, we should stick to our working models.What direct evidence are you talking about?


This was explained almost immediately after Behe published his book.Yeah and it was wrong, how did you miss that part?


http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_1.htmlhttp://creationwiki.org/index.php/%28Talk.Origins%29_Bacterial_flagella_are_irreduci bly_complex


There's the long, detailed scientific 'story' of bacterial flagella, which I can't really pretend to properly understand. But here's an interesting counter-point that I can grasp:



:)

-AlexOh don't worry I'll explain it to you. You see they thought that the TTSS system was an older model of the flagellum. Which it ain't since it is shown that it is more likely that it's younger than the flagellum. Furtermore they showed no practical pathway for the evolution to take from the supposed TTSS to the flagellum. There is a limit to the amount of positive mutations you can have in a given time, so basicly you need to show that the mutations from TTSS to flagellum were statistically possible in the given time. They did no such thing.

[ID-guy]

Of course they're real. They're paper and ink.Yes but are they the same as paper and a ink that you just randomly drop on paper?


And you said information only exists if there is a mind to "know" it. If we were not here, DNA would therefore not be information and by your own admission, there would be no need for an "intelligent designer." Information is a concept humans made up, you have to understand this.No, you have to understand that you have no idea what you are talking about. We didn't make the DNA somebody else did. So he who created, also created that information.


Of course I'm connected to the waves and logs. I'm looking at them. Put me in the water if you want to, now I'm touching the waves. Or I can pick up the logs. That's a system.You don't get it. This is the most childish thing I have ever heard in my life. Are you also a part of your TV? Yeah, you are watching your TV so you must be a part of your TV! Are TVs produced with people in them, did you buy your TV with yourself in it? I guess not.

You are not a part of TV, TV is a system for itsel it was created independantly of yourself, just like the logs and the water. Logs and water are no system, they don't do anything together, they don't process any information, and you by watching them are not creating any system.


What the hell is "meaning" then? I can say eroded logs represent anything I want.1.) Meanin is something that is specified.

2.) Yes you can, but that doesn't mean they actually do represent anything, beacuse they don't. If you chose so, you can put a bunch of loggs together to form a letter "A". Now that would be information since it has meaning.

[careyprice31]

"That's what makes it interesting...there is no evidence of a creator and there is no evidence of no creator. We honestly don't know. And when we don't know we have to be honest about all the possibilities--all this might have started from nothing, but then someone might have started all this also.

Personally, I wasn't there so I don't know how it all got started--I am thus happy to explore all possibilies"



Yes tomk, I agree here. I believe in the possibility of there being a creator, a higher power, i guess that is whyi call myself an agnostic. Just like i believe in the possibility of life on other planets.

and I dont only accpt what i can tell exists by the use of the five senses. I believe in ESP, I believe in instinct. I believe in psychic abilities. Im a rationalist.

I believe in the possibility of a creator, but even the complexities ID guy speaks of is not evidence of a creator.

Please prove that only a creator could have had it happen that way and nothing else. You can't.

[Publius]

Proove it.

I already did.

Of Pandas and People, the standard ID text was formerly a creationist text -- when the ID movement sprang up the authors quite literally just changed the words "creationism" with "Intelligent Design."

Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy#cite_note-0

The people who founded your movement (I know you don't like to associate yourself with them, but tough) were creationists. Still are.

You're probably, quite honestly, one of a handful of non-creationist IDers. Like there might be 50 of you. Furthermore there are plenty of religious people who believe in the truth of Darwinian evolution, so the ID movement is really a sub-set of religious people -- Creationists.



1.) I don't like to label myself with anything. But I'd go with a Deist...

A deistic God doesn't interfere with the universe after making it. But ID requires God, at some point, to enter in and create us.

Therefore ID is not compatible with deism, and you're just a run-of-the-mill theist, as I suspected. That or a horribly confused deist. I should know, I used to be a deist, and the prime (only) tenet of deism is that, after the act of creation of the universe God does not intervene, ever, for any reason. So for God to then intervene and create life contradicts.

So by logic you should be believe life arose by random mutational processes originally set out BY the God at the time of creation.



2.) a.) No, only for a materialistic theory is it important. You can not ape a teleological theory into materialistic thinking of methodological naturalism.

Then I'll reject, out of hand, your teleological theory.



b.) I can't say that, because with ID I'm detecting design, not the designer. You can't say who is a designer by observing design. But than again you don't need to know the designer in order to detect design.

There are two facts here, both of which are vital: That something is designed and who designed it.

When I look at a car it isn't enough for me to say "Oh, that was obviously designed." I want to know who made it and how -- that's the interesting part, wouldn't you agree?

So it just won't do for you do argue from ignorance on this subject.



I will not deny that ID can be used as a political tool, but so can evolution, and it is. Richard Dawkins is a prime example.

1.) You do know that Dawkins is out to destreoy religion, don't you?

But he isn't. Dawkins even considers himself a "cultural Christian" and has secular celebrations of things like Christmas. He doesn't want to "destroy all religion" and I really doubt he thinks that's possibly. What he wants to do is secularize it and de-mythologize it, but that isn't destroying it.



2.) That's beacause they have no idea what hteire talikng about.

Well I guess if you say so!



Than why do you believe it?

I don't, you dumbass.



They still follow the core idea, that is of the common descent and randomness. Yes, they are Darwinists...

Are you a Newtonian? An Aristotlean? A Platonist?

Well, we know you're a Platonist.



Oh, really now! :laugh:

1.) What did this "single celled organism" came from?

The primordial sea.



2.) Show me the evidence...

ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

Especially notice the Miller-Urey experiment.



Explain why.

1.) It means that if you lose one part of the system, the system looses its original function.

Evolution has no problem answering this challenge, then. If you remove the optic nerve, the eye no longer works, but yet we have perfectly acceptable theories on how the eye evolved. We even have creatures alive today that have primative eyes, as the theory would suggest.

Therefore, according to your classificaiton the eye is irreducibly complex. But we have evidence that it evolved in the fossil record, in the genome, and in looking at "less evolved" creatures still alive today.

So "irreducible complexity" is meaningless. Evolution can fully answer the charge.



2.) Bacterial flagellum. Explain, why not.

Watch the PBS documentary on the dover trial. Scientists go in depth in explaining exactly why the Becterial flageullum could be explained by evolution.

THe gist of it this: The flaggellum started off as a needle used by the organism to stab another and inject its DNA (or RNA) into it. But though actually a few very simple modifications, it changed into the bacterial flaggelum.

This is proof that it didn't arrive all at once, but that it evolved over time. Here's a link:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/

You really should watch it.




Have you ver heard of the Cambrian Explosion? How about the Avalon explosion?

Yes.

And?



They are a center for science and culture. So yes the are both scientific and cultural institution.

Why, becuase they have "science" in their name?

I guess NOrth Korea is "democratic", too, right?



You don't get it do you? It's like asking me: "Show me a light in the dark!" It can't be done ok? It's a logical fallacy!

Which one?


We are living in a material world, and I CAN NOT show you an immaterial idea!

Then why should I believe you when you tell me it exists? If you can't show me this idea, then how does the idea interact with the physical world at all?

If the idea is non-physical (as you say it is), then how could it possibly interact with the physical world? How can a non-physical point (an idea) MOVE a 200 pound human body? Hmm? Do you have an answer? Descartes didn't. He thought it was the Pineal gland. Well... it isn't.

It's a fatal flaw in your thinking. If ideas COULD move physical things, then you'd be able to show me an idea, because at least part of that idea would have to exert itself IN THE PHYSICAL REALM. And thus you should be able to show me that part of an idea. But you can't do that, because you think ALL of the idea is non-physical. Well, OK, but then it can't interact with me, or with you, or with anything in the physical world. Ergo ideas cannot exert influence in the physical world.

But this is a reductio ad absurdum. Ideas can and do influence the physical world, ergo, ideas are physical.



I can only show you matter that represents information, that is, the idea, created by our immaterial mind!

How does the immaterial mind interact with material world? If it doesn't it immaterially, then it could never influence matter, which is material. If it does it materially then the idea itself must be at least partly material.

You're trapped.


Can you touch an idea!? Can yopu move an idea? Can you turn an idea around and rotate it? No you cant, beacuse it does not have physical properties! And it doesn't have them because it's not matter!

Are numbers material? I should hope not, that'd be silly, for your theory.

Therefore numbers must be immaterial. And yet calculators, which are fully material, can manipulate them just fine. How? Do calculators have an immaterial mind? :rolleyes:

The only reason you can't touch an idea is that an idea is an electrical impulse in your brain, and you can't can't easily touch that. Yes, you can move it. If I have an idea on my head, and write in paper, I have moved ir, or at least made a copy of it. Can you turn it? Sure.

You can, in theory, do all of those things, because ideas are material. Not in the idiotic sense you're thinking, but in this sense: an idea is merely all of its instantiations.

Get it?



No form does not equal information. Snowflake has a form yet id does not have any information.

Sure it does. It carries information, or rather, information could be importaed to it.



1.) Can matter have free will? No it can't! Do people have free will? Yes we do.

No we don't.

Read Daniel Wegner's book The Illusion of Conscious Will.


Do computers process information and execute commands? Yes they do. But can the create self-commands? No they can't.

Yes they can. Computers can, to varying degrees, self-program, some of them evolutionarily.


They can only execute what commands the have been given. Matter does not THINK for itself.

Digital computers can mimick, in theory, every thought you have.



But guess what, people have the abillity to create self-commands.

No we don't.


We can command ourselves to do tasks that we want.

Yes, but we can't command ourselves to want what we want, for that would be circular.

So while we can choose to do what we want (this is actually an illusion, I'm just humoring you) we cannot want what we want, ergo we are not free.



Thus showing you that our brain has an immaterial part that makes us do that. If it was just matter that we could not THINK, we could only process information, like computers do.

Thinking is information processing. What else could it be?



Majority opinion = truth?

Oh, I see. So when the mojority believed the it was flat, it was flat? Goo one! :D

That's not what I said, dipshit.

I said the majority of people now think the earth is round, and they're right. A corralary of that is not that when people thought otherwise, they were right, the corallary is when other people thought otherwise, they were wrong.

Shit you're dense.

My point was that popular opinion could be right. Could be wrong too, but it can be right.



It wasn't designed because there was no teleological force used. You need teleology to design. A snowflake is a simple product of natural processes.

How do you know? I think that snowflakes have minds.



1.) What information does a snowflake carry.

As much as any other geometric figure, ie, plenty.



How can matter feel?

By arranging itself a certain way.

How can matter fly? "Well matter can't fly, only Avia can fly. Avia is this non-physical force that gets applied to flying matter."



Than explain how. And explain or capability of creating self-commands which computers can't do.

But computers can do that. So you're hopelessly wrong.



Explain please...

They are stone-cold proof of common ancestry.

Here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#retroviruses

Look at the picture for an easy illustration. The retrovirses get trapped in our DNA on occasion. And we can look at the retroviruses contained in other creatures. Lo and behold the retroviruses match up exactly with out previous idea of how primates evolved.

Imagine that.

[careyprice31]

ID guy, you were wondering how we can prove we all came from a common ancestor?

actually not one of you here mentioned the importance of geographic isolation of species, caused in part by movement of the earth's teutonic plates, that can isolate groups from each other and cause species to evolve along different paths in history.

one way is by looking at the embryos of different species. Cat, dog, fish, bird. In the early stages, they all look remarkably alike. You;d have to be an expert to even tell the difference between them. Humans have a tailbone, it is believed with evidence, that our ancestors once had a tail.

also the structure of different animals's forlegs. The wing of a bird, the fin of a dolphin, the foreleg of a horse, the arm of a human. They all are alike in a remarkable way. They evolved for different purposes, but they are much alike.

we all are related in some way to each other.

[ID-guy]

I already did.

Of Pandas and People, the standard ID text was formerly a creationist text -- when the ID movement sprang up the authors quite literally just changed the words "creationism" with "Intelligent Design."

Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy#cite_note-0

The people who founded your movement (I know you don't like to associate yourself with them, but tough) were creationists. Still are.

You're probably, quite honestly, one of a handful of non-creationist IDers. Like there might be 50 of you. Furthermore there are plenty of religious people who believe in the truth of Darwinian evolution, so the ID movement is really a sub-set of religious people -- Creationists.Just because they have a political agenda doesn't mean that their science isn't right. And again, I don't care about their political agenda if the science is right.


A deistic God doesn't interfere with the universe after making it. But ID requires God, at some point, to enter in and create us.

Therefore ID is not compatible with deism, and you're just a run-of-the-mill theist, as I suspected. That or a horribly confused deist. I should know, I used to be a deist, and the prime (only) tenet of deism is that, after the act of creation of the universe God does not intervene, ever, for any reason. So for God to then intervene and create life contradicts.

So by logic you should be believe life arose by random mutational processes originally set out BY the God at the time of creation.Don't tell me what I am, your geting on my nerves.

Again, I told you, I do not like to label myself, because I think for myself, and do not accept anything 100% if I don't like it. That's why a Deist would by a colosest thing if I were to label myself. So stop being so full of yourself. If the Deistic God did create the universe and everything in it including the life forms, than there is no contradiction with Deism. But we are not talking about Deism here, so don't mention it again.


Then I'll reject, out of hand, your teleological theory.Fine, but than you are not being scientific. Because you can't say:"Oh, I don't like your theory, because it doesn't fit in my worldview, so I'm rejecting it!"


There are two facts here, both of which are vital: That something is designed and who designed it.

When I look at a car it isn't enough for me to say "Oh, that was obviously designed." I want to know who made it and how -- that's the interesting part, wouldn't you agree?

So it just won't do for you do argue from ignorance on this subject.1.) If you wan't to know who designed the car that's fine, go and find out. Not my problem. But ID is not about that. It's only about detecting design, and designer is not needed in orded to detect design.

2.) What ignorance?


But he isn't. Dawkins even considers himself a "cultural Christian" and has secular celebrations of things like Christmas. He doesn't want to "destroy all religion" and I really doubt he thinks that's possibly. What he wants to do is secularize it and de-mythologize it, but that isn't destroying it.Actually it is, because religion is base on myths anyway...


Well I guess if you say so!Yeah, I do say so!


I don't, you dumbass.Imbecile, than what do you belive in?


Are you a Newtonian? An Aristotlean? A Platonist?

Well, we know you're a Platonist.None of those...


The primordial sea.Proof?


ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

Especially notice the Miller-Urey experiment.ROTFL!!! You still don't get it do you? They messed up that experiment pretty bad.

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/molecular_biology_09.html

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/molecular_biology_10.html


Evolution has no problem answering this challenge, then. If you remove the optic nerve, the eye no longer works, but yet we have perfectly acceptable theories on how the eye evolved. We even have creatures alive today that have primative eyes, as the theory would suggest.

Therefore, according to your classificaiton the eye is irreducibly complex. But we have evidence that it evolved in the fossil record, in the genome, and in looking at "less evolved" creatures still alive today.

So "irreducible complexity" is meaningless. Evolution can fully answer the charge.Oh yeah? Than tell tell me how bacterial flagellum evolved.


Watch the PBS documentary on the dover trial. Scientists go in depth in explaining exactly why the Becterial flageullum could be explained by evolution.

THe gist of it this: The flaggellum started off as a needle used by the organism to stab another and inject its DNA (or RNA) into it. But though actually a few very simple modifications, it changed into the bacterial flaggelum.

This is proof that it didn't arrive all at once, but that it evolved over time. Here's a link:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/

You really should watch it.I did watch it, and it's wrong. Here is why.

http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.02.Miller_Response.htm



Yes.

And?And it doesn't show the gradualism that evolution predicts.


Why, becuase they have "science" in their name?

I guess NOrth Korea is "democratic", too, right?So you are saying they are not scientific? Prove it.


Which one?Ideas are not material and I can't show you ideas in material world.


Then why should I believe you when you tell me it exists? If you can't show me this idea, then how does the idea interact with the physical world at all?

If the idea is non-physical (as you say it is), then how could it possibly interact with the physical world? How can a non-physical point (an idea) MOVE a 200 pound human body? Hmm? Do you have an answer? Descartes didn't. He thought it was the Pineal gland. Well... it isn't.

It's a fatal flaw in your thinking. If ideas COULD move physical things, then you'd be able to show me an idea, because at least part of that idea would have to exert itself IN THE PHYSICAL REALM. And thus you should be able to show me that part of an idea. But you can't do that, because you think ALL of the idea is non-physical. Well, OK, but then it can't interact with me, or with you, or with anything in the physical world. Ergo ideas cannot exert influence in the physical world.

But this is a reductio ad absurdum. Ideas can and do influence the physical world, ergo, ideas are physical.Of course I don't know how, and I don't need to. Why? Because I don't actually know what ideas are. The only thing I know is what they are NOT. And they are NOT material. Why? Because if they were, when you would be creating ideas in your mind, you would be creating matter. That is not possible. Matter can not be destroyed. Just because I don't know how ideas interact with physical world doesn't mean I'm wrong. I'm not saying a positive statement here. I'm don't have to prove anything since I'm not saying what ideas ARE, I'm saying what they AREN'T. And they aren't matter.

You are the one that has got to prvove how they work, since youa re saying that they are matter. So prove it.


How does the immaterial mind interact with material world? If it doesn't it immaterially, then it could never influence matter, which is material. If it does it materially then the idea itself must be at least partly material.

You're trapped.No I'm not. You have no idea what you are talking about. Who says that ideas can't move material? If they are not material and since we can think and move, that means they can.


Are numbers material? I should hope not, that'd be silly, for your theory.

Therefore numbers must be immaterial. And yet calculators, which are fully material, can manipulate them just fine. How? Do calculators have an immaterial mind? :rolleyes:ROTFL! How dumb! :D

Calculators do not work with IDEAS, they work with physical objects and energy, like electrical impulses and metal. There are no "numbers" inside a calculator, just matter that reacts to our commands when we use a calculator. The ideas are in our mind.


The only reason you can't touch an idea is that an idea is an electrical impulse in your brain, and you can't can't easily touch that. Yes, you can move it. If I have an idea on my head, and write in paper, I have moved ir, or at least made a copy of it. Can you turn it? Sure.

You can, in theory, do all of those things, because ideas are material. Not in the idiotic sense you're thinking, but in this sense: an idea is merely all of its instantiations.

Get it?You are the one who doesn't get it. How can an electrical impulse be an idea of a car! It's a god damn electricity! If you were to open a brain and look at it, you would se electricity and chemicals, you would not see an image of a car while a person is thinking about the car!

Explain, how WE can see a CAR by using impulses and chemicals!


Sure it does. It carries information, or rather, information could be importaed to it.Well it fucking could but it isn't.


No we don't.

Read Daniel Wegner's book The Illusion of Conscious Will.I'm not going to. Do you have an argument or not? Guess not. Explain to me why I don't have free will. Explain why I can do whatever I want, yet you say I don't have free will. Explain who is determinating everything I do if not myself.


Yes they can. Computers can, to varying degrees, self-program, some of them evolutionarily.How retarded! No they can't. Tha'ts not self-commanding, that's executing commands that were given to the damn computer!

Basicly a computer was programed to execute a comand to tell iteself to do something. That is again just executing commands. People can do anything they wan't.

Computer can not not obey an order. I can.


Digital computers can mimick, in theory, every thought you have.That's the point, they can only mimick it. They can't think. I'm thinking while I'm adding 2+2, computer does not think about it. He does not know what he is doing. He does not know that he even exists! He is just processing a command.


No we don't.Yes we do. Tell me, who is commanding me to type on my keyboard.


Yes, but we can't command ourselves to want what we want, for that would be circular.

So while we can choose to do what we want (this is actually an illusion, I'm just humoring you) we cannot want what we want, ergo we are not free.No, you are just not making sense here. Your previous statements do not make sense. There fore you are wrong. Those are just slapped on words without meaning.

I can do whatever I want. That means I can command myself. if not, than who is commanding me?


Thinking is information processing. What else could it be?No it's not. It's creating new information from nothing.


That's not what I said, dipshit.

I said the majority of people now think the earth is round, and they're right. A corralary of that is not that when people thought otherwise, they were right, the corallary is when other people thought otherwise, they were wrong.

Shit you're dense.

My point was that popular opinion could be right. Could be wrong too, but it can be right.If they can be wrong than don't use the popular opinion to win an argument. You look dumb by doing so.


How do you know? I think that snowflakes have minds.Do you also think that there is a pink unicorn in your closet?


As much as any other geometric figure, ie, plenty.Which means none. There is no information on a snowflake.


By arranging itself a certain way.

How can matter fly? "Well matter can't fly, only Avia can fly. Avia is this non-physical force that gets applied to flying matter."No, that is just arrangement of matter. That is not feeling.


But computers can do that. So you're hopelessly wrong.No they can't. Give me proof othervise.


They are stone-cold proof of common ancestry.

Here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#retroviruses

Look at the picture for an easy illustration. The retrovirses get trapped in our DNA on occasion. And we can look at the retroviruses contained in other creatures. Lo and behold the retroviruses match up exactly with out previous idea of how primates evolved.

Imagine that.Wow you live in a stone age!

http://www.iscid.org/papers/Borger_SharedMutations_061506.pdf

Read this. Guinea pigs have the same mutation as we and chimps do! And no other species between us and guinea pigs has that mutation. So that means it didn't come by common ancestory! It came because that part on the genome is a hotspot for mutations.

[ID-guy]

ID guy, you were wondering how we can prove we all came from a common ancestor?

actually not one of you here mentioned the importance of geographic isolation of species, caused in part by movement of the earth's teutonic plates, that can isolate groups from each other and cause species to evolve along different paths in history.

one way is by looking at the embryos of different species. Cat, dog, fish, bird. In the early stages, they all look remarkably alike. You;d have to be an expert to even tell the difference between them. Humans have a tailbone, it is believed with evidence, that our ancestors once had a tail.

also the structure of different animals's forlegs. The wing of a bird, the fin of a dolphin, the foreleg of a horse, the arm of a human. They all are alike in a remarkable way. They evolved for different purposes, but they are much alike.

we all are related in some way to each other.1.) First you are using lies to prove evolution, and that has been droped over 100 years ago. We are not similar in embriological development. That was a lie created by Earnst Haeckel and his fake embryo drawings.

Here is how he drew the embryos, and here is how they really look like. He lied!

http://workgroups.cwrl.utexas.edu/visual/files/p50_embryo.jpg


http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i2/haeckel.asp

2.) Yeah, so we have similarity with other living organisms. So what? Does that prove evolution? No it doesn't, you just assume it does. Assuming is not the same as proving an idea. The similarity could just as easily be because of the same designer designed everything. Ever thought about that?

[careyprice31]

1.) First you are using lies to prove evolution, and that has been droped over 100 years ago. We are not similar in embriological development. That was a lie created by Earnst Haeckel and his fake embryo drawings.

Here is how he drew the embryos, and here is how they really look like. He lied!

http://workgroups.cwrl.utexas.edu/visual/files/p50_embryo.jpg


http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i2/haeckel.asp

2.) Yeah, so we have similarity with other living organisms. So what? Does that prove evolution? No it doesn't, you just assume it does. Assuming is not the same as proving an idea. The similarity could just as easily be because of the same designer designed everything. Ever thought about that?
"First you are using lies to prove evolution, and that has been droped over 100 years ago. We are not similar in embriological development. That was a lie created by Earnst Haeckel and his fake embryo drawings.

Here is how he drew the embryos, and here is how they really look like. He lied!

http://workgroups.cwrl.utexas.edu/visual/files/p50_embryo.jpg"

are you kidding me?

It is still seen today in university classes and books, therefore it hasnt been dropped.

and go look at real embryos for pete's sake. You rely on somebody's drawings?

especially, I might add, someone from the 19th century, when they didnt have little cameras to actually go inside a gestating creature and videotape it firsthand and take pictures. I expected for his pics not to be entirely accurate. That is what happened when the AIG bunch said he lied and made things up.

It is not a lie.

also I've seen that website answers in genesis a thousand times. Do you contradict yourself. You said you arent religious, and id follows no religion yet you are going to cite the website of a group of theists who use the bible to try to explain things?

wtf?

[bcbm]

This argument is pointless and people with more scientific background than I are arguing it well enough, so I'm not going to waste my time, except to point out...


Well tell me of something else that does. If you can't than we are sticking with intelligence. Since I have no reason to BELIEVE that something else can design, just so it can fit you theory.


...that by talking about "design," the ball is already in your court as design implies the existence of a maker by default- its purposeful. There is no design in the universe.

Beyond that, I'm more inclined to take the word of the vast majority of the scientific community than a few creationists trying to push a Christian political agenda. There's a reason their theories are not only refuted but entirely rejected, and it isn't "conspiracy."

[ID-guy]

are you kidding me?

It is still seen today in university classes and books, therefore it hasnt been dropped.That's my point! They are still using LIES in the text books to prove evolution. You should really hear what the other side has to say about this issue...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecH5SKxL9wk


and go look at real embryos for pete's sake. You rely on somebody's drawings?Yes, the fake drawings Haeckel made. That is where the idea came from that all animals and people are similar in embrionic state. They are not. Didn't you see the picture I posted?

http://workgroups.cwrl.utexas.edu/visual/files/p50_embryo.jpg

Again, let me explain. The upper part are Haeckel FAKE drawings in which he made all the animals and human look very similar. Lower part is the ultra sound image of real embryos, and NO, they do not look similar at all. And they are completely differen than what Haeckel drew.


especially, I might add, someone from the 19th century, when they didnt have little cameras to actually go inside a gestating creature and videotape it firsthand and take pictures. I expected for his pics not to be entirely accurate. That is what happened when the AIG bunch said he lied and made things up.

It is not a lie.Yes it is a lie! Haeckel later admitted that some of his drawings might be "false". Look at the picture i gave you. His drawings look NOTHING like the real stuff. He lied. End of story.

Even if he didn't lie, the idea that all living organism are similar in embryological development is flase.


also I've seen that website answers in genesis a thousand times. Do you contradict yourself. You said you arent religious, and id follows no religion yet you are going to cite the website of a group of theists who use the bible to try to explain things?

wtf?And why shouldn't I? If they have good information than why shouldn't I use it? I use the darwinismrefuted.com web site also. And it is made by a Muslim. So what? I don't care what religion people are. I don't care if the are atheist or agnostics, I'm just interested in science.

[ID-guy]

This argument is pointless and people with more scientific background than I are arguing it well enough, so I'm not going to waste my time, except to point out...No they are all over anyway. They got nothing on me.


...that by talking about "design," the ball is already in your court as design implies the existence of a maker by default- its purposeful. There is no design in the universe.Yes there is, you just do not have the capacity to understand it. You think you have? Fine than, explain to me what CSI is. I already explained it more than once. If you can't than you got no busieness debating here since you don't understand design detection.


Beyond that, I'm more inclined to take the word of the vast majority of the scientific community than a few creationists trying to push a Christian political agenda. There's a reason their theories are not only refuted but entirely rejected, and it isn't "conspiracy."Which just proves that you are wrong. You don't understand ID so that is why you are jumping over with a popular opinion. Few houndred years ago you would be the one who said the Earth was flat beacuse the "scientific" mojirity said so...

[Publius]

Just because they have a political agenda doesn't mean that their science isn't right. And again, I don't care about their political agenda if the science is right.

There is no science.

What experiments are carried out at the Discovery Institute? How much lab space do they have?



Don't tell me what I am, your geting on my nerves.

Again, I told you, I do not like to label myself, because I think for myself, and do not accept anything 100% if I don't like it.

You think the fact that your thinking is sloppy that it doesn't fit into any labels is a good thing.

It isn't.


That's why a Deist would by a colosest thing if I were to label myself. So stop being so full of yourself. If the Deistic God did create the universe and everything in it including the life forms, than there is no contradiction with Deism. But we are not talking about Deism here, so don't mention it again.

First of all, I'll mention whatever the fuck I want.

Second of all, you think this deistic God is the Intelligent Designer, so it's obviously relevant.

Just because your theology is as muddled and mundane as your science doesn't mean I'm going to avoid it.



Fine, but than you are not being scientific. Because you can't say:"Oh, I don't like your theory, because it doesn't fit in my worldview, so I'm rejecting it!"

Science is, by definition, materialistic, so me tossing out your non-materialist, therefore un-scientific, theory is not itself unscientific.

You've told me on many occasions that your theories cannot even be physically tested -- so they're meaningless.



1.) If you wan't to know who designed the car that's fine, go and find out. Not my problem. But ID is not about that. It's only about detecting design, and designer is not needed in orded to detect design.

I'm not interested in merely "detecting design." If the universe is designed, I want to know what designed. I want to know everything about it, because it seems improbable to me that that this designer could have come about by chance, so where did IT come from?

All you're doing by just positing "a designer" is arguing from ignorance.



2.) What ignorance?

You're arguing from ignorance.



Actually it is, because religion is base on myths anyway...

Yes, and there are naturalistic religions. See: deism, or unitarianism, or some versions of Judaism or Hinduism.



Imbecile, than what do you belive in?

That we evolved from proteins and living creatures, not rocks, which can't even procreate.



None of those...

Except you are a Platonist because you believe that ideas have a metaphysical ontology.

Philistine.



ROTFL!!! You still don't get it do you? They messed up that experiment pretty bad.

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/molecular_biology_09.html

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/molecular_biology_10.html

Luckily for us abiogenesis is not stuck in the 1950s, that was just the first experiment that demonstrated the possibility of the theory.

It's not as if once that research was done everyone closed up shop and said "problem solved."

See: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html



Oh yeah? Than tell tell me how bacterial flagellum evolved.

I did watch it, and it's wrong. Here is why.

http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.02.Miller_Response.htm

You, as usual, are being idiotic.

First of all the Dembski article doesn't successfully refute Miller's point. There is no actual evidence, save a reference to an article that explores the possibility that Miller is wrong. That doesn't cut it.

Second of all, all Miller has to show is that the the BF isn't IRREDUCIBLY COMPLEX. He doesn't have to show how it actually evolved. He could be wrong: the BF could have evolved first. But that wouldn't prove evolution wrong, it would confirm it: if the BF EVOLVED, over millions of years, that would constitute proof of naturalism, not a refutation of it. That you or Dembski would think otherwise says a lot about you.

By mere fact that Miller has shown that the BF isn't IRREDUCIBLE, that in fact it can be reduced to simpler mechanisms, he's destroyed the idea of ID entirely, not just this one example. When Dembski says: "The best current molecular evidence, however, points to the TTSS as evolving from the flagellum and not vice versa (Nguyen et al. 2000)." he's tacitly assuming that evolution is true! Which is quite hilarious. Obviously Nguyen came to the conclusion that the BF evolved first, contra Miller. BUT BOTH MILLER AND NGUYEN THINK THE BF "EVOLVED". :lol:

Please tell me you realize the hilarity of this: in trying to prove the BF couldn't have evolved because it's "irreducibly complex" he cites the research of a biologist claiming that it evolved.

Head-bashingly idiotic, yet standard for Dembski.




Of course I don't know how, and I don't need to. Why?

Because you're a pretentious blowhard, amatuer philosopher?


Because I don't actually know what ideas are.

Then your arguments are, by definition, arguments from ignorance, and are thus logically fallacious.


The only thing I know is what they are NOT. And they are NOT material. Why? Because if they were, when you would be creating ideas in your mind, you would be creating matter. That is not possible.

Ho-lee shit.

Wow. Just fucking.... wow.

You truly are the dumbest person I've ever encountered if this is your refutation of naturalism.

That the mind cannot create ideas because that would require creating matter... Wow...

I guess that cars can't be material either, because creating a car must requiring creating matter. Oh wait, cars are just made from existing matter... like ideas.

Ideas are just connections between neurons in your brain. You don't make extra matter, you just rearrange existing matter. See: neural networking and connectionism. Maybe read a book sometime. Paul Churchland's Matter and Consciousness would be a good place to start.

Wow.



Matter can not be destroyed. Just because I don't know how ideas interact with physical world doesn't mean I'm wrong.

Actually, it does.


I'm not saying a positive statement here.

Yes you are. You said ideas are immaterial.

Do you want to admit you were wrong to say that?


I'm don't have to prove anything since I'm not saying what ideas ARE, I'm saying what they AREN'T. And they aren't matter.

Prove this statement. The fact that you THINK it isn't is no good. That you FEEL it isn't doesn't count either.

Prove it.



You are the one that has got to prvove how they work, since youa re saying that they are matter. So prove it.

Alright.

Alzheimers destroys ideas by destroying the brain. If ideas were not material, then a physical disease such as Alzeimers should not be able to alter or destroy them.

QED.

Ideas in the brain are material, because if you damage the brain, you damage the ideas. We even know what part of the brain leads to what damage due to lesion studies. Lesions can't affect immaterial ideas. But they can affect brains, ergo ideas reside in the brain.

Pretty simple really.



No I'm not. You have no idea what you are talking about. Who says that ideas can't move material? If they are not material and since we can think and move, that means they can.

:lol:

Wait...

:lol:

Oh, you're SERIOUS?

:lol:

Logical fallacy: begging the question.
Logical fallacy: argument from ignorance.
Logical fallacy: affirming the consequent.

If p then q.
q.
Therefore, p

If ideas are not material then they can move matter.
Ideas can move matter.
Therefore ideas are not material.

Hahahaha. Etc.

Classic. You should go into comedy.



ROTFL! How dumb! :D

Calculators do not work with IDEAS, they work with physical objects and energy, like electrical impulses and metal.

Yeah, like electrical impulses and brain cells.

Exactly like that, in fact.

Wait....


There are no "numbers" inside a calculator, just matter that reacts to our commands when we use a calculator. The ideas are in our mind.

So if you crack open our head, you'll see our ideas? I thought you said ideas were non-physical, dumbass?

How can non-physical ideas be inside our physical skull? UHHHHHH....

Fucking think for a second so I don't have to do it for you.



You are the one who doesn't get it. How can an electrical impulse be an idea of a car!

Via the reference relation.


It's a god damn electricity!

That's all the car is.

How do the atoms stick together? Atomic bonding, electromagnetism. 99% of the car is empty space. Will you fall through it?



If you were to open a brain and look at it, you would se electricity and chemicals, you would not see an image of a car while a person is thinking about the car!

:lol:

I thought you just said that "Ideas were in our head."

What's wrong with you? Can't you stay consistent?

Also, fallacy: fallacy of composition.

"Atoms aren't red, so how can this red ball be made of atoms! It can't, you idiot! Atoms are just atomic, electromagnetic and gravitational forces, they don't have color!"

Moron.



Explain, how WE can see a CAR by using impulses and chemicals!

Sight hits our lens, the data is picked up by our cones, travels down our optic nerve and into our vision center in the back of our brain. This transorms the sensory data into chemical and electrical signals which are sent to the part of the brain responsible for linguistic categorization. Here the sensory data are labelled "car."

That simple.



Well it fucking could but it isn't.

I'm not going to. Do you have an argument or not? Guess not. Explain to me why I don't have free will.

Your body is physical, and physical things obey physical laws. Physical laws are deterministic, at least at the macro level.

Thus the motions of your body are physically determined.



Explain why I can do whatever I want, yet you say I don't have free will.

You can't do whatever you want.

You can't fly, you can't win the Olympic gold medal in figure skating, and you can't do other than what you will do.


Explain who is determinating everything I do if not myself.

Logical fallacy: being a dumbass.

You are determining what you do because you are you. But you are determined. What you think is determined. What you think determines how you act. Therefore how you act is determined... by you.

None else is determining what you do, only you are. But you yourself are determined, just like you're determined to be wrong in this debate.



How retarded! No they can't. Tha'ts not self-commanding, that's executing commands that were given to the damn computer!

Computers are now at the point where they can self program.



Basicly a computer was programed to execute a comand to tell iteself to do something. That is again just executing commands. People can do anything they wan't.

YOu can't do ANYTHING you want.

Any computers are getting to the point where they can change their own architectures and thus their own instructions. It's coming, trust me.

Chess programs, for example, can learn beyond what they're programmed. They program the rules of chess and a learning algorithim. The computer then creates, on its own, higher-level rules of chess.



Computer can not not obey an order. I can.

Computers CAN obey orders.



That's the point, they can only mimick it. They can't think. I'm thinking while I'm adding 2+2, computer does not think about it.

You don't either.

For such a simple math problem the answer arrives automatically -- you don't have to think about it.


He does not know what he is doing. He does not know that he even exists! He is just processing a command.

Why are you calling it a he?



Yes we do. Tell me, who is commanding me to type on my keyboard.

You are.

The fact that you have A will is not proof that you have a FREE will.



No, you are just not making sense here. Your previous statements do not make sense. There fore you are wrong. Those are just slapped on words without meaning.

I'm making perfect sense. That you can't comprehend me in no way impugns me.



I can do whatever I want. That means I can command myself. if not, than who is commanding me?

Yes, you command yourself and none else commands you.

But that still doesn't make you free.

Robotic cars control themselves, but they don't have free will either.



No it's not. It's creating new information from nothing.

That's logically impossible.

How can you create something from nothing? Can't be done.



If they can be wrong than don't use the popular opinion to win an argument. You look dumb by doing so.

I didn't. I cited the experts in the field. That's not an appeal to popularity.



Do you also think that there is a pink unicorn in your closet?

No, I was making fun of you, jackass.

Your position is just as ridiculous. Tell me: how do you KNOW snowflakes aren't conscious? Can you prove it?



Which means none. There is no information on a snowflake.

False. Geometric figures do contain information. The information that the summation of the interior angles of a triangle equals 180 degrees is contained within the triangle.



No, that is just arrangement of matter. That is not feeling.

No, it's flying.



Wow you live in a stone age!

http://www.iscid.org/papers/Borger_SharedMutations_061506.pdf

Read this. Guinea pigs have the same mutation as we and chimps do! And no other species between us and guinea pigs has that mutation. So that means it didn't come by common ancestory! It came because that part on the genome is a hotspot for mutations.

That paper doesn't contain either the word "endogenous" or the word "retrovirus" and thus it doesn't respond to what I posted, so I ignored it.

It's clear that you don't understand ERVs and so you posted this irrelevent bullshit.

Also, from what I skimmed of that paper it was idiotic bullshit.

Are you getting tired of getting your ass kicked yet? Ready to admit that you don't know this subject as well as you thought you did?

[Publius]

No they are all over anyway. They got nothing on me.

I, and several other posters, have completely destroyed your each and every pretense.



Yes there is, you just do not have the capacity to understand it. You think you have? Fine than, explain to me what CSI is. I already explained it more than once. If you can't than you got no busieness debating here since you don't understand design detection.

It is a bullshit metric made up by moronic IDers such as yourself.



Which just proves that you are wrong. You don't understand ID so that is why you are jumping over with a popular opinion. Few houndred years ago you would be the one who said the Earth was flat beacuse the "scientific" mojirity said so...

Scientists over 2000 years ago managed to figure out that the earth was round, dipshit.

[Publius]

Evolutionary algorithms are not random. Because computers can not generate randomness.

Yes they can.

Ever heard of a random number generator?

You spout off with the most ignorant bullshit. Read a fucking book sometime.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Publius, I'd like to thank you for putting up with this guy's shit, and doing it in a far more eloquent manner than I.

Thank you :D

[RevMARKSman]

Yes but are they the same as paper and a ink that you just randomly drop on paper?
Yes!
The only difference is that when humans see certain blotches of ink, we imagine certain things. That doesn't make a book materially different from ink on paper.

o, you have to understand that you have no idea what you are talking about. We didn't make the DNA somebody else did. So he who created, also created that information.


Of course we didn't make DNA, you fucking nit. I'm saying that only we ever came up with the concept of "information." There is no objective material difference between what you say is "information processing" and what you say isn't.

You don't get it. This is the most childish thing I have ever heard in my life. Are you also a part of your TV? Yeah, you are watching your TV so you must be a part of your TV! Are TVs produced with people in them, did you buy your TV with yourself in it? I guess not.

You are not a part of TV, TV is a system for itsel it was created independantly of yourself, just like the logs and the water. Logs and water are no system, they don't do anything together, they don't process any information, and you by watching them are not creating any system.

How exactly are these things not a system? Water erodes logs. That's interaction. The water molecules touch the cells in the log, that's the simplest way of "doing something together."
How are you defining a system? You're asserting that logs and water aren't processing "information" but again, information is subjective. It's only there when there are people to think it's there.

[ID-guy]

There is no science.

What experiments are carried out at the Discovery Institute? How much lab space do they have?A lot, read here.

http://www.researchintelligentdesign.org/wiki/ID_research


You think the fact that your thinking is sloppy that it doesn't fit into any labels is a good thing.

It isn't.No it means I don't belive 100% what anyone says.


First of all, I'll mention whatever the fuck I want.

Second of all, you think this deistic God is the Intelligent Designer, so it's obviously relevant.I don't know who the designer is, how many times do I have to tell you that, so no, it doesn't matter.


Just because your theology is as muddled and mundane as your science doesn't mean I'm going to avoid it.I have no theology. Theology is teaching about what God wants. Nobody knows that and I don't either. So again, you are wrong.


Science is, by definition, materialistic, so me tossing out your non-materialist, therefore un-scientific, theory is not itself unscientific.

You've told me on many occasions that your theories cannot even be physically tested -- so they're meaningless.Oh no you don't. Science is NOT materialistic. Naturalism is a materialistic philosophy. And naturalism has sliped into science and pretends to be "scientific" but it is in no way science. Science is a search for truth, and not a philosophy. You have got to be open to any answer if you are looking for the truth. So if you are limiting yourself with a philosophy, in this case, naturalism, than you are by definition not looking for the truth. Because by your way of searching for the answers, the answer can only be materialistic. And if the answer is in reality not materialistic, you can never find it, because you are not looking for it.

So the conclusion is, methodological naturalism is a materialistic philosophy, and by definition is not science. Thus this makes you wrong.


I'm not interested in merely "detecting design." If the universe is designed, I want to know what designed. I want to know everything about it, because it seems improbable to me that that this designer could have come about by chance, so where did IT come from?

All you're doing by just positing "a designer" is arguing from ignorance.1.) Well than please do! Go and find the designer, but don't ask me. Nor ask anyone who is dealing with ID since ID is not about finding the designer.

2.) No, I'm not. We know, from science, that the intelligence is the single cause of design. So if we find design, we logically conclude there is a designer. That is reasonable thinking, not argument from ignorance.


You're arguing from ignorance.No, I'm not. Once again, a short version of the above.

DESIGN -> DESIGNER


Yes, and there are naturalistic religions. See: deism, or unitarianism, or some versions of Judaism or Hinduism.Deism is a philosophy not a religion, and not a naturalistic one either...


That we evolved from proteins and living creatures, not rocks, which can't even procreate.Oh, and proteins can procreate by themselves?

Anyway, where did the proteins come from?


Except you are a Platonist because you believe that ideas have a metaphysical ontology.

Philistine.What else colud they be? Chemicals?


Luckily for us abiogenesis is not stuck in the 1950s, that was just the first experiment that demonstrated the possibility of the theory.

It's not as if once that research was done everyone closed up shop and said "problem solved."

See: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html
See what? No proof there that life can arise from rocks. Just speculations. Cite me one part that gives proof that it can.


You, as usual, are being idiotic.

First of all the Dembski article doesn't successfully refute Miller's point.Yes it does. You just don't get it, since you don't know what IC is.


There is no actual evidence, save a reference to an article that explores the possibility that Miller is wrong. That doesn't cut it.

Second of all, all Miller has to show is that the the BF isn't IRREDUCIBLY COMPLEX. He doesn't have to show how it actually evolved.YES HE DOES! That is the point in showing that the flagellum is or is not IC!!!


He could be wrong: the BF could have evolved first. But that wouldn't prove evolution wrong, it would confirm it: if the BF EVOLVED, over millions of years, that would constitute proof of naturalism, not a refutation of it. That you or Dembski would think otherwise says a lot about you.But there is no proof that it could evolve.


By mere fact that Miller has shown that the BF isn't IRREDUCIBLE, that in fact it can be reduced to simpler mechanisms, he's destroyed the idea of ID entirely, not just this one example.Fucking wrong. No, you don't get it! He didn't show anything. Just because you removed some parts and you get some other working system, doesn't mean that it isn't IC. IC is something that has no practical evolutionary pathway.

You have got to show that from the TTSS state it is possible to get to the flagellum by evolution. That is the way to prove that something is not IC. Miller didn't do that.


When Dembski says: "The best current molecular evidence, however, points to the TTSS as evolving from the flagellum and not vice versa (Nguyen et al. 2000)." he's tacitly assuming that evolution is true! Which is quite hilarious. Obviously Nguyen came to the conclusion that the BF evolved first, contra Miller. BUT BOTH MILLER AND NGUYEN THINK THE BF "EVOLVED". :lol:No, again, you don't get it. How old are you?

He is not saying that you idea of us coming from rocks is true, but that the TTSS and flagellum are changing, which means evolving. Not in your idea that they are going to become human in 3.6 billion years, but just changing.


Please tell me you realize the hilarity of this: in trying to prove the BF couldn't have evolved because it's "irreducibly complex" he cites the research of a biologist claiming that it evolved.

Head-bashingly idiotic, yet standard for Dembski.I can't tell you how sad I am to have to deal with a person who thinks he knows it all yet, knows so little,a nd is so full of himself. You got everything wrong untill now.


Because you're a pretentious blowhard, amatuer philosopher?And you are a darwinist, so now what?


Then your arguments are, by definition, arguments from ignorance, and are thus logically fallacious.Now, wrong. So if I for an example I saw a computer for a first time in my life, and didn't know what it was, but I said, that it was not a car, would that mean, that that was an argument from ignorance?

I know what a car is, and I ceartanly know that a computer is not a car. So by saying that I know that ideas are not matter, im not arguing from ignorance. Im actually deducting. Im throwing away what I find improbable. That's called science.


Ho-lee shit.

Wow. Just fucking.... wow.

You truly are the dumbest person I've ever encountered if this is your refutation of naturalism.You are a fucking moron, you know that? Again, you got it wrong...


That the mind cannot create ideas because that would require creating matter... Wow...

I guess that cars can't be material either, because creating a car must requiring creating matter. Oh wait, cars are just made from existing matter... like ideas.Cars are transformed matter by energy. You can touch a car, you can see it, but you can't touch an idea, and no you can't feel it. It's not the same.


Ideas are just connections between neurons in your brain. You don't make extra matter, you just rearrange existing matter. See: neural networking and connectionism. Maybe read a book sometime. Paul Churchland's Matter and Consciousness would be a good place to start.

Wow.Wrong. If that is true than tell me how does our brain see a car? Which chemical it uses to produce a car? And how does brain + chemical = idea of a car? And who percives the car in teh mind?


Actually, it does.So if I don't know how exactly the Sun shines, I'm wrong in saying that it shines?


Yes you are. You said ideas are immaterial.

Do you want to admit you were wrong to say that?That is a negative statement. It's like saying that the are not matter. Nonmaterial is not SOMETHING. It is describing something that is not.

Again, I do not know exactly what they are, but I know they are not matter. They could be anything that is not material, but I do not know what.


Prove this statement. The fact that you THINK it isn't is no good. That you FEEL it isn't doesn't count either.

Prove it.Only an insane darwinist would want me to prove that I can think and feel. That is just showing that you do not want to admit the obvious. Anyway, no I don't have to prove anything since I'm not claming that I know what ideas are. I'm only saying what they are not.


Alright.

Alzheimers destroys ideas by destroying the brain. If ideas were not material, then a physical disease such as Alzeimers should not be able to alter or destroy them.

QED.

Ideas in the brain are material, because if you damage the brain, you damage the ideas. We even know what part of the brain leads to what damage due to lesion studies. Lesions can't affect immaterial ideas. But they can affect brains, ergo ideas reside in the brain.

Pretty simple really.Wrong. Alzheimer just destroys the brain. The part of the prain that is used for specific functions. So that is why our mind, still intact can't produce the same effect. Because not the whole brain is functioning.

:lol:

Wait...

:lol:

Oh, you're SERIOUS?

:lol:

Logical fallacy: begging the question.
Logical fallacy: argument from ignorance.
Logical fallacy: affirming the consequent.

If p then q.
q.
Therefore, p

If ideas are not material then they can move matter.
Ideas can move matter.
Therefore ideas are not material.

Hahahaha. Etc.

Classic. You should go into comedy.[/quote]I said no such thing. Read carefully. I sad that if I'm right at ides being non-material, than I'm right at non-physical forces moving physical objects. Since we know that our mind moves our body.


Yeah, like electrical impulses and brain cells.

Exactly like that, in fact.

Wait....Yes, exactly like that. Yet guess what, a calculator is not going to go off and start calculating whenever it wishes. A human will, because it has free will. Because we have a non-material mind. That a calculator doesn't have.


So if you crack open our head, you'll see our ideas? I thought you said ideas were non-physical, dumbass?No, you fucking idiot, I'm not saying that.


How can non-physical ideas be inside our physical skull? UHHHHHH....

Fucking think for a second so I don't have to do it for you.Imbecile, I never said that. I said they were in our mind, not brain!


Via the reference relation.Explain.


That's all the car is.

How do the atoms stick together? Atomic bonding, electromagnetism. 99% of the car is empty space. Will you fall through it?But that is a real car. Are you saying that when I think of a car, a rela car is created in my brain?

:lol:

I thought you just said that "Ideas were in our head."

What's wrong with you? Can't you stay consistent?

Also, fallacy: fallacy of composition.

"Atoms aren't red, so how can this red ball be made of atoms! It can't, you idiot! Atoms are just atomic, electromagnetic and gravitational forces, they don't have color!"

Moron.[/quote]Fucking idiot, you are wrong again. I NEVER said they are in our head. I said they were in our mind, which is non-material.

Sight hits our lens, the data is picked up by our cones, travels down our optic nerve and into our vision center in the back of our brain. This transorms the sensory data into chemical and electrical signals which are sent to the part of the brain responsible for linguistic categorization. Here the sensory data are labelled "car."

That simple.[/quote]Explain the part where "sensory data are labelled "car."" What happens here?


Your body is physical, and physical things obey physical laws. Physical laws are deterministic, at least at the macro level.

Thus the motions of your body are physically determined.Not my mind isn't.


You can't do whatever you want.

You can't fly, you can't win the Olympic gold medal in figure skating, and you can't do other than what you will do.That is beacuse of the physical obstacles. But I can want to do that and try to do that, since I have free will. I may not suceed, but i can try to do it. And that is proof of free will.


Logical fallacy: being a dumbass.

You are determining what you do because you are you. But you are determined. What you think is determined. What you think determines how you act. Therefore how you act is determined... by you.

None else is determining what you do, only you are. But you yourself are determined, just like you're determined to be wrong in this debate.How retarded of you. That is circular logic.

You said that I am doing what I'm doing beacuse I'm doing it, and therefore I'm doing it and being determined.

Well fucking obvious! But, it is ME who is doing it, of my own free will. Yes I am determined, but again, by myself and by my own free will.


Computers are now at the point where they can self program.No they can't. You know shit about computers. They are just following commands and modifying existing programs that they have based on given algorithms and conditions. That is not programming.


YOu can't do ANYTHING you want.BU I CAN WISH TO DO IT! THAT IS WHAT FREE WILL IS ALL ABOUT!


Any computers are getting to the point where they can change their own architectures and thus their own instructions. It's coming, trust me.Again, this is not relevant. They are still following given commands by the programmer.


Chess programs, for example, can learn beyond what they're programmed. They program the rules of chess and a learning algorithim. The computer then creates, on its own, higher-level rules of chess.Yes, that is the same as above, and proves you know SHIT about both logic and computers. Algorithm are determined. Chess games are conditioned. Those are the conditions computers work and modify themselves. But they do it in determined way. They don't think about it. They just process the existing information they are being input. And they chnage in deterministic way. That is not free will. They are doing what they have been made to do. To change how the enviroment changes, by the use of algorithms.


Computers CAN obey orders.Yes, I know. But they can not refuse to obey an order.


You don't either.

For such a simple math problem the answer arrives automatically -- you don't have to think about it.I fucking can if I wan't to! A computer can't, that's the point.


Why are you calling it a he?Why shouldn't I?


You are.

The fact that you have A will is not proof that you have a FREE will.If you say that I'm commanding myself, that that means I do have free will. I can wish with my will whatever I want.


I'm making perfect sense. That you can't comprehend me in no way impugns me.Yeah, right.


Yes, you command yourself and none else commands you.

But that still doesn't make you free.Yes it does. What is holding me back than?


Robotic cars control themselves, but they don't have free will either.No, they don't! They run by a set of commands given to them by programmers! And they can not refuse to obey that orders!


That's logically impossible.

How can you create something from nothing? Can't be done.Information is not matter thus it can be done. Only matter and energy can not be created or destroyed.

When you are born, you have ZERO information in your mind. If you say that all information is just changed old information. Where does the first information come when we are born?


I didn't. I cited the experts in the field. That's not an appeal to popularity.But he is a part of the popular group so you fail again.


No, I was making fun of you, jackass.

Your position is just as ridiculous. Tell me: how do you KNOW snowflakes aren't conscious? Can you prove it?I don't have to! There is no indication that they are, why should anyone waste their time doing that? That is a retarder request, just like looking for pink unicorns, and yes, as you didn't get it, by that I was making fun of you...


False. Geometric figures do contain information. The information that the summation of the interior angles of a triangle equals 180 degrees is contained within the triangle.No it's not. That information is contained in a person knowing that description. A description of how to build a car is not stored within a car. Just like a description of how to draw a triangle is not stored within a triangle.


No, it's flying.I'm asking you how can matter feel.


That paper doesn't contain either the word "endogenous" or the word "retrovirus" and thus it doesn't respond to what I posted, so I ignored it.

It's clear that you don't understand ERVs and so you posted this irrelevent bullshit.

Also, from what I skimmed of that paper it was idiotic bullshit.

Are you getting tired of getting your ass kicked yet? Ready to admit that you don't know this subject as well as you thought you did?Fucking idiot. You are a grade A moron. It doesn't have to mention ERVs it's talking about the piece of shit you posted anyway!!!!!

How stupid do you have to be not to understand it!?

The fucking point is that ERVs didn't infect our common ancestor with a chimp and that is why we have the same mutation which disables us from having a functional vitamin C enzyme. If only humans and chimps had it, than it could be said that that was because of our common ancestor was infected with ERV.

But guess what you dick, the text says that guinea pigs have exactly the same mutation as humans and chimps! And no, no other species between humans, chimps and guine pigs has it. So that falsifies the idea that our common ancestor was infected with ERV and spread the same mutation to humans and chimps.

The answer is hotspot mutation regions in the genome. But since you are an idiot you didn't bother to read the text.

[ID-guy]

Yes they can.

Ever heard of a random number generator?

You spout off with the most ignorant bullshit. Read a fucking book sometime.You stupid piece of shit! Again you show that you have not idea about logic or computers! Random nuber generators are not random. They are just called that way because they seem to be random. They are actually determined by an algorith. For fuck's sake. Don't post anymore about computers, you don't know what you are talking about.

[ID-guy]

I, and several other posters, have completely destroyed your each and every pretense.You are blind to think that. Tell me one thing you destroyed?


It is a bullshit metric made up by moronic IDers such as yourself.No, you fucking idiot don't understand it, that's the point.


Scientists over 2000 years ago managed to figure out that the earth was round, dipshit.Your fucking kind certanly wasn't helping.

[ID-guy]

Yes!
The only difference is that when humans see certain blotches of ink, we imagine certain things. That doesn't make a book materially different from ink on paper.I never said it was different materially. But it is different because it carries meaning. And a meaning transcends matter. So you can never describe meaning with only using matter. That is why people can understand meaning. Because we have a non material mind.


Of course we didn't make DNA, you fucking nit. I'm saying that only we ever came up with the concept of "information." There is no objective material difference between what you say is "information processing" and what you say isn't.Yes there is you fucking idiot! A river that flows into a sea a carries logs is not processing any information. But having nucleotides transform themselves, and aminoacids into proteines through DNA translation process is real information processing action. Because you have nucleotides as an abstract input, and proteines as output. That equals information processing.


How exactly are these things not a system? Water erodes logs. That's interaction. The water molecules touch the cells in the log, that's the simplest way of "doing something together."
How are you defining a system? You're asserting that logs and water aren't processing "information" but again, information is subjective. It's only there when there are people to think it's there.1.) It's not a system sice the are not doing anything meaningful. A system is a colletion of parts that interact in a meaningful way to produce results.

2.) Inforamtion is objective. When someone drew a letter "A" and said this is going to represent a saond of "A" that piece of letter just became meaningful objective information. And anyone who knew about it it meant the same thing. Thus the information, one created and passed on is objective not subjective.

[Publius]

I don't know who the designer is, how many times do I have to tell you that, so no, it doesn't matter.

It does matter that you don't know it.



I have no theology. Theology is teaching about what God wants. Nobody knows that and I don't either. So again, you are wrong.Theology is just the study of God.

So you have done no study into your God?

Hmm...



Oh no you don't. Science is NOT materialistic.Yes it is.


Naturalism is a materialistic philosophy. And naturalism has sliped into science and pretends to be "scientific" but it is in no way science. Science is a search for truth, and not a philosophy.Tell me what "philosophy" means in Latin.



You have got to be open to any answer if you are looking for the truth. So if you are limiting yourself with a philosophy, in this case, naturalism, than you are by definition not looking for the truth. Because by your way of searching for the answers, the answer can only be materialistic. And if the answer is in reality not materialistic, you can never find it, because you are not looking for it.

So the conclusion is, methodological naturalism is a materialistic philosophy, and by definition is not science. Thus this makes you wrong.No. The answer to what happens, materially, cannot be non-material. I am interested only in material explanations because only material explanations can be experimentally verified. Therefore they are all that comprise science.



1.) Well than please do! Go and find the designer, but don't ask me. Nor ask anyone who is dealing with ID since ID is not about finding the designerYes, and that's an embarrassment.

IF there is a designer, we should be trying ot find it.



2.) No, I'm not. We know, from science, that the intelligence is the single cause of design. So if we find design, we logically conclude there is a designer. That is reasonable thinking, not argument from ignorance.No, we don't know that.

We know from science that natural selection can act as a designer.



Deism is a philosophy not a religion, and not a naturalistic one either...Deism is a religion not a philosophy and is naturalistic.

You are terribly ignorant of everything.



Oh, and proteins can procreate by themselves?No but proteins are the building blocks of things that can, ie, us.



Anyway, where did the proteins come from?The materials that comprised them.



What else colud they be? Chemicals?Not by themselves. Ideas are multiply realizable. Ideas are patterns that can instantiated in most anything.



See what? No proof there that life can arise from rocks. Just speculations. Cite me one part that gives proof that it can.You. Fucking. Idiot.

I do'n't think that life arose from "rocks" -- why do you keep saying that I do? Because you're an idiot?



YES HE DOES! That is the point in showing that the flagellum is or is not IC!!!

But there is no proof that it could evolve.If there's no proof that it could evolve then there's no proof that the BF could have evolved first, and then Dembski's criticism falls away as his criticism WAS that the BF evolved first.

Idiot.



Fucking wrong. No, you don't get it! He didn't show anything.Exactly. Dembski didn't show anything -- he's an idiot.


Just because you removed some parts and you get some other working system, doesn't mean that it isn't IC. IC is something that has no practical evolutionary pathway.But the BF does, therefore it isn't IC.

Miller proviced an example of a practical evolutionary pathway, something that COULD have happened. Maybe it did, maybe it didn't, but it COULD have happened and is thus practical.

Fucking moron.



You have got to show that from the TTSS state it is possible to get to the flagellum by evolution. That is the way to prove that something is not IC. Miller didn't do that.Yes he did. Miller explained how it's possible for the BF to have evolved from the TTSS state.



No, again, you don't get it. How old are you?None of your business.



He is not saying that you idea of us coming from rocks is true,That's not my idea you pig-fucking moron, it's yours -- stop attributing it to me.

I have never once stated that we came from rocks, that's entirely an invention of your miscreant head.


but that the TTSS and flagellum are changing, which means evolving. Not in your idea that they are going to become human in 3.6 billion years, but just changing.Yeah, evolving, thus demonstrating the truth of evolution.

Twit.



I can't tell you how sad I am to have to deal with a person who thinks he knows it all yet, knows so little,a nd is so full of himself. You got everything wrong untill now.I can't tell you how sad I am to have to deal with you, to whom all of you invective applies in addition to the fact that you can't even spell properly.




I know what a car is, and I ceartanly know that a computer is not a car. So by saying that I know that ideas are not matter, im not arguing from ignorance. Im actually deducting. Im throwing away what I find improbable. That's called science.No it isn't. QM is improbable, yet it is true.



Cars are transformed matter by energy. You can touch a car, you can see it, but you can't touch an idea, and no you can't feel it. It's not the same.Yes it is. You can touch any instantiation of an idea. The idea itself is a pattern that is multiply realizable.



Wrong. If that is true than tell me how does our brain see a car?I explained it to you.


Which chemical it uses to produce a car? None. That's not how the brain works.


And how does brain + chemical = idea of a car?It doesn't. Read some neuroscience.


And who percives the car in teh mind?You do. You are your mind, and thus your brain.



So if I don't know how exactly the Sun shines, I'm wrong in saying that it shines?You might be. People thought the moon shined, but in fact it just reflects. If you didn't know how the sun shined, you wouldn't be able to prove it shined or if it just reflected.



That is a negative statement. It's like saying that the are not matter. Nonmaterial is not SOMETHING. It is describing something that is not.Describe what it is not, then, other than "not matter." What else is it not?



Again, I do not know exactly what they are, but I know they are not matter. They could be anything that is not material, but I do not know what.Give me examples of non-material things that can be proven to exist, other than ideas.



Only an insane darwinist would want me to prove that I can think and feel.Or a rational person.


That is just showing that you do not want to admit the obvious.No, it's quite obvious that you can't think.

Feel, maybe.


Anyway, no I don't have to prove anything since I'm not claming that I know what ideas are. I'm only saying what they are not.Alright, I don't know what ideas are either, I just know they aren't immaterial.

Do you accept my reasoning or reject it?



Wrong. Alzheimer just destroys the brain. The part of the prain that is used for specific functions. So that is why our mind, still intact can't produce the same effect. Because not the whole brain is functioning.How does the brain "function"? By producing and arranging ideas. But if ideas were immaterial, it shouldn't matter what happened to the brain.

How can a part of the brain be used for a non-material function?



]I said no such thing. Read carefully. I sad that if I'm right at ides being non-material, than I'm right at non-physical forces moving physical objects. Since we know that our mind moves our body.No we don't know that. In fact, I deny it. I think something moves both our conscious mind, and our body, and that is our unconscious mind that we have no cogntive access to.



Yes, exactly like that. Yet guess what, a calculator is not going to go off and start calculating whenever it wishes. A human will, because it has free will. Because we have a non-material mind. That a calculator doesn't have.How do you know? How do you know humans have free will and calculators don't?



Imbecile, I never said that. I said they were in our mind, not brain!The mind is the brain, so yes you did say that.



Explain.What matters isn't what something is composed of, but in what semantic role it plays. Multiple objects can play the same semantic role, that is, multiple objects can refer to the same thing. A picture and a word can both refer to 'boat.'



But that is a real car. Are you saying that when I think of a car, a rela car is created in my brain?No, a representation of a car is.


]Fucking idiot, you are wrong again. I NEVER said they are in our head. I said they were in our mind, which is non-material.Then how does Alzheimers, a disease of the head, of the brain, affect ideas?

Those ideas MUST be in the head for Alzheimers to affect them.

Alzheimer's can't destroy non-material things.


Explain the part where "sensory data are labelled "car."" What happens here?It's a difficult area of philosophy and psychology.

I don't know the answer, but my idea is that the conceptual categorizaiton that goes on in the mind is fundamentally linguistic in nature.

The basic theory is that in our mind there exist abstract concepts which are used as building blocks of words. A criticism of this that I think is valid is that concepts could just be words. So that when, by habituation words get tied to what you call 'concepts', the word just BECOMES the concept.

So anything that looks like a car sufficiently gets the linguistic label 'car'.



Not my mind isn't.

That is beacuse of the physical obstacles. But I can want to do that and try to do that, since I have free will. I may not suceed, but i can try to do it. And that is proof of free will.No, it's proof of will, not necessarily free will.



How retarded of you. That is circular logic.It's a tautology.

You said that I am doing what I'm doing beacuse I'm doing it, and therefore I'm doing it and being determined.[/quote]

No, I said you were doing it for reasons you didn't realize, and that you were fabricating reasons in your mind and attributing thse (false) reasons as the cause of your action.



Well fucking obvious! But, it is ME who is doing it, of my own free will. Yes I am determined, but again, by myself and by my own free will.Of your will, not your free will.

It seems obvious that objects made of atoms aren't 99% empty space, but they are.



No they can't. You know shit about computers. They are just following commands and modifying existing programs that they have based on given algorithms and conditions. That is not programming.Yes it is. They can change how they react to stimuli or inputs. That's programming, son.



BU I CAN WISH TO DO IT! THAT IS WHAT FREE WILL IS ALL ABOUT!Schopenhaeur said: "I am free to do as I will, but not to will as I will."

Dennett said: "If you make yourself small enough you can exclude almost everything."

Those are my two favorite quotes regarding free will or the lack thereof. Tell me if you can figure out what they mean.



Yes, that is the same as above, and proves you know SHIT about both logic and computers. Algorithm are determined. Chess games are conditioned. Those are the conditions computers work and modify themselves. But they do it in determined way. They don't think about it. They just process the existing information they are being input. And they chnage in deterministic way. That is not free will. They are doing what they have been made to do. To change how the enviroment changes, by the use of algorithms.Which is exactly what you do. YOu have more complex algorithims, and you have this illusion of free will.

But there's no fundamental difference.



If you say that I'm commanding myself, that that means I do have free will. I can wish with my will whatever I want.No, it means you have will, not free will.



Information is not matter thus it can be done. Only matter and energy can not be created or destroyed.So when Alzheimers destroys your brain, it destroys the idea of "2"? THen how can I still use it?



When you are born, you have ZERO information in your mind.False. Humans have instincts and can even learn a little bit in the womb.


If you say that all information is just changed old information. Where does the first information come when we are born?We are born with information, but more importantly, methods of acquiring new information via our sensory organs.



I don't have to! There is no indication that they are, why should anyone waste their time doing that? That is a retarder request, just like looking for pink unicorns, and yes, as you didn't get it, by that I was making fun of you...Yes, but it was a pitiful attempt so I ignored it.

I'm not interested in what you think, I"m interested in what you can prove.

So just man up and tell me you can't prove if snowflakes have consciousness or not, that you're just guessing, making shit up, arguing from ignorance, etc.



No it's not. That information is contained in a person knowing that description. A description of how to build a car is not stored within a car. Just like a description of how to draw a triangle is not stored within a triangle.Yes it is. The triangle is a description of how to build itself...



I'm asking you how can matter feel.Good question. Try to find a serious, considerate answer to this question, not the nonsense you've read thus far.

I could recommend you a dozen books on this topic that would help you try to understand this question.



Fucking idiot. You are a grade A moron. It doesn't have to mention ERVs it's talking about the piece of shit you posted anyway!!!!![/quote\]

It doesn't reference it.

[quote]
How stupid do you have to be not to understand it!?I didn't read it.



But guess what you dick, the text says that guinea pigs have exactly the same mutation as humans and chimps!Yes, they have one same mutation. So?



And no, no other species between humans, chimps and guine pigs has it. So that falsifies the idea that our common ancestor was infected with ERV and spread the same mutation to humans and chimps.First of all that doesn't disprove the data in the article I linked to. There are numerous ERVs, not just one, that exhibit common ancestry.

The point is that ERVs are found in a chain that is ONLY PREDICTABLE BY common ancestry.

The point is that for all the apes to have ERVs, in those locations, by chance, are astronomical. Look at the graph.

So that you found ONE gene that was the same between Guinea Pigs and Chimps and Man is no proof of anything because it doesn't DISPROVE the links between apes. Get it?

The pattern, within apes, is explicable only through comman ancestry. This article does not refute that, and doesn't attempt to.

Therefore it's a waste of my time.

Second of all this doens't even disprove the idea it sets out because this theory (of 'hot spots') could be true WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF common ancestry.

Moron, look at the picture in the article I linked to. Do you see the tree that forms? That is not explicable within "hot spot" theory. According to THAT theory, all of us apes should have these ERVs in our 'hot spots'. But we don't. So ERVs actually work to refute the piece of shit article you linked to.

The article, at the end, points out how to falsify ERVs. This doesn't do it. Finding one random ERV that's in humans and chimps in Guinea pigs doesn't prove anything. It could have arisen by chance or by the "hot spot" theory. But ONLY common ancestry can explain the unique pattern of ERVs in apes. Now if you found the 3 gibbon ERVs in the place in some random animal, for example, you'd have a refutation. But just one (completely random) ERV in chimps (and humans) and Guinea pigs doesn't act as a refutation. In fact it's evidence FOR common ancestry. If ERV distribution were random, that Chimps and humans, animals so closely related, should have the same mutation is evidence of common ancestry.

So... fail.

[Publius]

Publius, I'd like to thank you for putting up with this guy's shit, and doing it in a far more eloquent manner than I.

Thank you :D

I'm near the point of giving up.

His idiotic dualism, his constant refusal to even be intellectually honest ("YOU THINK WE CAME FROM ROCKS 4.6 BILLION YEARS AGO!"), his hilarious malapropisms, it's all quite off-putting.

It's as if he refuses to even consider the ideas I'm putting forth. Trust me, I've considered his position on how the mind works: my area of study in college is philosophy of mind, so it's really quite annoying to have this unread fool spout off these basic errors.

But yeah, I'll go as long as I can stand to talk with him.

[Publius]

You stupid piece of shit! Again you show that you have not idea about logic or computers! Random nuber generators are not random. They are just called that way because they seem to be random. They are actually determined by an algorith. For fuck's sake. Don't post anymore about computers, you don't know what you are talking about.

They're psuedorandom, fine.

Quantum computers will be able to be totally random.

Asshole.

[RevMARKSman]

I never said it was different materially. But it is different because it carries meaning. And a meaning transcends matter. So you can never describe meaning with only using matter. That is why people can understand meaning. Because we have a non material mind.

Yes there is you fucking idiot! A river that flows into a sea a carries logs is not processing any information. But having nucleotides transform themselves, and aminoacids into proteines through DNA translation process is real information processing action. Because you have nucleotides as an abstract input, and proteines as output. That equals information processing.

1.) It's not a system sice the are not doing anything meaningful. A system is a colletion of parts that interact in a meaningful way to produce results.

2.) Inforamtion is objective. When someone drew a letter "A" and said this is going to represent a saond of "A" that piece of letter just became meaningful objective information. And anyone who knew about it it meant the same thing. Thus the information, one created and passed on is objective not subjective.

Tell me again what this whole "meaning" thing is about. I can recognize the logs as "meaningful" if I want to. I can say they represent anything I wish them to, and according to your reasoning in #2, that becomes objective information. Therefore everything is information.

You have also failed to tell me what "information processing" really is, what "meaningful" interaction is, how "meaning transcends matter," and how the result of amino acids is any different from the result of eroded logs.

[freakazoid]

Quantum computers will be able to be totally random.

Quantum computers don't exist. Randomness is impossible. Don't tell me that you actually believe in the idea of schroders cat. lol you bring up random number generators and then say, "You spout off with the most ignorant bullshit. Read a fucking book sometime." Maybe you should read a book.

Sorry for not reading the whole thread, but I don't have time to read 7 pages right now. :( 7 pages in about 3 days, that is impressive, :)

[Publius]

Quantum computers don't exist.

Yet. But they will.


Randomness is impossible.

No it isn't. QM is random.


Don't tell me that you actually believe in the idea of schroders cat.

It's a thought experiment, not a real thing...


lol you bring up random number generators and then say, "You spout off with the most ignorant bullshit. Read a fucking book sometime." Maybe you should read a book.

Maybe. What's a good book on computer science?

[Publius]

Dennett on freedom of will, determinism, and evolution: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eS5Q-9uNCLU

[BurnTheOliveTree]

No, it's you who should be more careful. Evolution is random. Which part do get passed on by natural selection? Those who are fit. And which ones are fit? Those who get passed on. So as you can clearly see, you don't really know which ones get passed on, untill they actually do get passed further on. And the reason they would be passed furter on is because of RANDOM mutations which are positive. So yeah, it's random.



Please consider for a moment that you might be mistaken; I genuinely don't believe that you have properly grasped what evolution is. You seem to suggest that natural selection is tautological:



Which part do get passed on by natural selection? Those who are fit. And which ones are fit? Those who get passed on.


But you've completely missed the point of natural selection! Or, as I suspect, you're deliberately obscuring the issue with semantics. Here is how your catchphrase should run:

Which traits get passed on by natural selection? The ones that are 'fit'. Which are the 'fit' traits? The ones that most greatly aid survival and reproduction.

There is no mystery mate. :)



What direct evidence are you talking about?


The direct evidence that you and the entire Intelligent Design movement have never had. You continue to only point to things you believe evolution "can't explain" and infer design and a designer therefore. There is no direct evidence, you're just putting in an impersonal god of the gaps.



Yeah and it was wrong, how did you miss that part?


Eh? :confused:

Can't acces the creationwiki from college I'm afraid, it's filtered for some reason.

That's great about TSwhatever systems, but I'm not a scientist, so stop trying to blind me with vocabulary. I'm going to trust the 72 Nobel Laureates who signed the amicus curiae about it rather than you though. Sorry. :)

Now how about replying to my earlier point?

Eubacterial flagella, archebacterial flagella, and cilia use entirely different designs for the same function. That is to be expected if they evolved separately, but it makes no sense if they were the work of the same designer.

-Alex

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

ID guy, do you believe in gravity?

[jake williams]

ID guy, do you believe in gravity?
It's only a theory. God/aliens did it.

[ID-guy]

It does matter that you don't know it.Why?


Theology is just the study of God.

So you have done no study into your God?

Hmm...I don't care about it.


Yes it is.

Tell me what "philosophy" means in Latin.Look it up on wikipedia.


No. The answer to what happens, materially, cannot be non-material. I am interested only in material explanations because only material explanations can be experimentally verified. Therefore they are all that comprise science.If you are only interested in material answers, than you are not searching for the full truth. If the answer isn't matter, than you can't find it. So that is not scientific.


Yes, and that's an embarrassment.

IF there is a designer, we should be trying ot find it.THAN GO AND FIND OUT! I DON'T CARE ABOUT IT!


No, we don't know that.

We know from science that natural selection can act as a designer.Prove it.


Deism is a religion not a philosophy and is naturalistic.

You are terribly ignorant of everything.Religion is a worship of a diety that tells you what to do. There is no diety that tells you what to do in Deism, so it's not a religion, it's a philospohy.


No but proteins are the building blocks of things that can, ie, us.But proteins themselves can't, so where did they come from?


The materials that comprised them.And what is that material, and how did they come together?


Not by themselves. Ideas are multiply realizable. Ideas are patterns that can instantiated in most anything.So which chemical and which pattern do I need to think about a car?


You. Fucking. Idiot.

I do'n't think that life arose from "rocks" -- why do you keep saying that I do? Because you're an idiot?Retarded imbecile! Where the fuck did life come from than, what's the source!


If there's no proof that it could evolve then there's no proof that the BF could have evolved first, and then Dembski's criticism falls away as his criticism WAS that the BF evolved first.

Idiot.You moronic piece of shit! You stupid cretin! The point was, that IF the fucking TTSS evolved, it evolved after the flagellum! So the TTSS is not what the flagellum evolved from, so Miller is wrong, you dick!


Exactly. Dembski didn't show anything -- he's an idiot.No, you and your retarded mother are idiots. Not Dembski, Miller didn't show a thing!


But the BF does, therefore it isn't IC.WHERE IS IT! SHOW IT TO ME!!!!!


Miller proviced an example of a practical evolutionary pathway, something that COULD have happened. Maybe it did, maybe it didn't, but it COULD have happened and is thus practical.

Fucking moron.YOU MORON! FUCKING IMBECILE! NO HE DID NOT!!!! HE DIN'T SHOW THAT!

Go fuck yourself for being so stupid! You don't know that it could have happened that way, because he didn't say how much mutations and if they were statistically possible were needed from the TTS to a flagellum! That is a practical evolutionary pathway, he only showed a theoretical one, and that is not enough!


Yes he did. Miller explained how it's possible for the BF to have evolved from the TTSS state.NO HE DIDN'T. He showed in theory. He needs to show how it would be possible in practice. That means, he needs to show the number of mutations needed from TTSS to the flagellum.


That's not my idea you pig-fucking moron, it's yours -- stop attributing it to me.

I have never once stated that we came from rocks, that's entirely an invention of your miscreant head.Than what the fuck do you belive, you ape shit!?


Yeah, evolving, thus demonstrating the truth of evolution.

Twit.NO you moron! Nobody says that living things are not evolving! Yes they are, but there is no proof that we canme from single celled organisms by that mechanism, that's what I'm talking about. Idiot!


I can't tell you how sad I am to have to deal with you, to whom all of you invective applies in addition to the fact that you can't even spell properly.Go fuck yourself.


No it isn't. QM is improbable, yet it is true.That has nothing to do with my statement above.


Yes it is. You can touch any instantiation of an idea. The idea itself is a pattern that is multiply realizable.So how can I touch a car in my mind while im thinking about it? Where is that car. I want to touch that car, not the chemicals. Where is that car!?


I explained it to you.No you didn't. You only explained the mechanism of sending impulses.


None. That's not how the brain works.Than how does it work?


It doesn't. Read some neuroscience.

You do. You are your mind, and thus your brain.Which part of the brain percives the car?


You might be. People thought the moon shined, but in fact it just reflects. If you didn't know how the sun shined, you wouldn't be able to prove it shined or if it just reflected.I might be, but I'm not, that's the point.


Describe what it is not, then, other than "not matter." What else is it not?I don't have to, that's the point! Because I'm not saying what it is, I'm saying what it isn't.


Give me examples of non-material things that can be proven to exist, other than ideas.Information.


Or a rational person.No he wouldn't.


No, it's quite obvious that you can't think.

Feel, maybe.Yeah, right...


Alright, I don't know what ideas are either, I just know they aren't immaterial.

Do you accept my reasoning or reject it?I reject it, because you provided nothing to back up your statement.


How does the brain "function"? By producing and arranging ideas. But if ideas were immaterial, it shouldn't matter what happened to the brain.

How can a part of the brain be used for a non-material function?That is not the point. The point is that our mind works the same. It's just that the output of ideas is different since hte brain is damaged.


No we don't know that. In fact, I deny it. I think something moves both our conscious mind, and our body, and that is our unconscious mind that we have no cogntive access to.Can you move your arm if you wan't to? Yes you can. Than you do have free will.


How do you know? How do you know humans have free will and calculators don't?Because people can whis to do something, like stand up, and do it. And calculators can't do anything by themselves. People have to operate them.


The mind is the brain, so yes you did say that.Proof?


What matters isn't what something is composed of, but in what semantic role it plays. Multiple objects can play the same semantic role, that is, multiple objects can refer to the same thing. A picture and a word can both refer to 'boat.'So the point is?


No, a representation of a car is.What is it made of?


Then how does Alzheimers, a disease of the head, of the brain, affect ideas?

Those ideas MUST be in the head for Alzheimers to affect them.

Alzheimer's can't destroy non-material things.It doesn't, it affects the output of ideas because it damages the brain.


It's a difficult area of philosophy and psychology.

I don't know the answer, but my idea is that the conceptual categorizaiton that goes on in the mind is fundamentally linguistic in nature.

The basic theory is that in our mind there exist abstract concepts which are used as building blocks of words. A criticism of this that I think is valid is that concepts could just be words. So that when, by habituation words get tied to what you call 'concepts', the word just BECOMES the concept.

So anything that looks like a car sufficiently gets the linguistic label 'car'.SO YOU ADMIT THAT YOU DON'T KNOW!?

I knew it. You got no evidence for the idea that mind is material. I don't care if you have ideas of your own, you got no proof, and that is what I have been asking you the whole time for!


No, it's proof of will, not necessarily free will.Define the difference.


It's a tautology.

You said that I am doing what I'm doing beacuse I'm doing it, and therefore I'm doing it and being determined.

No, I said you were doing it for reasons you didn't realize, and that you were fabricating reasons in your mind and attributing thse (false) reasons as the cause of your action.You can't prove that. But I know, and everyone else does that if I want to stand up, I can, and there is nothing else that is commanding me.


Of your will, not your free will.

It seems obvious that objects made of atoms aren't 99% empty space, but they are.Again, what is the difference.


Yes it is. They can change how they react to stimuli or inputs. That's programming, son.No that is not programming. That is just following commands. Yes, they change based on inputs. But they chnage in a way they were programmed to. Thus they are just following commands.


Schopenhaeur said: "I am free to do as I will, but not to will as I will."

Dennett said: "If you make yourself small enough you can exclude almost everything."

Those are my two favorite quotes regarding free will or the lack thereof. Tell me if you can figure out what they mean.Yes, and they are both retarded since the first one use circular logic to say that you got no free will. Because, you can wish anything.

The second is just plain dumb.


Which is exactly what you do. YOu have more complex algorithims, and you have this illusion of free will.

But there's no fundamental difference.Where are my algorithms? There are non, you are just saying that.


No, it means you have will, not free will.The difference is?


So when Alzheimers destroys your brain, it destroys the idea of "2"? THen how can I still use it?No, it only destroys the brain, not the idea.


False. Humans have instincts and can even learn a little bit in the womb.Instincts do not come from the coscious part of the brain, so no, you are wrong.

Womb doesn't matter because we still start with zero information. Where does it come from than?


We are born with information, but more importantly, methods of acquiring new information via our sensory organs.

Yes, but it was a pitiful attempt so I ignored it.No we are not. Not in our conscious part of the brain that is used form learning, so where does the first information come from?


I'm not interested in what you think, I"m interested in what you can prove.

So just man up and tell me you can't prove if snowflakes have consciousness or not, that you're just guessing, making shit up, arguing from ignorance, etc.Imbecile! No, it is you who has to prove it. I can say that there is a pink unicorn in my closet, and I want you do disprove it! No, it doesn0't go that way. You have got to prove your positive statement. I do not have to prove you wrong. So if you can't prove that snowflake have consciousness, than there is nor reason to believe they do.


Yes it is. The triangle is a description of how to build itself...A, a triangle is just a triangle. A description is a description. You don't know what the angles of the triangle is, nor do you know how long the sides of the triangle ism untill you measure them, and tham make a description. That is than an information on how to build it.


Good question. Try to find a serious, considerate answer to this question, not the nonsense you've read thus far.

I could recommend you a dozen books on this topic that would help you try to understand this question.So basicly you don't know...


I didn't read it.It doesn't have to, it's talking about the same subject, read it!


Yes, they have one same mutation. So?So if they have it, and nothing in between humans and guinea pigs, except apes have them, than how is that proof that it was an ERV!? It's not, that's the point!


First of all that doesn't disprove the data in the article I linked to. There are numerous ERVs, not just one, that exhibit common ancestry. It does. And the point is that ERV is not a proof of common ancestry. Same mutations could mean same mechanism, same hotspots for mutations on the genome, not just ERV.


The point is that ERVs are found in a chain that is ONLY PREDICTABLE BY common ancestry.No it's not. Guinea pigs, humans and chimps are not a good link.


The point is that for all the apes to have ERVs, in those locations, by chance, are astronomical. Look at the graph.Exactly, but guess what? There are hot and cold spots on the genome for mutations, and that is why the do have the same mutation! Not because of the ERV!


So that you found ONE gene that was the same between Guinea Pigs and Chimps and Man is no proof of anything because it doesn't DISPROVE the links between apes. Get it?It does. Because because if they all have the mutation, but nothing except humans, apes and guiena pigs has them, than its not because of the ERV and common ancestry.

Why don't other species between humasn and guinea pigs have the same mutation? If we are al related, than we should all have it, but we don't!


The pattern, within apes, is explicable only through comman ancestry. This article does not refute that, and doesn't attempt to.Or with hotspots on the genome, which is a better explanation because nothing has those same mutations between humans and guinea pigs. If your story was correct all other species would have the same mutation between guinea pigs and humans, but they don't!


Therefore it's a waste of my time.No, you just didn't get it.


Second of all this doens't even disprove the idea it sets out because this theory (of 'hot spots') could be true WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF common ancestry.Wrong. You don't need common descent for hot spots. It's called common mechanism.


Moron, look at the picture in the article I linked to. Do you see the tree that forms? That is not explicable within "hot spot" theory. According to THAT theory, all of us apes should have these ERVs in our 'hot spots'. But we don't. So ERVs actually work to refute the piece of shit article you linked to.No, you retarded ape! You dont know which species has which mechanism. It's obvious that those with the same mutations do, and those who don't have the same mutations dont have it. So yes it refutes it.


The article, at the end, points out how to falsify ERVs. This doesn't do it. Finding one random ERV that's in humans and chimps in Guinea pigs doesn't prove anything.It proves that your theory is worng not becaouse of what we found, but beacuse of what we didn't find! And we found NO SPECIES that has the same mutations between the species that do. So no common descent.


It could have arisen by chance or by the "hot spot" theory. But ONLY common ancestry can explain the unique pattern of ERVs in apes.No, the same mechanism can also.


Now if you found the 3 gibbon ERVs in the place in some random animal, for example, you'd have a refutation. But just one (completely random) ERV in chimps (and humans) and Guinea pigs doesn't act as a refutation. In fact it's evidence FOR common ancestry. If ERV distribution were random, that Chimps and humans, animals so closely related, should have the same mutation is evidence of common ancestry.Than why do no other species between humans, apes and guinea pigs have the same mutation if it was gained thru ERV and common descent?


So... fail.Yes, you fail.

[ID-guy]

They're psuedorandom, fine.

Quantum computers will be able to be totally random.

Asshole.No, asshole they won't. Because quantum mechanics isn't random either. We just can't measure it precisely yet.

[ID-guy]

Tell me again what this whole "meaning" thing is about. I can recognize the logs as "meaningful" if I want to. I can say they represent anything I wish them to, and according to your reasoning in #2, that becomes objective information. Therefore everything is information.Informtion is what you think about.


You have also failed to tell me what "information processing" really is, what "meaningful" interaction is, how "meaning transcends matter," and how the result of amino acids is any different from the result of eroded logs.1.) Informatuion processing is an action that transforms a meaningful abstract input into a meaningful output.

2.) A meaningful interaction is an action with a specified result.

3.) Meaning transcends matter beacuse you can't just use matter to explain the meaning. E=mc2 on a piece of paper is not the same as a blob of ink on a piece of paper.

4.) Eroded logs are not meaningful product. Proteins are result of abstract input of nucleic acids. There is no system that erodes logs. Logs can be eroded by water, but there is no given created system for that. Unlike DNA translation that always gets you the same result.

[ID-guy]

Please consider for a moment that you might be mistaken; I genuinely don't believe that you have properly grasped what evolution is. You seem to suggest that natural selection is tautological:I did, so there.


But you've completely missed the point of natural selection! Or, as I suspect, you're deliberately obscuring the issue with semantics. Here is how your catchphrase should run:

Which traits get passed on by natural selection? The ones that are 'fit'. Which are the 'fit' traits? The ones that most greatly aid survival and reproduction.

There is no mystery mate. :)Your point is!?


The direct evidence that you and the entire Intelligent Design movement have never had. You continue to only point to things you believe evolution "can't explain" and infer design and a designer therefore. There is no direct evidence, you're just putting in an impersonal god of the gaps.What is direct evidence?


Eh? :confused:

Can't acces the creationwiki from college I'm afraid, it's filtered for some reason.

That's great about TSwhatever systems, but I'm not a scientist, so stop trying to blind me with vocabulary. I'm going to trust the 72 Nobel Laureates who signed the amicus curiae about it rather than you though. Sorry. :)

Now how about replying to my earlier point?

Eubacterial flagella, archebacterial flagella, and cilia use entirely different designs for the same function. That is to be expected if they evolved separately, but it makes no sense if they were the work of the same designer.

-AlexI said it already that statement means nothing. it is a subjective argument and it makes no sense. You need to prove that flagellum is not IC by showing a practical evolutionary pathway.

[ID-guy]

ID guy, do you believe in gravity?I know there is gravity, I don't have to believe it...

[RevMARKSman]

Informtion is what you think about.

1.) Informatuion processing is an action that transforms a meaningful abstract input into a meaningful output.

2.) A meaningful interaction is an action with a specified result.

3.) Meaning transcends matter beacuse you can't just use matter to explain the meaning. E=mc2 on a piece of paper is not the same as a blob of ink on a piece of paper.

4.) Eroded logs are not meaningful product. Proteins are result of abstract input of nucleic acids. There is no system that erodes logs. Logs can be eroded by water, but there is no given created system for that. Unlike DNA translation that always gets you the same result.
Tell me again how DNA is information when the ribosomes, helicase, messenger RNA and transfer RNA don't think about it?

Oh, so the definition of a "meaningful" system is one that was created.

So you're saying DNA must have been created because it was created?

If not, you're just making the same assertions over and over without backing them up.

And water eroding logs always gives you the same result. Reacting two chemicals under the same temperature and pressure conditions will always give you the same result. Dropping a bowling ball will always give you the same result.

[careyprice31]

"I'm near the point of giving up.

His idiotic dualism, his constant refusal to even be intellectually honest ("YOU THINK WE CAME FROM ROCKS 4.6 BILLION YEARS AGO!"), his hilarious malapropisms, it's all quite off-putting.

It's as if he refuses to even consider the ideas I'm putting forth. Trust me, I've considered his position on how the mind works: my area of study in college is philosophy of mind, so it's really quite annoying to have this unread fool spout off these basic errors.

But yeah, I'll go as long as I can stand to talk with him."


You can't reason with fanatics and the naive.

Its like me trying to talk to that fanatical Stalinist intelligitimate. No matter what you say it makes no difference what you say or what you throw at them they are very close minded.

There isn't evidence of a designer. It cant be proven and it cant be disproven. Those are the facts, ID guy.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Your point is!?


My point, of course, is that you are demonstrably incorrect in your understanding of evolution. And if you cannot reply to my argument then it would be nice for you to concede the point rather than froth around and avoid the issue. :glare:



What is direct evidence?


Okay, say you've got two people and they independently heat two bodies of water to 100 degrees centigrade. If both bodies of water boil at this temperature, that is direct evidence that water boils at 100 degrees centigrade.

Intelligent Design does not possess any evidence of this nature. It is not empirically verifiable. ID, at absolute best, is a plausible hypothesis if all evolutionary theory is thrown out of the window. (This will never happen, but I'm being kind to draw out the point)

This is because all you do is substitute a lack of knowledge for your unsubstantiated hypothesis. Religion is much the same, historically - Don't understand disease? God! Don't understand biogenesis? God! Don't understand the movement of planets? God! Don't understand why the big bang happened? God! It's essentially an argument from incredulity, and it is wrong wrong wrong. You do the same. Don't understand the origin of species? Must be a designer then!

So even if, even if, all your criticisms of evolution somehow hold up (They don't) there is no reason to believe that we are designed. Unless you can give me direct evidence, without just throwing up your hands and saying "Well how ELSE could the flagellum come about, you FUCKING IMBECILE MORON ARGHHH!1"1"!22!!!"

Yeah, while we're on that, you're also very abusive and aggressive. Chill out man. :ohmy:



I said it already that statement means nothing. it is a subjective argument and it makes no sense. You need to prove that flagellum is not IC by showing a practical evolutionary pathway.


No, we're not discussing the direct evolutionary pathway, we're now discussing the point that you've avoided twice now, i.e. The weirdness of a function being given multiple "designs":

Eubacterial flagella, archebacterial flagella, and cilia use entirely different designs for the same function. That is to be expected if they evolved separately, but it makes no sense if they were the work of the same designer.

-Alex

[Lector Malibu]

ID Guy,

Hate to break it to you but despite what you assert there is no proof for your claim. Also I've read your post and you seem to have a problem with your inter-mouth. I don't think it is a case of defending your point , I think you are being abusive at this point and in no way deserve to be taken seriously whatsoever.

[Publius]

Alright, I'm done here. I don't feel like putting up with his idiocy or his rampant abuse, and I've already made by substantive points, debunked his, etc.

From his calling Dennett and Schopenhauer "idiots" to his complete misunderstanding and misidentification of my each and every point ID-Guy has been nothing bot an ignorant nuisance and a blot on this forum.

And he can't write.

Hopefully, though, some people (other than the aforementioned idiot) learned some things from this.

[Jazzratt]

I know there is gravity, I don't have to believe it...

No, you know that you are staying on the ground. Gravity is the predominant theory as to why this is, others include "goddidit" and "very small pixies are holding things on the ground, so be careful in case you anger them and they let go". Both of these are, obviously, utterly insane and we can all agree on this. Now if you can stop being a stunningly stupid spoon-chewer for a second I think you can see the point that was being made when gravity was raised - it is a theory, it is incompletely understood (more completely perhaps than evolution, but still not completely and utterly) and God isn't in the equation.

The wonder with gravity is that whether or not you believe it, it still occurs and the same applies to evolution - it doesn't matter whether or not you believe that god or fairies did it, it's still happened and is happening. Your god of the gaps is quickly running out of wriggle room too: every strain of anti-biotic resistant pathogen, every pest that is immune to what you spray on it, every tiny change in any species is a nail in the ID coffin. You can't run to false dichotomies either - what you call "macro" evolution is actually "micro" evolution over time.

You've been consistently slammed by everyone that's replied to you and all you can do is reply with exactly the same argument you made before but IN ALL CAPS LIKE THIS. Just stop now, you're embarrassing yourself, you've used fucking "Answers in Genesis" as a source and every argument you can't simply reply to with repetition of your previous arguments you've chosen to simply swear at. Just fucking stop, there's a time and a place to act like you are but I don't think they give you access to computers at mental wards when the medication is wearing off.

Now reply to the damn points with something new or get the fuck off this forum, ****.

[ID-guy]

Tell me again how DNA is information when the ribosomes, helicase, messenger RNA and transfer RNA don't think about it?They don't have to think about it. They can't. Thus they can not create informtion. Only process information that has been put there by an intelligence.

DNA is a carrier of information. It is a materialized information, and we call it a message. Just like CD's have information on them, which was put there by programmers, i.e intelligence.

Intelligence creates information. Ideas in our mind are information. To make that information visible in the material world, you have to show it by arranging matter. For an example. Using ink, in a specific (complex and specified) way, to write something on a piece of paper. That process is called materializing information.


Oh, so the definition of a "meaningful" system is one that was created.Yes, by an intelligence.


So you're saying DNA must have been created because it was created?No, but because it has marks of desgin. It carries information.


If not, you're just making the same assertions over and over without backing them up.I'm not obviously.


And water eroding logs always gives you the same result. Reacting two chemicals under the same temperature and pressure conditions will always give you the same result. Dropping a bowling ball will always give you the same result.Exactly, but it doesn't have to happen, and you never see the same process everywhere. There is no information processing in log erosion.

[ID-guy]

There isn't evidence of a designer. It cant be proven and it cant be disproven. Those are the facts, ID guy.This just showes to me that you understand absolutly nothing I said.

If you do, than explain to me what Complex Specified Information is.

I know you won't because you can't, because you do not understand the concept.

[Jazzratt]

They don't have to think about it. They can't. Thus they can not create informtion. Only process information that has been put there by an intelligence.

"Information" in the case of RNA/DNA is really more of a metaphor so that people can grasp the concept - unfortunately it seems you've gone off half-cocked with your semi-understanding of the metaphor. I suggest you better understand genetic science before suggesting that we expose schoolchildren to your lunacy.

[ID-guy]

My point, of course, is that you are demonstrably incorrect in your understanding of evolution. And if you cannot reply to my argument then it would be nice for you to concede the point rather than froth around and avoid the issue.Tell me exactlly where am I wrong about evolution.


Okay, say you've got two people and they independently heat two bodies of water to 100 degrees centigrade. If both bodies of water boil at this temperature, that is direct evidence that water boils at 100 degrees centigrade.

Intelligent Design does not possess any evidence of this nature. It is not empirically verifiable. ID, at absolute best, is a plausible hypothesis if all evolutionary theory is thrown out of the window. (This will never happen, but I'm being kind to draw out the point)Absolutly wrong. There is a way to test for design. You serch for a high contents of information in systems.


This is because all you do is substitute a lack of knowledge for your unsubstantiated hypothesis. Religion is much the same, historically - Don't understand disease? God! Don't understand biogenesis? God! Don't understand the movement of planets? God! Don't understand why the big bang happened? God! It's essentially an argument from incredulity, and it is wrong wrong wrong. You do the same. Don't understand the origin of species? Must be a designer then!No wrong. We do know what design is. Only intelligence can design. So when we find design, it is logical to say that there is a designer who designed it. Which part do you not understand here?


So even if, even if, all your criticisms of evolution somehow hold up (They don't) there is no reason to believe that we are designed. Unless you can give me direct evidence, without just throwing up your hands and saying "Well how ELSE could the flagellum come about, you FUCKING IMBECILE MORON ARGHHH!1"1"!22!!!"Wrong again, I'm not saying that. Read carefully.

We can test and find design. We know what intelligence can do, and what natural forces can't. Thus when we find something that intelligence can do, like IC systems, and natural forces can't, we are obviously going to conclude that they were designed.

Again, which part do you not understaand here?


Yeah, while we're on that, you're also very abusive and aggressive. Chill out man. :ohmy:Are you blind!?!?!?! That guy started calling me names first! Why don't you call him aggressive!?


No, we're not discussing the direct evolutionary pathway, we're now discussing the point that you've avoided twice now, i.e. The weirdness of a function being given multiple "designs":I didn't avoid anything, I told you that it's a subjective argument, and that makes it wrong from teh start.


Eubacterial flagella, archebacterial flagella, and cilia use entirely different designs for the same function. That is to be expected if they evolved separately, but it makes no sense if they were the work of the same designer.

-AlexOnce more... Wrong! You can't say what the designer would or would not do! That is just your opinion and it means nothing to a designer who actually makes the object.

If you saw a car and said: "Hmm, I don't like how the mirrors are placed, that is very weird, this proves that NOBODY made the car, and that it evolved from other cars!"

Do you see how stupid that sounds?

[ID-guy]

ID Guy,

Hate to break it to you but despite what you assert there is no proof for your claim.Than explain why high amount of CSI in living systems is not proof of a designer.


Also I've read your post and you seem to have a problem with your inter-mouth. I don't think it is a case of defending your point , I think you are being abusive at this point and in no way deserve to be taken seriously whatsoever.Neither do you, you showed ZERO arguments, bye.

[ID-guy]

Alright, I'm done here. I don't feel like putting up with his idiocy or his rampant abuse, and I've already made by substantive points, debunked his, etc.

From his calling Dennett and Schopenhauer "idiots" to his complete misunderstanding and misidentification of my each and every point ID-Guy has been nothing bot an ignorant nuisance and a blot on this forum.

And he can't write.

Hopefully, though, some people (other than the aforementioned idiot) learned some things from this.Yeah, run away and don't come back...

[ID-guy]

No, you know that you are staying on the ground. Gravity is the predominant theory as to why this is, others include "goddidit" and "very small pixies are holding things on the ground, so be careful in case you anger them and they let go". Both of these are, obviously, utterly insane and we can all agree on this. Now if you can stop being a stunningly stupid spoon-chewer for a second I think you can see the point that was being made when gravity was raised - it is a theory, it is incompletely understood (more completely perhaps than evolution, but still not completely and utterly) and God isn't in the equation.You are being stupid here not me. Since gravity has NOTHING to do with information. Do you understand the difference I'm talking about? Obviously not.


The wonder with gravity is that whether or not you believe it, it still occurs and the same applies to evolution - it doesn't matter whether or not you believe that god or fairies did it, it's still happened and is happening. Your god of the gaps is quickly running out of wriggle room too: every strain of anti-biotic resistant pathogen, every pest that is immune to what you spray on it, every tiny change in any species is a nail in the ID coffin. You can't run to false dichotomies either - what you call "macro" evolution is actually "micro" evolution over time. No it isn't.

You obviously have no idea what bacteria goes thru when they evolve imunity. They get mutations that damage them so that is why the anti-biotic can't connect to them, and that's why they are resistant. That is not a process that will get you from 1 cell to a human in 3.6 billion years. The resistant bacteria will lose out in the competition with non resistant ones, because they lost fitness. Bet you didn't know that.

And no, microevolution is not the same as macroevolution. Microevolution is a change on the level of species. Macroevolution is a change on higher scales. You need to get a completely new function to evolve in this direction. Which microevolution is not capeable to do. Bet you didn't know that also.


You've been consistently slammed by everyone that's replied to you and all you can do is reply with exactly the same argument you made before but IN ALL CAPS LIKE THIS. Just stop now, you're embarrassing yourself, you've used fucking "Answers in Genesis" as a source and every argument you can't simply reply to with repetition of your previous arguments you've chosen to simply swear at. Just fucking stop, there's a time and a place to act like you are but I don't think they give you access to computers at mental wards when the medication is wearing off.No, I only use abusive words, when someone directs them to me first.

Nobody here, absolutly nobody has beaten ANY of my points. Show me one, JUST FUCKING ONE point that has been beaten! You can't.


Now reply to the damn points with something new or get the fuck off this forum, ****.Fuck you, I just did, asshole.

[ID-guy]

"Information" in the case of RNA/DNA is really more of a metaphor so that people can grasp the concept - unfortunately it seems you've gone off half-cocked with your semi-understanding of the metaphor. I suggest you better understand genetic science before suggesting that we expose schoolchildren to your lunacy.You are a lunatic. DNA is real information, not a metaphor. Why the hell would they use a metaphor for DNA!? You are just making things up.

[Lector Malibu]

Neither do you, you showed ZERO arguments, bye.

Bye? Is that it ? You think I'm gonna just let you be? You do not know me one bit. I've shown no argument because You are not worthy of a debate. So instead every time you open your fucking mouth I will reply in kind. How bout them apples bozo.

[ID-guy]

Bye? Is that it ? You think I'm gonna just let you be? You do not know me one bit. I've shown no argument because You are not worthy of a debate. So instead every time you open your fucking mouth I will reply in kind. How bout them apples bozo.So what do you intend to do? I mean, you got no arguments, so what, are you just going to post crap on this topic for the rest of the time?

[Lector Malibu]

So what do you intend to do? I mean, you got no arguments, so what, are you just going to post crap on this topic for the rest of the time?

Who says I don't have a augment? or a better term a debate? . See as I said you are not worthy of one. Yes I intend to slam jack your idiotic retorts for the remainder of the thread.

[ID-guy]

Who says I don't have a augment? or a better term a debate? See as I said you are not worthy of one. Yes I intend to slam jack your idiotic retorts for the remainder of the thread.And what's the point, you're just going to look stupid... You're acting like a kid.

[Lector Malibu]

And what's the point, you're just going to look stupid... You're acting like a kid.


The only kid here is yourself , trust me on that one. How I appear to you is the least of my concerns , everybody on the thread knows you are in fact a complete and utter moron.

[ID-guy]

The only kid here is yourself , trust me on that one. How I appear to you is the least of my concerns , everybody on the thread knows you are in fact a complete and utter moron.Go fuck yourself you piece of shit! Stop spaming the topic, if you got nothing to say, than get the fuck out!

[Lector Malibu]

Go fuck yourself you piece of shit! Stop spaming the topic, if you got nothing to say, than get the fuck out!


What's the matter little one? Are we not so internet tough after all?

[ID-guy]

What's the matter little one? Are we not so internet tough after all?No, I just don't like people who can't win a debate spam a good topic. Why don't you leave? Is it that hard?

[Lector Malibu]

No, I just don't like people who can't win a debate spam a good topic. Why don't you leave? Is it that hard?

I don't care if you like me or not and as far as leaving ,well I wouldn't dream of it.

[ID-guy]

I don't care if you like me or not and as far as leaving ,well I wouldn't dream of it.I don't care about that either. The point is you can't win a debate against me, so you are just going to act like a kid.

[Lector Malibu]

I don't care about that either. The point is you can't win a debate against me, so you are just going to act like a kid.

I've already won.

[ID-guy]

I've already won.We didn't even have a debate... :rolleyes:

[Lector Malibu]

We didn't even have a debate... :rolleyes:

Did not need too:) And you have made it clear that your attemp at debating is state your point than throw a hissy fit when someone counters you. Your not the first and you will not be the last , I'm sure of that..

[ID-guy]

Did not need too:)Than you didn't win. If we didn't debate, you didn't win.


And you have made it clear that your attemp at debating is state your point than throw a hissy fit when someone counters you. Your not the first and you will not be the last , I'm sure of that..That's not true. I was debating just fine. And nobody, absolutly nobody could prove me wrong. The only thing others could do was use abusive language. And yes, they used it first, every time, so that is why I used it to. But only after they did it first.

Can you prove mo wrong here? Show me where did I use abusive language first and show me which one of my arguments was beat.

You can't in any of these cases...

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Go fuck yourself you piece of shit! Stop spaming the topic, if you got nothing to say, than get the fuck out!

You're not a fucking moderator, so you have got precisely jack shit right to tell others what to do.

[ID-guy]

You're not a fucking moderator, so you have got precisely jack shit right to tell others what to do.You lost the debate, you got nothing more to say to me.

[Lector Malibu]

Than you didn't win. If we didn't debate, you didn't
win.

Nor did I lose , next


That's not true. I was debating just fine. And nobody, absolutly nobody could prove me wrong.And because the basis of your argument has no accredited proof, nor could you prove yourself right. Your just going on a theory, congratulations.


The only thing others could do was use abusive language. And yes, they used it first, every time, so that is why I used it to. But only after they did it first.go play special victim's somewhere else, seriously. You dished it out and could not take it.


Can you prove mo wrong here? You don't need my help you seem to be managing quite well on your own...

[ID-guy]

Nor did I lose , nextExactly. but you said you won, so that made you wrong.


And because the basis of your argument has no accredited proof, nor could you prove yourself right. Your just going on a theory, congratulations.Yes it does. It is not my problem that you do not understand design detection. I gave proof, but nobody could understand it.


go play special victim's somewhere else, seriously. You dished it out and could not take it.Couldn't take what?


You don't need my help you seem to be managing quite well on your own...Oh, I know I don't need your help! I'm just telling you to back up your claim, and you didnt. So that makes you wrong again.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

You lost the debate, you got nothing more to say to me.

I lost nothing you grease stain. I accept the word of the majority of the world's trained scientists while you parrot creationist/ID nonsense. Who's the loser?

[ID-guy]

I lost nothing you grease stain. I accept the word of the majority of the world's trained scientists while you parrot creationist/ID nonsense. Who's the loser?You are the loser, you ape child. It doesn't matter if you go with the majority just to be safe, you are still wrong, and you lost the debate. If not, than pick up where you left off.

[Lector Malibu]

Yes it does. It is not my problem that you do not understand design detection. I gave proof, but nobody could understand it.

No, you did not give proof. you regurgitated theory's under the guise that they were proof.


Couldn't take what?

A minute ago you were just crying because you where claiming that the board ganged up on you. I think that speaks for itself.


Oh, I know I don't need your help! I'm just telling you to back up your claim, and you didnt. So that makes you wrong again.

I don't need to back up the claim that you are going on a theory because you have not offered anything this entire thread that you are presenting anything but that.

[ID-guy]

No, you did not give proof. you regurgitated theory's under the guise that they were proof.Yes I did. I mentioned no theory whoatsoever. I simply explained that DNA has information on it. Human DNA is 3 billion base pairs. That is way more that is needed to be over the UPB rejection region of calculating the theoreticaly impossible CSI generation. So there, we have an information procesing system which is a proof of design.

Now tell me which part do you not understand, and YES I do know you understud nothing I said. Don't just say I'm making things up, or that it's just crap. Either say that you have no idea what I'm talking about, or ask me to explain it.


A minute ago you were just crying because you where claiming that the board ganged up on you. I think that speaks for itself.I wasn't crying. I was defending myself from lies. And the lie is that I was abusive to others first, which I wasn't. I was only pointing out the truth.


I don't need to back up the claim that you are going on a theory because you have not offered anything this entire thread that you are presenting anything but that.I just did. If you understud anything I wrote, than explain what I'm talking about. Prove it that you understand it!

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

You are the loser, you ape child. It doesn't matter if you go with the majority just to be safe, you are still wrong, and you lost the debate. If not, than pick up where you left off.


1) I don't go along with the majority of scientific opinion "to be safe" I go along with the majority of scientific opinion because I reckon that the larger amount of trained scientists who have actually conducted research in their specified fields (as opposed to the masturbatory navel gazing your ID groups call "research") are more likely to be correct than a bunch of believer who've got a bug in their ass about scientists not giving a shit about their infantile sky daddy.

2) I am not wrong. Evolution is a phenomenon observed in nature, and is an adequate explaination for the variety of creatures we see in nature. Your misrepresentation of complex chemical combination (AKA DNA) that behave in predictable ways as "information" is a diversion.

3) I didn't lose the debate. I just decided not to bother when I saw that other people were kicking your metaphorical ass much quicker than me.

You want me to pick up the debate again? Give me a damn good reason why I should waste my time as others have.

[RevMARKSman]

They don't have to think about it. They can't. Thus they can not create informtion. Only process information that has been put there by an intelligence.

DNA is a carrier of information. It is a materialized information, and we call it a message. Just like CD's have information on them, which was put there by programmers, i.e intelligence.

Intelligence creates information. Ideas in our mind are information. To make that information visible in the material world, you have to show it by arranging matter. For an example. Using ink, in a specific (complex and specified) way, to write something on a piece of paper. That process is called materializing information.

Yes, by an intelligence.

No, but because it has marks of desgin. It carries information.

I'm not obviously.

Exactly, but it doesn't have to happen, and you never see the same process everywhere. There is no information processing in log erosion.

Again. Give me reasons.

Regarding your DNA thing, you are saying

It was obviously created by an intelligence. because it carries information.
We know it carries information because information can only be created by an intelligence, and we know that DNA was created by an intelligence.
Simplification: DNA was created by an intelligence, which makes it an information carrier, which obviously shows it was created by an intelligence. Log erosion is not an information processing system because... it's not.

That circular argument fails with flying colors to a) give any reasons for these assertions or b) define "information" in relation to the natural world. You can't take a fundamentally human societal idea and transfer it to the natural world and apply it to natural processes as though they have intelligence in order to prove that... intelligence is evident in nature.


Why the hell would they use a metaphor for DNA!? You are just making things up.

Because microscopic processes are easier to understand when one can make analogies to everyday, visible, macroscopic processes. It's a fundamental teaching method.

[ID-guy]

1) I don't go along with the majority of scientific opinion "to be safe" I go along with the majority of scientific opinion because I reckon that the larger amount of trained scientists who have actually conducted research in their specified fields (as opposed to the masturbatory navel gazing your ID groups call "research") are more likely to be correct than a bunch of believer who've got a bug in their ass about scientists not giving a shit about their infantile sky daddy.Yes, you just RECKON that they would be right. You just ASSUME that they would be right. You just THINK that they would be right. But you do not know it.

And that is why you are going with the popular opinion, just to play it safe. But you are wrong. You did not look into ID at all. You have no idea what it is and what it's all about. You just heard some rumors and decided before hearing what the other side has to say.


2) I am not wrong. Evolution is a phenomenon observed in nature, and is an adequate explaination for the variety of creatures we see in nature. Your misrepresentation of complex chemical combination (AKA DNA) that behave in predictable ways as "information" is a diversion.1.) Yes, it is an observed phenomenon. But NO, it is NOT an adequate explanation for the full diversity of life we see today on Earth. If it is, give my one proof of that. You can't. Nobody can't. That's the point.

2.) Wrong. I misrepresented nothing. DNA is information. Read something please before you attack me.


Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a nucleic acid that contains the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms and some viruses. The main role of DNA molecules is the long-term storage of information.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dna


3) I didn't lose the debate. I just decided not to bother when I saw that other people were kicking your metaphorical ass much quicker than me.Show me one argument of mine that was beaten. You can't. nobody can.


You want me to pick up the debate again? Give me a damn good reason why I should waste my time as others have.You don't have to, but than again, what are you doing now?

[Lector Malibu]

Yes I did. I mentioned no theory whoatsoever.

You mentioned no theory ?

Please read your post pasted below




No, actually it isn't. It is a legit scientific theory. It is a theory that says that some features of te universe are better explained by an intelligent cause than by an undirected natural process.





Now tell me which part do you not understand, and YES I do know you understud nothing I said. Don't just say I'm making things up, or that it's just crap. Either say that you have no idea what I'm talking about, or ask me to explain it.Understud ? Is that even a word? I said you where presenting a theory. Witch you are.


I wasn't crying. I was defending myself from lies. And the lie is that I was abusive to others first, which I wasn't. I was only pointing out the truth.It was a sad display no matter how you slice it..


I just did. If you understud anything I wrote, than explain what I'm talking about. Prove it that you understand it!What does Understud mean? No really I wanna know

[Dystisis]

Guys stop making retarded comments. It doesn't matter how wrong whoever is, just stop acting like a moron.

Anyways, DNA is information contained in each cell so as to act as a universal plan, so to speak, for the body

I still don't get why in the bajookers that would mean we have been "designed" (by some conscious being), though.

Here's a short explanation for the things we see in the universe today: All the things that has happened.

[ID-guy]

Again. Give me reasons.Reasons for what?


Regarding your DNA thing, you are saying

[quote]It was obviously created by an intelligence. because it carries information.Yes.


We know it carries information because information can only be created by an intelligence,No. We know it carries inforamtion because of the transformation of TCAG acids through DNA translation process into Proteins.


and we know that DNA was created by an intelligence.Yes, but not because of what you think I said, but because only intelligence creates information.


Simplification: DNA was created by an intelligence, which makes it an information carrier, which obviously shows it was created by an intelligence. Log erosion is not an information processing system because... it's not.Wrong. Log erosion is not a part of any system. Water and logs are not a system that producec meaningful results, thus they are not a system.


That circular argument fails with flying colorsIt was not a circular reasoning. You made it look that way.


to a) give any reasons for these assertionsI did give good reasons.


or b) define "information" in relation to the natural world. You can't take a fundamentally human societal idea and transfer it to the natural world and apply it to natural processes as though they have intelligence in order to prove that... intelligence is evident in nature.Information is a complex specified oredr of enteties that has a meaning. That is information in a material world.


Because microscopic processes are easier to understand when one can make analogies to everyday, visible, macroscopic processes. It's a fundamental teaching method.Analogy is not the same as metaphor. DNA is real information, because it is abstract. Because there is not a fixed genetic code. If it was, then there would be a question if it was a code. But since there are non-standard genetic codes, than that means, that DNA is real information.

[ID-guy]

You mentioned no theory ?

Please read your post pasted belowI meant when I was presenting evidence.


Understud ? Is that even a word? I said you where presenting a theory. Witch you are. Not when I'm talking about the evidence!


It was a sad display no matter how you slice it..You still didn't answer my question. Explain what I asked you to explain in previous post.


What does Understud mean? No really I wanna knowUnderstood.

[ID-guy]

Guys stop making retarded comments. It doesn't matter how wrong whoever is, just stop acting like a moron.

Anyways, DNA is information contained in each cell so as to act as a universal plan, so to speak, for the bodyThank you! At least we have ONE smart person here who understands basic genetics. Is it so hard for others to grasp this!?


I still don't get why in the bajookers that would mean we have been "designed" (by some conscious being), though.Because only intelligence can create information. And since we are made from DNA, which is information, the logical conclusion is that we were designet by an intelligent agent. There is no other explanation since you need teleology to create information. Natural forces do not have that, thus they can not, by definition create information. And that means, natural forces can't, and didn't create DNA. Intelligent agent that created DNA is the only logical and scientific conclusion.

[Lector Malibu]

I meant when I was presenting evidence.

Well you should have stated that. Instead you denied you where stating theory witch you are. And about this evidence business you don't have any , just more theory.


[i]Not when I'm talking about the evidence!What evidence?


You still didn't answer my question. Explain what I asked you to explain in previous post.I have. You asked me to back up my claim that you where using theory , I even pasted you saying it. Shall I paste it again?




Understood.That is a actual word. If you use more of them you might be able to put a sentence together ...

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Yes, you just RECKON that they would be right. You just ASSUME that they would be right. You just THINK that they would be right. But you do not know it.

And that is why you are going with the popular opinion, just to play it safe. But you are wrong. You did not look into ID at all. You have no idea what it is and what it's all about. You just heard some rumors and decided before hearing what the other side has to say.

I have more reason to believe the majority scientific opinion is correct than the opinion of the ID rabble - see my next point.

I'm not "playing it safe" as I am basically as sure as I can be without being totally certain (since total certainty is an impossiblity) that evolution is correct and that life on Earth is not the product of design.

I have looked into ID, and basically what it comes down to, if you strip away all the politicised bullshit that IDers are fond of, is a massive argument from ignorance - "We don't know how that could form naturally, it looks designed, therefore it is designed".

But of course, to buttress their "arguments", IDers ignore or selectively quote evidence to make things look as if they're in their favour.


1.) Yes, it is an observed phenomenon. But NO, it is NOT an adequate explanation for the full diversity of life we see today on Earth. If it is, give my one proof of that. You can't. Nobody can't. That's the point.


Evolution is an adequate explanation because small changes over a short amount of time become larger changes as that amount of time increases. This has been documented with fossil and other evidence, such as the evolution of the horse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_Horse) and the evolution of cetaceans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans)

Such examples are proof positive that radical physiological changes can happen to a given species given enough time and the impetus to do so, otherwise known as natural selection.


2.) Wrong. I misrepresented nothing. DNA is information. Read something please before you attack me.

DNA is "information" only insofar as a snowflake is "information". Please point out where in the human genome does it say "the nose goes on the face"? Saying that DNA is information is a huge oversimplification if not outright misinterpretation of how DNA works. For that matter, where in the water molecule does it say that a snowflake must have six sides?


Show me one argument of mine that was beaten. You can't. nobody can.

OK, here you go:

You said that materialism wasn't part of science. Publius here demonstrates why that is wrong.


No. The answer to what happens, materially, cannot be non-material. I am interested only in material explanations because only material explanations can be experimentally verified. Therefore they are all that comprise science.

Basically, you can only get verification from the material world, science requires verification, thereofre materialism is a part of science. If it can't be tested, it's worthless to science.

Therefore, you were wrong about materialism not being a part of science.


You don't have to, but than again, what are you doing now?

Doing my own damn thing, thank you very much.

[RevMARKSman]

Reasons for what?

[quote]Regarding your DNA thing, you are saying

Yes.

No. We know it carries inforamtion because of the transformation of TCAG acids through DNA translation process into Proteins.

Yes, but not because of what you think I said, but because only intelligence creates information.

Wrong. Log erosion is not a part of any system. Water and logs are not a system that producec meaningful results, thus they are not a system.

It was not a circular reasoning. You made it look that way.

I did give good reasons.

Information is a complex specified oredr of enteties that has a meaning. That is information in a material world.

Analogy is not the same as metaphor. DNA is real information, because it is abstract. Because there is not a fixed genetic code. If it was, then there would be a question if it was a code. But since there are non-standard genetic codes, than that means, that DNA is real information.

And again, you fail to say what "meaningful" is besides "it must've been created by an intelligence."

DNA must've been created by an intelligence because it's information; we know it's information because it's meaningful (which apparently not everything is) and produces things (which everything does); and we know it's meaningful because ...?

[ID-guy]

Well you should have stated that. Instead you denied you where stating theory witch you are. And about this evidence business you don't have any , just more theory.Oh yes I do. CSI in DNA.


What evidence?CSI, IC...


I have. You asked me to back up my claim that you where using theory , I even pasted you saying it. Shall I paste it again?Not that. Explain to me why is CSI or IC not proof of design.


That is a actual word. If you use more of them you might be able to put a sentence together ...Just like you huh?

[ID-guy]

I have more reason to believe the majority scientific opinion is correct than the opinion of the ID rabble - see my next point.

I'm not "playing it safe" as I am basically as sure as I can be without being totally certain (since total certainty is an impossiblity) that evolution is correct and that life on Earth is not the product of design.

I have looked into ID, and basically what it comes down to, if you strip away all the politicised bullshit that IDers are fond of, is a massive argument from ignorance - "We don't know how that could form naturally, it looks designed, therefore it is designed".

But of course, to buttress their "arguments", IDers ignore or selectively quote evidence to make things look as if they're in their favour.Wrong! This is proof, you don't know anything about ID. If you do, explain what IC and CSI is.


Evolution is an adequate explanation because small changes over a short amount of time become larger changes as that amount of time increases.Wrong it's not. Evolution does not go above the species level, because it can't. The specific complexity is not statistically not possible to be reached.


This has been documented with fossil and other evidence, such as the evolution of the horse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_Horse) Wrong, never happened.

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/natural_history_2_12.html


and the evolution of cetaceans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans) Wrong. That never happened.

http://creationwiki.org/index.php/%28Talk.Origins%29_Cetaceans


Such examples are proof positive that radical physiological changes can happen to a given species given enough time and the impetus to do so, otherwise known as natural selection.Um, I just refuted those fairytales with links...


DNA is "information" only insofar as a snowflake is "information". Please point out where in the human genome does it say "the nose goes on the face"? Saying that DNA is information is a huge oversimplification if not outright misinterpretation of how DNA works. For that matter, where in the water molecule does it say that a snowflake must have six sides?Jesus Christ!

DNA is information!


Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a nucleic acid that contains the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms and some viruses. The main role of DNA molecules is the long-term storage of information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dna

Yes it does say so. The genes for nose say that nose goes on the face. The genes for eyes say that eyes are in the eyes sockets. The other genes for eyes say which color are they going to be. DNA are instructions for building a human body! If you have recessive genes for the eyes, you got blue eyes, if you god dominant genes for the eyes, you got brown eyes! It's a fact! LOL, that is basic genetics! :lol:


OK, here you go:

You said that materialism wasn't part of science. Publius here demonstrates why that is wrong.



Basically, you can only get verification from the material world, science requires verification, thereofre materialism is a part of science. If it can't be tested, it's worthless to science.

Therefore, you were wrong about materialism not being a part of science.No, he is wrong, because non matter can also be tested. Aour ideas, when they are materialised can be tested! When you think in your mind, you have a picture, that is not matter. It is an idea and it is not matter. But if you draw it on paper than you have materialised that idea and you can test it and verify it. So yes, you can test non material substance when you materialise them. Thus making you and him wrong.


Doing my own damn thing, thank you very much.Great, keep it up!

[ID-guy]

And again, you fail to say what "meaningful" is besides "it must've been created by an intelligence."No i told you already. Something that has been specifed by an intelligence.


DNA must've been created by an intelligence because it's information;Yes.


we know it's information because it's meaningful (which apparently not everything is) and produces things (which everything does); and we know it's meaningful because ...?It has an abstract input, which is TCAG nucleic acids, and an objective output which is proteins or regulation.

[Lector Malibu]

Oh yes I do. CSI in DNA.

CSI, IC...

That is not proof that supports ID as a valid scientific explanation for creation.


Not that. Explain to me why is CSI or IC not proof of design.

Better yet test ID for me, can you provide tangible evidence to support your claim? I'm not talking about a hypothesis , I'm saying where is your proof that can validate ID. Evolution on the other hand can be tested,and produce tangible results. And why we are at it, what process designed the designer , and that designs designer , if it is as you claim something had to design each.


Just like you huh?

Well if you try really hard, maybe.

[ID-guy]

That is not proof that supports ID as a valid scientific explanation for creation.Great, explain why!


Better yet test ID for me, can you provide tangible evidence to support your claim? I'm not talking about a hypothesis , I'm saying where is your proof that can validate ID. Evolution on the other hand can be tested,and produce tangible results. And why we are at it, what process designed the designer , and that designs designer , if it is as you claim something had to design each.1.) An IC system is by definition something that can not be created by evolution. If we find an IC system, it means we found design. Here you go, lot's of IC systems here.

http://www.researchintelligentdesign.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity_in_biology

2.) ID is not about finding out the mechanics of the designer. It's about detecting design.


Well if you try really hard, maybe.Good!

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Wrong! This is proof, you don't know anything about ID. If you do, explain what IC and CSI is.

I'm not going to bother cutting and pasting your confused "explanation" of what IC and CSI is, instead I'll ask: what is the difference is between IC/CSI and saying that "it looks designed, therefore it's designed"?


Wrong it's not. Evolution does not go above the species level, because it can't. The specific complexity is not statistically not possible to be reached.

All that needs to happen is for two groups of the same species to be isolated from each other long enough so that the gradual changes in each group build up to a sufficient level that the two seperated groups can no longer interbreed, resulting in two species where there used to be one. It has nothing to do with "statistics" and "specific complexity" and everything to do with natural selection operating differently in different environments.


Wrong, never happened.

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/natu...tory_2_12.html (http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/natural_history_2_12.html)

I'll take the word of scientists over ID demagogues.


Wrong. That never happened.

http://creationwiki.org/index.php/%2...s%29_Cetaceans (http://creationwiki.org/index.php/%28Talk.Origins%29_Cetaceans)

Again, I defer to the greater knowledge of biological scientists.


Um, I just refuted those fairytales with links...

No you didn't. You posted links to creationist/ID websites.


Jesus Christ!

DNA is information!

And so what if it is?


No, he is wrong, because non matter can also be tested. Aour ideas, when they are materialised can be tested! When you think in your mind, you have a picture, that is not matter. It is an idea and it is not matter. But if you draw it on paper than you have materialised that idea and you can test it and verify it. So yes, you can test non material substance when you materialise them. Thus making you and him wrong.

The picture in my head is a particular arrangement of matter. This can be proved by interfering with my brain through drugs, physical shocks, etc.

[Lector Malibu]

Great, explain why!

Well for several reasons, I'll stick with the biggest one though. It can not be tested and yield tangible evidence to support it's validity as a working mechanism


1.) An IC system is by definition something that can not be created by evolution. If we find an IC system, it means we found design. Here you go, lot's of IC systems here.

http://www.researchintelligentdesign.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity_in_biology


IC has been formally refuted on several occasions. Despite this it is pushed by the creationist as fact.

Also stop submitting non objective/creationist links , that does not solidify your points if the information is biased.

Here is a link with discussion on IC from wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity



2.) ID is not about finding out the mechanics of the designer. It's about detecting design.

Witch it has been unable to do and can not be tested.

[ID-guy]

I'm not going to bother cutting and pasting your confused "explanation" of what IC and CSI is, instead I'll ask: what is the difference is between IC/CSI and saying that "it looks designed, therefore it's designed"?I'll tell you. If something looks designed, it doesn't have to be. It's as simple as that.

But if you have a system, lets say of X enteties. That system we call a complex system. Now, if we also have a pattern, that these enteties form, and that pattern is not dependant on the system, we have a specification. An independant pattern is like letters "SONY" on a TV set. The letters themself, the ideas of letters, have nothing to do with the plastic of a TV set. Yet they are there.

So now you have both complexity, many parts in a system, and a pattern that has nothing to do with the system itself, yet the parts are forming that pattern, so you have specification. Now you have a specified complexity.

If the complexity of that system is over the UPB, which means that the chance of that system arising by chance is under 1:1(150), that means that the system is not theoretically possible to come about by chance. That is called a rejection region. If we would find specified complexity that is let's say 1:10(5) than we would say that it had an intelligent source, but that this system itself in it's present state does not have to be of intelligent origin. In math, it is said that everything that has chance under 1:10(50) is statistically impossible. William Dembski uses a rejection region of 1:10(150) which means that it is theoretically impossible to get a said system by chance. Thus we conclude design.

When a said system has both complexity, specificity and is carrying information, than we call it Complex Specifed Information or CSI for short.

Now, which part do you want me to explain a bit more?


All that needs to happen is for two groups of the same species to be isolated from each other long enough so that the gradual changes in each group build up to a sufficient level that the two seperated groups can no longer interbreed, resulting in two species where there used to be one. It has nothing to do with "statistics" and "specific complexity" and everything to do with natural selection operating differently in different environments.I don't doubt that. it happens. But that's it. Nothing else happens. Species is the lowest level. You need to explain how the higher levels came to be. There has been ZERO proof that they can be created by evolution.


I'll take the word of scientists over ID demagogues.Excuse me, but there are quotes from "real" scientists in that link, and they say that evolution of the horse is not real. It's fake. Like it says, it has been known to be wrong for over 50 years.


Again, I defer to the greater knowledge of biological scientists.Why? You can't just say you don't accept it because you don't like it. You have to say why my link is wrong. Either that or you lose.


No you didn't. You posted links to creationist/ID websites.Yes I did. You just didn't accpet it without saying why. You have got to engage in a discussion if you want to win, else I win by default.


And so what if it is?It means that it is not created by natural forces...


The picture in my head is a particular arrangement of matter. This can be proved by interfering with my brain through drugs, physical shocks, etc.It is not, and no it can not be proven. Because when you interfear with someones brain, you just do that, interfear with his brain, and that is why the output from the mind is not how it is supposed to be.

You can't prove ideas are material, Pubichairs already tried and said he can't prove it, neither can you or nobody.

[ID-guy]

Well for several reasons, I'll stick with the biggest one though. It can not be tested and yield tangible evidence to support it's validity as a working mechanismID doesn't require a mechanism, it rquires desing. And CSI is a mark of design.


IC has been formally refuted on several occasions. Despite this it is pushed by the creationist as fact.

Also stop submitting non objective/creationist links , that does not solidify your points if the information is biased.

Here is a link with discussion on IC from wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity Wrong. It has NEVER been refuted.

http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.02.Miller_Response.htm

In short...

TTSS is younger than the flagellum, Miller didn't show a practical evolutionary path.

Your turn...


Witch it has been unable to do and can not be tested.Yes, it found desing in living organisms. Like DNA form example. If you think I'm wrong, tell me why.

[Dystisis]

Because only intelligence can create information. And since we are made from DNA, which is information, the logical conclusion is that we were designet by an intelligent agent. There is no other explanation since you need teleology to create information. Natural forces do not have that, thus they can not, by definition create information. And that means, natural forces can't, and didn't create DNA. Intelligent agent that created DNA is the only logical and scientific conclusion.
I would argue that everything is information, on some level. Or, everything carries information that can be understood by sentient beings. In fact, basic information (mathematics) in 3d = geometry, which all atoms/molecules (ie: everything) follows is what makes up the universe.

Therefore, your point is reduced to you believing a god (or whatever you wish to call it) started this whole universe, since you seem to think there must be a living "creator". You still have a remaining problem: What created the creator? Not saying that atheists hold the answer to the start of the universe either, of course. But you got perhaps a more obvious explaining problem.

[Lector Malibu]

ID doesn't require a mechanism, it rquires desing. And CSI is a mark of design.

CSI has not been proven as a mark to indicate the validity ID as the basis of creation.


Wrong. It has NEVER been refuted.

http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.02.Miller_Response.htm


Yes it has been refuted , recently even.

"In the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District) trial, Behe gave testimony on the subject of irreducible complexity. The court found that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity#cite_note-dover_behe_ruling-4) Nonetheless, irreducible complexity continues to be cited as an important argument by creationists."

from my link prior.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity


In short...

TTSS is younger than the flagellum, Miller didn't show a practical evolutionary path.

Where as ID yields nothing at all.


Your turn...

Yes, it found desing in living organisms. Like DNA form example. If you think I'm wrong, tell me why.


I think you are wrong because you are presenting a theory that can not produce tangible evidence to support the hypothesis . When you can produce tangible evidence you will have a valid argument. Evolution can be tested and yield results in short....

[ID-guy]

I would argue that everything is information, on some level. Or, everything carries information that can be understood by sentient beings. In fact, basic information (mathematics) in 3d = geometry, which all atoms/molecules (ie: everything) follows is what makes up the universe.But it's not since not everything carries information. Only that which is specified by intelligence has information.


Therefore, your point is reduced to you believing a god (or whatever you wish to call it) started this whole universe, since you seem to think there must be a living "creator".No, I do not "believe" I accept based on scientific findings and logic. If only inteligence creates information, and we have informtion in ourselves, than there is only one logical answer to where we came from.


You still have a remaining problem: What created the creator? Not saying that atheists hold the answer to the start of the universe either, of course. But you got perhaps a more obvious explaining problem.Actually I don't Quite simple. First, it's not ID's busieness. ID is about detecting design, not the designer.

Second reason. Imagine if I asked you, where the computers came from. And you said, from people! And thatn, I asked you, so where do people come from, and you said that you don't know. And than I said, well since you don't know, than you can't say people make computers! Do you see how wrong that would be? Just because I don't know where our designer came from, doesn't mean there isn't one, or that I have got to explain how he got there.

Third reason. If he is outside the universe, the time space continuum, than he is not bound by our rules, and not by our definition of "existance", which means you can't define what "creating" a designer outside our universe would mean. We don't know if he needed to be "created" or even what "existance" is outside this universe, so it's not really something we should concern ourselves about.

[ID-guy]

CSI has not been proven as a mark to indicate the validity ID as the basis of creation.Yes it has. Read the last few comments at the bottom. From 36 to 40. ID people got the challenge from the evolutionists to detect design in strands of DNA, and guess what? They found non natural DNA combinations, which means they detected intelligent cause!

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ian-musgraves-intelligent-design-challenge/


Yes it has been refuted , recently even.

"In the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District) trial, Behe gave testimony on the subject of irreducible complexity. The court found that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity#cite_note-dover_behe_ruling-4) Nonetheless, irreducible complexity continues to be cited as an important argument by creationists."

from my link prior.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

You didn't get it did you? I posted a link that refutes your link! Yes, Judge Jones at the Dover trial understood nothing about ID, that's the point.

Again, here is the link. Discuss it... Why do you think it's wrong. I don't care what the judge said, what do you say.

http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.02.Miller_Response.htm


Where as ID yields nothing at all. Do not change the subject. Answer to what I said.


I think you are wrong because you are presenting a theory that can not produce tangible evidence to support the hypothesis . When you can produce tangible evidence you will have a valid argument. Evolution can be tested and yield results in short....So did ID, but you refuse to accept it. And do not change the subject. Explain why is DNA not evidence of design!

[Lector Malibu]

Yes it has. Read the last few comments at the bottom. From 36 to 40. ID people got the challenge from the evolutionists to detect design in strands of DNA, and guess what? They found non natural DNA combinations, which means they detected intelligent cause!

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ian-musgraves-intelligent-design-challenge/


You post a link to a web blog and I am supposed to accept that as valid scientific data?? And detection of non natural DNA patterns does not prove ID as the basis of creation in any way shape or form.



You didn't get it did you? I posted a link that refutes your link! Yes, Judge Jones at the Dover trial understood nothing about ID, that's the point.

Again, here is the link. Discuss it... Why do you think it's wrong. I don't care what the judge said, what do you say.

http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.02.Miller_Response.htm

I asked you not to post non objectionable links . Your link is not, therefore can not be cited as fact. Why not just post quotes from the bible or something ?


Do not change the subject. Answer to what I said.Okay , your reference to flagellum, Behe himself admitted there was no peer reviewed papers supporting his claims or support of his theory of intelligent design Your criticism of Miller was not supported because of this. Again ID yields nothing, Evolution produces tangible evidence to support is as a basis for creation.




So did ID, but you refuse to accept it.No , it did not. Has nothing to do with me.


And do not change the subject. Explain why is DNA not evidence of design!
DNA has not indicated that it is a result of it. that's why.

[Bud Struggle]

DAMN IT--ID!

The smoke from all these Commie brains frying is making it hard for me to see my computer monitor! :laugh:

Nice job of kicking some really conplacent butts. :thumbup:

[careyprice31]

The official site of William A Dembski (inventor of ID), for anyone who's interested.

http://www.designinference.com/


also the wiki article on him, but most university profs and scholars dont accept wikipedia as a good source

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Dembski


an article written by Dembski

http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=3580


I don't think most historians would take dembski seriously, let alone scientists in the scientific fied. Because one thing they teach us in historiography is to look at the historian or anyone for that matter before looking at his articles to see if they are reliable or not.,

Dembski his biggest flaw i think is that he hails from the bible belt, aka the Baptist community, the baptist semenary. The fact that this is so should immediately make one suspicious.

ID guy: eally need to explain CSI or anything, you did fine all right, you';ve already explained it. Nothing more I could add.

Except the fact that the ID 'theory appears to have come from a deepy Baptist religious guy, which is more evidence in supporet of our ideas, not yours, that ID is mostly independent of religion it can support a religion but it mostly is independent of religion and creationism is your idea, but what i have presenteds just now is more evidence in favor of our ideas and knowledge.

[Lector Malibu]

DAMN IT--ID!

The smoke from all these Commie brains frying is making it hard for me to see my computer monitor! :laugh:

Nice job of kicking some really conplacent butts. :thumbup:


Tom Go play cheerleader dress up somewhere else already. No really it's getting old..

[Bud Struggle]

Tom Go play cheerleader dress up somewhere else already. No really it's getting old..

Sorry, if I offended you. I think ID is a good poster--I meant nothing more. I know you have your way of thinking around here--I've been to many Communist countries in my lifetime and most don't like differing points of view. Same here it seems.

Sorry to upset you. :(

[Lector Malibu]

Have I ever said anything about ID before?

I think not? You are either dreaming or drunk. Ot just a regular Revlefter still living at home with MOM. :D

1.You cheer lead all the time. Anything you think that opposes The Communist (though this debate has nothing to do with the sort).

2.I'm not drunk or dreaming

3. I said nothing about you talking about ID.

4. I've been on my own since I was 16 , decades ago.

[Bud Struggle]

1.You cheer lead all the time. Anything you think that opposes The Communist (though this debate has nothing to do with the sort).

2.I'm not drunk or dreaming

3. I said nothing about you talking about ID.

4. I've been on my own since I was 16 , decades ago.

My first post was too brash.

I've posted a note of repentance instead,

Forgive me, please.

[Invader Zim]

But in no way, shape or form, do I accept an idea that we came from a rock 3.6 billion years ago. There is absolutly no evidence fort that claim.

That is a totally different theory, its called 'abiogenesis', and it has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution deals with the the development of life over time, not its inception.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Tell me exactlly where am I wrong about evolution.


I refer you to every single post I've made to you in this thread. You are wrong about the mechanism of natural selection; or more accurately you don't understand it. Read what I'm saying to you.


Absolutly wrong. There is a way to test for design. You serch for a high contents of information in systems.

That is not testing for design, that is testing for "high information levels" (Information is a bit of a weird concept I find, difficult to really understand it) and inferring design because you can't imagine anything else resulting in that outcome. Like I've said in every single post in this thread, ID is just another God of the Gaps theory - it is an argument from incredulity.


No wrong. We do know what design is. Only intelligence can design. So when we find design, it is logical to say that there is a designer who designed it. Which part do you not understand here?

I understand this, I am suggesting to you that you have never "found design" in the first place, merely fallaciously inferred it. What part of that do you not understand?


We can test and find design. We know what intelligence can do, and what natural forces can't. Thus when we find something that intelligence can do, like IC systems, and natural forces can't, we are obviously going to conclude that they were designed.

Again, at best this is coffee shop philosophy and not science. You have not found anything direct in the way of evidence for intelligent design, you merely pick holes in evolutionary mechanisms and assume that ID is instantly true if evolution is not. Wrong, wrong, wrong.



Are you blind!?!?!?! That guy started calling me names first! Why don't you call him aggressive!?


Anyone that uses 4 exclamtion marks and three question marks after a sentence is clearly a bit mental. ;)

Seriously dude, just calm down. You don't need to get so stressed about this - it's not like any of us can impact policy on the issue, we're having a normal discussion about it.



I didn't avoid anything, I told you that it's a subjective argument, and that makes it wrong from teh start.


Okay, well develop this a bit. I could just as easily say something like ID is fallacious, it doesn't make it valid just to say so.



Once more... Wrong! You can't say what the designer would or would not do! That is just your opinion and it means nothing to a designer who actually makes the object.

If you saw a car and said: "Hmm, I don't like how the mirrors are placed, that is very weird, this proves that NOBODY made the car, and that it evolved from other cars!"

Do you see how stupid that sounds?


Well of course that sounds stupid if you say it about cars. lol. We're discussing biological organisms, that's an absolute disanalogy.

And in any case, it's not a matter of taste, it's a matter of you guys needing to offer some explanation as to why something phenomenally more intelligent than us would mess about creating multiple (and extremely inefficient in the grand scheme of things) of the same base function. It makes no sense. Evolution fits that model perfectly, though.

-Alex

[ID-guy]

You post a link to a web blog and I am supposed to accept that as valid scientific data?? And detection of non natural DNA patterns does not prove ID as the basis of creation in any way shape or form.It's not any web blog for god's sake, did you even read it!? It's William Dembski's blog! Yes, the person who came up with the concept of CSI. And yes, the detection of non natural DNA patterns DOES prove CSI as capeable of detecting design.

Because NON NATURAL DNA sequences EQUAL DESIGN!


I asked you not to post non objectionable links . Your link is not, therefore can not be cited as fact. Why not just post quotes from the bible or something ?WTF are you talking about!? That is a refutation of Millers strawman!!! Either accept it or say you don't understand the refutation!


Okay , your reference to flagellum, Behe himself admitted there was no peer reviewed papers supporting his claims or support of his theory of intelligent design Your criticism of Miller was not supported because of this. Again ID yields nothing, Evolution produces tangible evidence to support is as a basis for creation. Wrong, there are peer revievew ID articles.

http://www.discovery.org/a/2640


No , it did not. Has nothing to do with me.Than explain why CSI cna not be used to detect design.


DNA has not indicated that it is a result of it. that's why.Explain why.

[ID-guy]

The official site of William A Dembski (inventor of ID), for anyone who's interested.

http://www.designinference.com/


also the wiki article on him, but most university profs and scholars dont accept wikipedia as a good source

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Dembski


an article written by Dembski

http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=3580


I don't think most historians would take dembski seriously, let alone scientists in the scientific fied. Because one thing they teach us in historiography is to look at the historian or anyone for that matter before looking at his articles to see if they are reliable or not.,

Dembski his biggest flaw i think is that he hails from the bible belt, aka the Baptist community, the baptist semenary. The fact that this is so should immediately make one suspicious.

ID guy: eally need to explain CSI or anything, you did fine all right, you';ve already explained it. Nothing more I could add.

Except the fact that the ID 'theory appears to have come from a deepy Baptist religious guy, which is more evidence in supporet of our ideas, not yours, that ID is mostly independent of religion it can support a religion but it mostly is independent of religion and creationism is your idea, but what i have presenteds just now is more evidence in favor of our ideas and knowledge.No you did not. What you just did was character assasination. Meaning that you don't like what background Dembski comes from, therefore you automatically call him wrong. That's not science or correct way to debate. Furthermore Dembski is not the creator of ID, he is just of of the scientists who supports it. And jusst so you know, one of the latest people who joined Discovery Institute to support ID is David Berlinski, an agnostic.

So basicly, I could just say that since evolutionists promote atheism, I'm not going to accept their claims. That's not how it works. You got to refute what somebody said with evidece to prove hm wrong, not just say that you don't like what he is presenting.

[ID-guy]

That is a totally different theory, its called 'abiogenesis', and it has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution deals with the the development of life over time, not its inception.The point I'm making is that you need abiogenesis in oredr for evolution to make sense. But there is no proof that it did or that it could ever happen.

[ID-guy]

I refer you to every single post I've made to you in this thread. You are wrong about the mechanism of natural selection; or more accurately you don't understand it. Read what I'm saying to you.Explain which part I did not understand, don't just say I don't understand, explain yourself!


That is not testing for design, that is testing for "high information levels" (Information is a bit of a weird concept I find, difficult to really understand it) and inferring design because you can't imagine anything else resulting in that outcome. Like I've said in every single post in this thread, ID is just another God of the Gaps theory - it is an argument from incredulity.Well duh! That's YOUR, not MY problem if you can't understand it! If you can't understand it than don't tell me I'm wrong!

Just so you know "high information content" EQUALS "design". For god's sake...

And again, no its not' god of the gaps, stop using that argument. We know where information coems form, OK? You don't you said it yourself, we do. So sice we do know, it's not argument from ignorance.


I understand this, I am suggesting to you that you have never "found design" in the first place, merely fallaciously inferred it. What part of that do you not understand?Explain to me where did I fallaciously inferred it and why.


Again, at best this is coffee shop philosophy and not science. You have not found anything direct in the way of evidence for intelligent design, you merely pick holes in evolutionary mechanisms and assume that ID is instantly true if evolution is not. Wrong, wrong, wrong.Sorry but no, it doesn't go that way. You can't just call my argument philosophy and leave it at that. Explain to me why my argument is wrong.


Anyone that uses 4 exclamtion marks and three question marks after a sentence is clearly a bit mental. ;)

Seriously dude, just calm down. You don't need to get so stressed about this - it's not like any of us can impact policy on the issue, we're having a normal discussion about it.Well obviously we aint.


Okay, well develop this a bit. I could just as easily say something like ID is fallacious, it doesn't make it valid just to say so.Exactly, and that is all that argument was about.


Well of course that sounds stupid if you say it about cars. lol. We're discussing biological organisms, that's an absolute disanalogy.Why, explain yourself.


And in any case, it's not a matter of taste, it's a matter of you guys needing to offer some explanation as to why something phenomenally more intelligent than us would mess about creating multiple (and extremely inefficient in the grand scheme of things) of the same base function. It makes no sense. Evolution fits that model perfectly, though.

-Alex1.) No we do not need to explain that. ID is not about subjectivity. We don't care why something happened. Science isn't about that. ID only detects design. Try to remember that.

2.) What exactly can evolution explain?

[ID-guy]

Sorry, if I offended you. I think ID is a good poster--I meant nothing more. I know you have your way of thinking around here--I've been to many Communist countries in my lifetime and most don't like differing points of view. Same here it seems.

Sorry to upset you. :(It's because their whole worldview of communism is hanging upon this evolution theory. If it colapses, that communism goes right through the window with the evolution. That's why they are so upset about it.

[Marsella]

If not for evolution, where did humans come from? Were we put on this planet ten thousand years ago?

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Explain which part I did not understand, don't just say I don't understand, explain yourself!


I refer you to every single post I have made in the thread thus far. You misunderstand the mechanism of natural selection as random and tautological, I have already shown why it is not several times. Look at my previous posts. In case this doesn't sink in, I will try to communicate it to you in a different way:

READ WHAT I AM SAYING. READ WHAT I AM SAYING. READ WHAT I AM SAYING.


Just so you know "high information content" EQUALS "design". For god's sake...


No it does not, high information content looks like design, and even then in a limited sense. A lot of the time it doesn't even look like design, like the eye sees shit backwards and so on. Just because you can't see past that doesn't mean it isn't true, and I've explained this point to you several times now, if you ignore me again I'm not going to debate with you anymore, I've got better brick walls to bang my head against.



And again, no its not' god of the gaps, stop using that argument. We know where information coems form, OK? You don't you said it yourself, we do. So sice we do know, it's not argument from ignorance.


Stop making shit up, you're just looking ridiculous now. You're just fucking asserting "Information IS design", no it isn't, otherwise there'd be no debate to have here. And stop claiming that I don't know anything about it, I said it was difficult, not impossible.


Explain to me where did I fallaciously inferred it and why.

You fallaciously infer it because you assume that if evolutionary pathways cannot be found, Intelligent Design automatically becomes the truth. It does not, that's a classic logical mistake, the false dilemma. You need to find direct evidence for Intelligent Design, not gaps in evolution for you to fill in. See? Your theory is a God of the Gaps.


Sorry but no, it doesn't go that way. You can't just call my argument philosophy and leave it at that. Explain to me why my argument is wrong

I didn't "just leave it at that". READ WHAT I AM SAYING. I'll repost it for you:


You have not found anything direct in the way of evidence for intelligent design, you merely pick holes in evolutionary mechanisms and assume that ID is instantly true if evolution is not. Wrong, wrong, wrong.



Well obviously we aint.


Alright then mate, you get angry if you really want to, guarantee I'm the happier one of us when we get off the computer. :lol:



Why, explain yourself.


Biological organisms reproduce and compete for resources, which means that natural selection acts on them, cars do not, which means it does not. This is your misunderstanding of natural selection, again, and this is why your analogy was completely flawed.


No we do not need to explain that. ID is not about subjectivity. We don't care why something happened. Science isn't about that. ID only detects design. Try to remember that.

Science "isn't about" why something happens? Erm... Can you cross a road unaided? :ohmy:

So long as you are talking about design, you need to talk about phenomena that don't fit the design model, such as multiple and flawed designs for the same function. If you can't, then concede it as a weakness to your theory, if you can, then how about a response? Novel idea, eh?

-Alex

[ID-guy]

If not for evolution, where did humans come from? Were we put on this planet ten thousand years ago?The best explanation would be that we were a result of a purposeful intelligent act. When it happened, that is not known.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

It's because their whole worldview of communism is hanging upon this evolution theory. If it colapses, that communism goes right through the window with the evolution. That's why they are so upset about it.


Why's that?

-Alex

[ID-guy]

I refer you to every single post I have made in the thread thus far. You misunderstand the mechanism of natural selection as random and tautological, I have already shown why it is not several times. Look at my previous posts. In case this doesn't sink in, I will try to communicate it to you in a different way:No you showed nothing. You just say that you did. Explain to me EXACTLY why I'm wrong.


No it does not, high information content looks like design, and even then in a limited sense. A lot of the time it doesn't even look like design, like the eye sees shit backwards and so on. Just because you can't see past that doesn't mean it isn't true, and I've explained this point to you several times now, if you ignore me again I'm not going to debate with you anymore, I've got better brick walls to bang my head against.NO! WRONG! High information content is design. This has nothing to do with our eyes seeing backwards! WTF are you talking about! Make sense for once please! Give me proof that nature can create information, or else you are wrong!


Stop making shit up, you're just looking ridiculous now. You're just fucking asserting "Information IS design", no it isn't, otherwise there'd be no debate to have here. And stop claiming that I don't know anything about it, I said it was difficult, not impossible.IT FUCKING IS DESIGN! Because only intelligence can create information, and when it does, that is an act of design.

PROVE ME WRONG! Prove than natural forces can also create information and thus make design! If you can't than shut up!


You fallaciously infer it because you assume that if evolutionary pathways cannot be found, Intelligent Design automatically becomes the truth. It does not, that's a classic logical mistake, the false dilemma. You need to find direct evidence for Intelligent Design, not gaps in evolution for you to fill in. See? Your theory is a God of the Gaps.No ,you don't get it. I'm not saying that it becomes the truth. I'm sayign that it becomes the best explanation, because that's how the science works. Since intelligence can create IC systems, we than atribute IC systems to intelligence.


I didn't "just leave it at that". READ WHAT I AM SAYING. I'll repost it for you:Well than tell me what is a DIRECT evidence?


Alright then mate, you get angry if you really want to, guarantee I'm the happier one of us when we get off the computer. :lol:Good for you.


Biological organisms reproduce and compete for resources, which means that natural selection acts on them, cars do not, which means it does not. This is your misunderstanding of natural selection, again, and this is why your analogy was completely flawed.No, that was not what I was talking about. Why exactly makes you thing that live organism do not require to be designed. I'm not talking about all of them, I'm talking about the first ones. Cars need a designer. Why exactly do living organism don't?


Science "isn't about" why something happens? Erm... Can you cross a road unaided? :ohmy:I'm talking about subjective "why".


So long as you are talking about design, you need to talk about phenomena that don't fit the design model, such as multiple and flawed designs for the same function. If you can't, then concede it as a weakness to your theory, if you can, then how about a response? Novel idea, eh?

-AlexWrong. Again, that is a subjective argument. It does fit design if it is designet. It desn't matter how it was designed, or if you think that it is poor design. That does not matter. If it was designed, than it was designed, that's te point. If you saw a badly designed car, would you say that it was not designed just because it looked bad to you? Ofcourse you wouldn't! The same thing is with living organisms.

[ID-guy]

Why's that?

-AlexBecause you have got no ground for communism if you have no evolution.

[Marsella]

Because you have got no ground for communism if you have no evolution.

Why not?

[ID-guy]

Why not?Because communism is a worldview, you have got to have a begining if you are going to have a worldwiew. I mean, if you don't know, or at least have an idea where we come from, than you can't say that you have a real worldview. Because you have a big hole in your theory. The biggest one, you can't explain the beginig of where people come from.

[RevMARKSman]

Because communism is a worldview, you have got to have a begining if you are going to have a worldwiew. I mean, if you don't know, or at least have an idea where we come from, than you can't say that you have a real worldview. Because you have a big hole in your theory. The biggest one, you can't explain the beginig of where people come from.
Communism is not a "theory of everything." It explains how to make the world better from where it is now, and historical materialism is an explanation of human history. If John Doe is a Republican, does that mean he has to have an idea of how the world came into being? If there's something you don't know yet, you're not required to form a false opinion on it.

Anyway, though, you're now required to have an opinion on something you're completely ignorant about just to validate your "worldview." Otherwise it has holes in it.

[ID-guy]

Communism is not a "theory of everything." It explains how to make the world better from where it is now, and historical materialism is an explanation of human history. If John Doe is a Republican, does that mean he has to have an idea of how the world came into being? If there's something you don't know yet, you're not required to form a false opinion on it.

Anyway, though, you're now required to have an opinion on something you're completely ignorant about just to validate your "worldview." Otherwise it has holes in it.But communism relies on materialism to be a FACT. The only way you can have your worldview be true is if evolution is true. If evolution is not true, than materialism is not a fact, so that would make communism wrong.

[Lord Testicles]

But communism relies on materialism to be a FACT. The only way you can have your worldview be true is if evolution is true. If evolution is not true, than materialism is not a fact, so that would make communism wrong.

Well done sir, you have defeated communism. The president will call you shortly to congratulate you and hand out medals. Communist parties all across the globe are disbanding as we speak. You have done this world a great service by destroying the devils work we have all come to call communism. Let me say it again, well done sir!

[ID-guy]

Well done sir, you have defeated communism. The president will call you shortly to congratulate you and hand out medals. Communist parties all across the globe are disbanding as we speak. You have done this world a great service by destroying the devils work we have all come to call communism. Let me say it again, well done sir!Really now! I couldn't care less about that. I'm only interested in science...

[Lord Testicles]

Really now! I couldn't care less about that. I'm only interested in science...

Sorry about that, it's quite hard to tell since in this thread you have show to have quite a poor grasp of it. Therefor I will have to assume that you are a troll.

[Lector Malibu]

It's not any web blog for god's sake, did you even read it!? It's William Dembski's blog! Yes, the person who came up with the concept of CSI. And yes, the detection of non natural DNA patterns DOES prove CSI as capeable of detecting design.

Because NON NATURAL DNA sequences EQUAL DESIGN!

A claim that has been refuted and has not been proven.


WTF are you talking about!? That is a refutation of Millers strawman!!! Either accept it or say you don't understand the refutation!No, and No. Again ID is a theory that has not been proven therefore it has been not credited as a valid working explanation for creation.



Wrong, there are peer revievew ID articles.http://www.discovery.org/a/2640[/quote] (http://www.discovery.org/a/2640)

Did Behe himself in reference to the flagellum example admit that there were no peer supported reviews in the reference I was referring too? Yes or No, simple question.



Than explain why CSI cna not be used to detect design.

Because the argument has been tested and yielded no proof , where as with evolution we have actual tangible proof , and IC has not been found , ID has been refuted and so on and so on...

[careyprice31]

ID-guy: "No you did not. What you just did was character assasination. Meaning that you don't like what background Dembski comes from, therefore you automatically call him wrong. That's not science or correct way to debate. Furthermore Dembski is not the creator of ID, he is just of of the scientists who supports it. And jusst so you know, one of the latest people who joined Discovery Institute to support ID is David Berlinski, an agnostic.

So basicly, I could just say that since evolutionists promote atheism, I'm not going to accept their claims. That's not how it works. You got to refute what somebody said with evidece to prove hm wrong, not just say that you don't like what he is presenting."


The firsat thing that you do when even going to consider somebody's theory or hypothesis or research is to look at the deliverer of the theory or hypothesis or research. Dembski is already at a disadvantage because of where he is coming from. If he was an atheist /agnostic or even a guy from the David Suzuki foundation considering ID, he would be more credible.

so basically you just attacked historiography in addition to modern day science and attacked even the many profs I have been studying historiography with. It is they who teach the importance of critiquing the character who presents the imformation. You should take it up with the experts.

In addition you did attack me, even though you said you only do it when someone does it back, by saying that I m basically ignorant and that I know nothing. This despite the fact that Ive been studying science my whole life, went to a Catholic school for a while, and have always been interested in everyone's theories and hypothesis of why stuff happened. And yes I knew of ID the moment it was first announced that it was being changed to Intelligent Design.

I know that Lysenkoism and Lamarckism is considered pseudoscience by pretty much everyone in the scientific field and the historical field as well, it has been refuted, yet even that has more evidence to support its theories than does ID show evidence of a creator.

I've made extensive studies of both.

Dembski attempts to use mathematics to calculate the probability of something having been put there by chance or randomness and says something like if it s a 100/1 chance of it not being there by chance, there ehas to be a designer. I think even mathematicians would consider it pretty much to be batshit.

[careyprice31]

"Originally Posted by ID-guy http://img.revleft.com/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1110817#post1110817)

An ability to create and modify information."

we know that evolution can modify information.

We also know that evolution can create new information, ex. it can modify DNA and RNA.

oh btw you said that malaria is a virus. It is not. It is a parasite.

a virus is nothing mopre than a piece of DNA or RNA sometimes that cannot do anything independent of its host cell it lives in. It cannot even reporduce on its own, it needs a host cell to live in that does everythingfor it. For this reason it is sadi to replicate, not reproduce.

The malaria parasite (btw malaria comes from a word meaning 'bad air' ) is an organism, a living organism, that can change and reproduce on its own, it does not have to stay inside a cell and it does not have to rely on a cell to do everything for it. This is shown by the way it acts when it is being carried by a mosquito and inserted into its second host's body, such as a human. It can get into cells but only to escape from the body's immune system. It does not need a cell to do everything for it unlike a virus.

Basic science. Jeez......

and a virus can mutate quickly because it is just a strand of DNA or RNA.

so im also assuming you did not know the difference between a virus and a parasitic protozoa.

"Furthermore there is a limit to what evolution can do. Michael Behe tested plasmodium falciparum (malaria virus) and concluded that it changed very little. It was able to get CRQ (cloroquine resistance) in 1:10(20) chance. And that's just 2 mutations. So basicly you can't get more than 2 positive mutations because it isn't statisticaly possible in a population of that amount. And p. falciparums have a high rate of mutations"

The fact that Behe saw that malaria, which is a protozoan parasite and not a virus, changed very little means nothing and is not evidence of a intelligent agent. Parasites, living creatures, do not mutate as easily as viruses, because a virus is nothing more than a strand of RNA or DNA wrapped inside a protein coat. The experts arent even sure whether its a living being because it does not exhibit all of the characteristics of life.

and you called it a virus and perhaps Behe did too. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Its batshit. Its just batshit.

[ID-guy]

Sorry about that, it's quite hard to tell since in this thread you have show to have quite a poor grasp of it. Therefor I will have to assume that you are a troll.I'd say you are a troll since you are not contributing to the topic.

[ID-guy]

A claim that has been refuted and has not been proven. Are you insane!? You refuted nothing. Admit that you are wrong. Give me a link where anything I said was refuted.


No, and No. Again ID is a theory that has not been proven therefore it has been not credited as a valid working explanation for creation.OK, what do you consider a proof of ID?


Did Behe himself in reference to the flagellum example admit that there were no peer supported reviews in the reference I was referring too? Yes or No, simple question.Yes, but he was talking about his work. Scot Minnich's work about the flagellum is peer reviewd. I gave you a link, read it.


Because the argument has been tested and yielded no proof , where as with evolution we have actual tangible proof , and IC has not been found , ID has been refuted and so on and so on...Where has it been tested?

[ID-guy]

The firsat thing that you do when even going to consider somebody's theory or hypothesis or research is to look at the deliverer of the theory or hypothesis or research. Dembski is already at a disadvantage because of where he is coming from. If he was an atheist /agnostic or even a guy from the David Suzuki foundation considering ID, he would be more credible.The last thing I would do is to judge somebody because of his background. That is called a prejudice, and is wrong.

Oh and guess what, I found this quote in your signature: "Don't judge a thing until you know what's inside it "

Makes you think huh?

So anyway, why is an atheist more credible than a believer?


so basically you just attacked historiography in addition to modern day science and attacked even the many profs I have been studying historiography with. It is they who teach the importance of critiquing the character who presents the imformation. You should take it up with the experts.No, I'm just attacking materialism that poses as science, that's all.


In addition you did attack me, even though you said you only do it when someone does it back, by saying that I m basically ignorant and that I know nothing. This despite the fact that Ive been studying science my whole life, went to a Catholic school for a while, and have always been interested in everyone's theories and hypothesis of why stuff happened. And yes I knew of ID the moment it was first announced that it was being changed to Intelligent Design.ID is Intelligent design. There, this just shows you really do know nothing about the topic. If you do, than let's discuss SCIENCE, and not political agendas.


I know that Lysenkoism and Lamarckism is considered pseudoscience by pretty much everyone in the scientific field and the historical field as well, it has been refuted, yet even that has more evidence to support its theories than does ID show evidence of a creator.What kind of evidence do you think ID should show?


I've made extensive studies of both.No, obviously you didn't.


Dembski attempts to use mathematics to calculate the probability of something having been put there by chance or randomness and says something like if it s a 100/1 chance of it not being there by chance, there ehas to be a designer. I think even mathematicians would consider it pretty much to be batshit.You are so wrong. 100/1 is crap, he never said that. You do not know first thing about ID, so stop saying you do.

If you do, than explain this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_probability_bound

[ID-guy]

we know that evolution can modify information.

We also know that evolution can create new information, ex. it can modify DNA and RNA.No it can't. It can only modify information, but not create it. Only intelligence can both modify and create information.


oh btw you said that malaria is a virus. It is not. It is a parasite.It's a pathogen to be precise... Splithair...


a virus is nothing mopre than a piece of DNA or RNA sometimes that cannot do anything independent of its host cell it lives in. It cannot even reporduce on its own, it needs a host cell to live in that does everythingfor it. For this reason it is sadi to replicate, not reproduce.The same thing.


The malaria parasite (btw malaria comes from a word meaning 'bad air' ) is an organism, a living organism, that can change and reproduce on its own, it does not have to stay inside a cell and it does not have to rely on a cell to do everything for it. This is shown by the way it acts when it is being carried by a mosquito and inserted into its second host's body, such as a human. It can get into cells but only to escape from the body's immune system. It does not need a cell to do everything for it unlike a virus.

Basic science. Jeez......The point is!?


and a virus can mutate quickly because it is just a strand of DNA or RNA.

so im also assuming you did not know the difference between a virus and a parasitic protozoa.Again, the point is?


The fact that Behe saw that malaria, which is a protozoan parasite and not a virus, changed very little means nothing and is not evidence of a intelligent agent.Jesus, god damn christ... WHO EVER SAID IT IS!? NOBODY!

The point I was trying to make is that evolution is a flawed theory to the point that it can't account for the whole diversity of life. The point M. Behe was making is that there is a limit to evolution. And he placed that limit, judging by statistical FACTS produced by N.J. White (not an ID supporter) somewhere between order and family on the taxonomic level.

The point is that evolution can't change living organisms above those clasifications. Only facts we have of what evolution can do, is on the species level. Everything above that in not proven.


Parasites, living creatures, do not mutate as easily as viruses, because a virus is nothing more than a strand of RNA or DNA wrapped inside a protein coat. The experts arent even sure whether its a living being because it does not exhibit all of the characteristics of life.

and you called it a virus and perhaps Behe did too. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Its batshit. Its just batshit.Stop using that stupid word batshit. It's making you look dumb. The point is that yes, malaria does mutate more than humans do. In teh equivalent of few milion years of human life. So the point is, there was no time for evolution to transform us from apemen to humans. Even if it did have time, it still isn't enough to explain higher oredrs of the taxonomy.

[careyprice31]

"The last thing I would do is to judge somebody because of his background. That is called a prejudice, and is wrong."

That has nothing to do with prejudice. That goes to the heart of the credibility of the source or even the witness if you know something about lawyers and law school.

Questioning the source is actually a good thing to do. Considering if where he has come from has been against everything progressive historically (like religions have and he is a conservative Christian Baptist)

"Oh and guess what, I found this quote in your signature: "Don't judge a thing until you know what's inside it

Makes you think huh?"

what does my sig have to do with this?

"So anyway, why is an atheist more credible than a believer?"

for one thing the atheist doesnt simply accept things on faith, and especially not from the bible, a book written over 2000 years ago when they didnt have the knowledge people have today.

"No, I'm just attacking materialism that poses as science, that's all."

ok

"ID is Intelligent design. There, this just shows you really do know nothing about the topic. If you do, than let's discuss SCIENCE, and not political agendas."

ID is part of a political agenda. Believers have always tried to merge the church and state. How can you say it isnt.

"What kind of evidence do you think ID should show?"

More than using mathematics to calculate the probability of something having been created by an intelligent agent. Even that is not absolute solid proof of a intelligent agent existing.

"No, obviously you didn't."

Actually I did.

You are so wrong. 100/1 is crap, he never said that. You do not know first thing about ID, so stop saying you do."

All that means is that im crap at math, not that I dont know about ID. I dont know how to properly write it.

"If you do, than explain this."

hang on.

Its almost the same as using the math to calculate the odds of something having being designed by chance only this he is referring to events taking place and there is not math here.

[ID-guy]

That has nothing to do with prejudice. That goes to the heart of the credibility of the source or even the witness if you know something about lawyers and law school.If you reject the argument simply because of the source, well than yes, that is prejudice.


Questioning the source is actually a good thing to do. Considering if where he has come from has been against everything progressive historically (like religions have and he is a conservative Christian Baptist)Considering that Newton who was a Christian made great contribution to physics, tells you what also? And considering that science was supressed in materialistic societies like USSR, tells you what again?

I'll tell you what it tells you, not to judge the book by it's covers!


what does my sig have to do with this?Seemd you were not prejudical...


for one thing the atheist doesnt simply accept things on faith, and especially not from the bible, a book written over 2000 years ago when they didnt have the knowledge people have today.Actually they do. They accept Evolution (evolution + abiogenesis), and I men the whole package. And the whole package is that we came from a rock 4.6 billion years ago. There is ZERO evidence to prove that. Yet atheists belive it.

Do you believe it? Sure you do. Can you give me ONE evidence to support that claim? No you can't!


ID is part of a political agenda. Believers have always tried to merge the church and state. How can you say it isnt.For some people yes, they do use it as a political agenda. But that doesn't have to make ID false because of it.


More than using mathematics to calculate the probability of something having been created by an intelligent agent. Even that is not absolute solid proof of a intelligent agent existing.I asked you for a specific proof that you want.


Actually I did.No you didn't. If you did, than you could debate about ID with me. You are not doing that, you are only attacking ID based on your political views of it.


All that means is that im crap at math, not that I dont know about ID. I dont know how to properly write it.Well ID is about design detection. Design detection is about math. So if you don't know math or understand how it is used to detect design, you don't understand ID.


hang on.To what?

[careyprice31]

Originally Posted by svetlana http://img.revleft.com/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1112557#post1112557)
we know that evolution can modify information.

We also know that evolution can create new information, ex. it can modify DNA and RNA.

"No it can't. It can only modify information, but not create it. Only intelligence can both modify and create information."

Not true. How then can you account for two feline species to split from each other, evolve along different paths, and from environment and other factors changes can appear in the DNA that develops a new species of cat, related but genetically distinct from the other. The new information was not put there by intelligence, but by evolution. The cat has new DNA, different from its cousin, that causes it to branch off from its cousin.


Quote:
oh btw you said that malaria is a virus. It is not. It is a parasite.
"t's a pathogen to be precise... Splithair..."

a pathogen is anything that causes disease and suffering to the host. It can be a virus, a bacterium, or a parasite. It comes from two greek words, meaning "uffering and "o give birth to"

a pathogen can be a parasite and vise versa.


Quote:
a virus is nothing mopre than a piece of DNA or RNA sometimes that cannot do anything independent of its host cell it lives in. It cannot even reporduce on its own, it needs a host cell to live in that does everythingfor it. For this reason it is sadi to replicate, not reproduce.
"he same thing."

No it isnt. Reproduce is what they call living beings, their actions. Replicate they use for viruses because they are not sure if it is alive or not because it does not exhibit the characteristics of life. Its just a piece of DNA or RNA.


Quote:
The malaria parasite (btw malaria comes from a word meaning 'bad air' ) is an organism, a living organism, that can change and reproduce on its own, it does not have to stay inside a cell and it does not have to rely on a cell to do everything for it. This is shown by the way it acts when it is being carried by a mosquito and inserted into its second host's body, such as a human. It can get into cells but only to escape from the body's immune system. It does not need a cell to do everything for it unlike a virus.

Basic science. Jeez......
"he point is!?"

That you and maybe Behe called malaria a virus and it isnt. It also goes to the credibility of him because what he said there was wrong.


Quote:
and a virus can mutate quickly because it is just a strand of DNA or RNA.

so im also assuming you did not know the difference between a virus and a parasitic protozoa.
"gain, the point is?"

already said it.


Quote:
The fact that Behe saw that malaria, which is a protozoan parasite and not a virus, changed very little means nothing and is not evidence of a intelligent agent.
"esus, god damn christ... WHO EVER SAID IT IS!? NOBODY!

The point I was trying to make is that evolution is a flawed theory to the point that it can't account for the whole diversity of life. The point M. Behe was making is that there is a limit to evolution. And he placed that limit, judging by statistical FACTS produced by N.J. White (not an ID supporter) somewhere between order and family on the taxonomic level.

The point is that evolution can't change living organisms above those clasifications. Only facts we have of what evolution can do, is on the species level. Everything above that in not proven."

Because he was trying to prove that ID can be detected by CSI. and he used the malaria as an example, which you wrote about.




Quote:
Parasites, living creatures, do not mutate as easily as viruses, because a virus is nothing more than a strand of RNA or DNA wrapped inside a protein coat. The experts arent even sure whether its a living being because it does not exhibit all of the characteristics of life.

and you called it a virus and perhaps Behe did too. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Its batshit. Its just batshit.
"top using that stupid word batshit. It's making you look dumb. The point is that yes, malaria does mutate more than humans do. In teh equivalent of few milion years of human life. So the point is, there was no time for evolution to transform us from apemen to humans. Even if it did have time, it still isn't enough to explain higher oredrs of the taxonomy."

I like that word batshit, it sounds funnier than the usual word bullshit.

Duhh! malaria mutates more easily than humans do, its a simpler form of organism.

Humans are more complex all that means is that it takes millions of years for really big changes to take place, not that we were designed by an intelligent agent.

[careyprice31]

Originally Posted by svetlana http://img.revleft.com/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1112557#post1112557)
we know that evolution can modify information.

We also know that evolution can create new information, ex. it can modify DNA and RNA.

"No it can't. It can only modify information, but not create it. Only intelligence can both modify and create information."

Not true. How then can you account for two feline species to split from each other, evolve along different paths, and from environment and other factors changes can appear in the DNA that develops a new species of cat, related but genetically distinct from the other. The new information was not put there by intelligence, but by evolution. The cat has new DNA, different from its cousin, that causes it to branch off from its cousin.


Quote:
oh btw you said that malaria is a virus. It is not. It is a parasite.
"t's a pathogen to be precise... Splithair..."

a pathogen is anything that causes disease and suffering to the host. It can be a virus, a bacterium, or a parasite. It comes from two greek words, meaning "uffering and "o give birth to"

a pathogen can be a parasite and vise versa.


Quote:
a virus is nothing mopre than a piece of DNA or RNA sometimes that cannot do anything independent of its host cell it lives in. It cannot even reporduce on its own, it needs a host cell to live in that does everythingfor it. For this reason it is sadi to replicate, not reproduce.
"he same thing."

No it isnt. Reproduce is what they call living beings, their actions. Replicate they use for viruses because they are not sure if it is alive or not because it does not exhibit the characteristics of life. Its just a piece of DNA or RNA.


Quote:
The malaria parasite (btw malaria comes from a word meaning 'bad air' ) is an organism, a living organism, that can change and reproduce on its own, it does not have to stay inside a cell and it does not have to rely on a cell to do everything for it. This is shown by the way it acts when it is being carried by a mosquito and inserted into its second host's body, such as a human. It can get into cells but only to escape from the body's immune system. It does not need a cell to do everything for it unlike a virus.

Basic science. Jeez......
"he point is!?"

That you and maybe Behe called malaria a virus and it isnt. It also goes to the credibility of him because what he said there was wrong.


Quote:
and a virus can mutate quickly because it is just a strand of DNA or RNA.

so im also assuming you did not know the difference between a virus and a parasitic protozoa.
"gain, the point is?"

already said it.


Quote:
The fact that Behe saw that malaria, which is a protozoan parasite and not a virus, changed very little means nothing and is not evidence of a intelligent agent.
"esus, god damn christ... WHO EVER SAID IT IS!? NOBODY!

The point I was trying to make is that evolution is a flawed theory to the point that it can't account for the whole diversity of life. The point M. Behe was making is that there is a limit to evolution. And he placed that limit, judging by statistical FACTS produced by N.J. White (not an ID supporter) somewhere between order and family on the taxonomic level.

The point is that evolution can't change living organisms above those clasifications. Only facts we have of what evolution can do, is on the species level. Everything above that in not proven."

Because he was trying to prove that ID can be detected by CSI. and he used the malaria as an example, which you wrote about.




Quote:
Parasites, living creatures, do not mutate as easily as viruses, because a virus is nothing more than a strand of RNA or DNA wrapped inside a protein coat. The experts arent even sure whether its a living being because it does not exhibit all of the characteristics of life.

and you called it a virus and perhaps Behe did too. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Its batshit. Its just batshit.
"top using that stupid word batshit. It's making you look dumb. The point is that yes, malaria does mutate more than humans do. In teh equivalent of few milion years of human life. So the point is, there was no time for evolution to transform us from apemen to humans. Even if it did have time, it still isn't enough to explain higher oredrs of the taxonomy."

I like that word batshit, it sounds funnier than the usual word bullshit.

Duhh! malaria mutates more easily than humans do, its a simpler form of organism.

Humans are more complex all that means is that it takes millions of years for really big changes to take place, not that we were designed by an intelligent agent.

[ID-guy]

Not true. How then can you account for two feline species to split from each other, evolve along different paths, and from environment and other factors changes can appear in the DNA that develops a new species of cat, related but genetically distinct from the other. The new information was not put there by intelligence, but by evolution. The cat has new DNA, different from its cousin, that causes it to branch off from its cousin.It has different DNA, that is obvious, but it's not new information. It is simply transformed, modified old information, by random mutations and genetic recombination. There is no new mutation added, only modified.


a pathogen is anything that causes disease and suffering to the host. It can be a virus, a bacterium, or a parasite. It comes from two greek words, meaning "uffering and "o give birth to"

a pathogen can be a parasite and vise versa.Good, I'm happy for you.


No it isnt. Reproduce is what they call living beings, their actions. Replicate they use for viruses because they are not sure if it is alive or not because it does not exhibit the characteristics of life. Its just a piece of DNA or RNA.You don't get it do you? The point is, that replication is how viruses reproduce. Again, you are just spliting hairs.


That you and maybe Behe called malaria a virus and it isnt. It also goes to the credibility of him because what he said there was wrong.That is besides the point.


already said it.Yeah, besides teh point.


Because he was trying to prove that ID can be detected by CSI. and he used the malaria as an example, which you wrote about. No, he was not writing about CSI. I didn't even mention it. It's not even his field of research, it's what W. Dembski does. Behe used malaria, HIV, and E. coli to test the edge of evolution. In particular, the edge what random mutations can do.


Duhh! malaria mutates more easily than humans do, its a simpler form of organism.

Humans are more complex all that means is that it takes millions of years for really big changes to take place, not that we were designed by an intelligent agent.But the point is, evolution can't do it since there is a limit to what it can do.

[careyprice31]

Gotta go now, but i will be back. Will reply then.

Im having a good time talking to you, ID guy.

maybe Publius (is that his name?) didnt have such a good time but Im having fun

and I hope you are too. See you later, ID guy.:)

[ID-guy]

Gotta go now, but i will be back. Will reply then.

Im having a good time talking to you, ID guy.

maybe Publius (is that his name?) didnt have such a good time but Im having fun

and I hope you are too. See you later, ID guy.:)C ya, don't worry I'll be waiting. Oh, and don't worry about Pubichairs, he just wanted to show off, but got slammed in the process...

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

If the complexity of that system is over the UPB, which means that the chance of that system arising by chance is under 1:1(150), that means that the system is not theoretically possible to come about by chance. That is called a rejection region. If we would find specified complexity that is let's say 1:10(5) than we would say that it had an intelligent source, but that this system itself in it's present state does not have to be of intelligent origin. In math, it is said that everything that has chance under 1:10(50) is statistically impossible. William Dembski uses a rejection region of 1:10(150) which means that it is theoretically impossible to get a said system by chance. Thus we conclude design.

Evolution doesn't work by chance.
This page (http://creationtheory.org/Probability/Printable.xhtml) explains it better than I can. Basically, the way evolution gets around the "probability" issue is by breaking the problem down into more likely sections.


I don't doubt that. it happens. But that's it. Nothing else happens. Species is the lowest level. You need to explain how the higher levels came to be. There has been ZERO proof that they can be created by evolution.Nonsense. If you get enough divergence, you not only get species but genera, phyles and clades. This has been demonstrated by fossil evidence, not for every species but enough to demonstrate that speciation occurs.


Excuse me, but there are quotes from "real" scientists in that link, and they say that evolution of the horse is not real. It's fake. Like it says, it has been known to be wrong for over 50 years.The quotes have been taken out of context of the articles from whence they came. The articles were simply stating that the evolution of the horse was not as simple as it first appeared.


No clear resolution of the controversies was in sight. This fact has often been exploited by religious fundamentalists who misunderstood it to suggest weakness in the fact of evolution rather than the perceived mechanism. Actually, it reflects significant progress toward a much deeper understanding of the history of life on Earth.

Intellectual dishonesty from the ID crowd. Not surprising really.


Why? You can't just say you don't accept it because you don't like it. You have to say why my link is wrong. Either that or you lose.If evolution of cetaceans from land-dwelling ancestors is false, explain their atavisms (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#atavisms_ex1).

It's evidence for evolution of the cetaceans, but certainly not evidence for the design of cetaceans. Hence why I'm more inclined to trust the opinion the majority of the world's biological scientists than the IDers.


Yes I did. You just didn't accpet it without saying why. You have got to engage in a discussion if you want to win, else I win by default.You don't win if I refuse to debate. You win only if you provide positive evidence for design, which so far you have failed to do.


It means that it is not created by natural forces...Then ID needs to explain how intelligence can arise in the first place, since if intelligence is needed to design intelligences such as us, then some intelligence must have designed the intelligence that designed us, and so on ad infinitum. ID fails to explain the origin of the designing intelligence, and thus fails to make predictions and thus is not scientific. This is quite apart from the fact that there is no evidence for design.

Furthermore, if sugar molecules (http://www.nrao.edu/pr/2000/sugar/) can be found in the deepest reaches of space then it is not much of a stretch for simple proteins to bootstrap themselves to more complex proteins (such as prions, which "reproduce" but are not technically alive) which can form the basis for the formation of intelligent life.


It is not, and no it can not be proven. Because when you interfear with someones brain, you just do that, interfear with his brain, and that is why the output from the mind is not how it is supposed to be.And what's your evidence that the mind is seperate from the brain? the fact that one can interfere with thought by interfering with the brain is very strong evidence that ideas are resident in the brain.

[ID-guy]

Evolution doesn't work by chance.
This page (http://creationtheory.org/Probability/Printable.xhtml) explains it better than I can. Basically, the way evolution gets around the "probability" issue is by breaking the problem down into more likely sections.Nice idea, but no.


When you consider the huge difference between treating sequential events as a series as opposed to a single simultaneous event, you begin to realize just how easily creationists can exaggerate the unlikelihood of series events in evolution, even if we assume that these events are completely random.
Now consider the famous "monkeys typing Shakespeare" argument. If we modified our little die-rolling widget to roll for letters and select good letters, what effect do you think that would have on the time required to reach the goal? Perhaps our monkey should start practising his typing.There is no mechanism in nature that will keep the good parts, and throw away the bad ones. For that you need teleology. Natural forces don't have that. There is no way abiogenesis of the proteins could work that way. A protein does have to be constructed all at once. There is no natural selection involved here since proteins are not alive. Natural selection only works on living organisms.


Nonsense. If you get enough divergence, you not only get species but genera, phyles and clades. This has been demonstrated by fossil evidence, not for every species but enough to demonstrate that speciation occurs.No you don't. And clades are not a taxonomic order...

Anyway, no there is no proof of that. We only saw that species can change. There is no proof that you can get anything above species level bey evolution. Prove me wrong.


The quotes have been taken out of context of the articles from whence they came. The articles were simply stating that the evolution of the horse was not as simple as it first appeared.No, they say that the fossils used to show horse evolution are just imagination.


The popularly told example of horse evolution, suggesting a gradual sequence of changes from four-toed fox-sized creatures living nearly 50 million years ago to today's much larger one-toed horse, has long been known to be wrong. Instead of gradual change, fossils of each intermediate species appear fully distinct, persist unchanged, and then become extinct. Transitional forms are unknown.

It's just wrong...


Intellectual dishonesty from the ID crowd. Not surprising really.What dishonesty? There is no evolution of the horse, they are just trying to do damage control.


If evolution of cetaceans from land-dwelling ancestors is false, explain their atavisms (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#atavisms_ex1).

It's evidence for evolution of the cetaceans, but certainly not evidence for the design of cetaceans. Hence why I'm more inclined to trust the opinion the majority of the world's biological scientists than the IDers.Easy! They had those things all the time. It doesn't mean they evolved from some other creature, it just means they have some structures that are similar to other living beings.

1.) Ostrich never leaves the ground. So what? How is that a proof that we came from a rock 4.6 billion years ago? It isn't. It's just a flightless bird. Even if it lost the ability to fly. That just shows that by evolution you can LOSE not GAIN things!

2.) Same thing with the blind salamander. He lost the eyesight, not evolved one! How can theat be proof that he could also gain one! The same with the Mexican cave fish.

3.) Flightless beetles. Same thing, they LOST, not GAINED something. You are supposed to gain something by evolution, not lose stuff.

4.) Human atavistic tail. Yes, again, no proof we got it from apes. We just have one that is not normally expresed in our genes, that's all. Just like our eyes. We have eyes, monkeys have eyes, fish have eyes, not a proof that we had a common ancestor, so why would a tail be?

And so on, everything you showed here was about losing things not gaining them. You need tho show that we can gain, not lose body parts by evolution.


You don't win if I refuse to debate. You win only if you provide positive evidence for design, which so far you have failed to do.What do you consider positive evidence for design?


Then ID needs to explain how intelligence can arise in the first place, since if intelligence is needed to design intelligences such as us, then some intelligence must have designed the intelligence that designed us, and so on ad infinitum. ID fails to explain the origin of the designing intelligence, and thus fails to make predictions and thus is not scientific. This is quite apart from the fact that there is no evidence for design.1.) No it doesn't. ID is about detecting design nothing more. Why don't you show me how evolution builds houses? Whats, that you say? Evolution is not about that!? Well duh! Neither is ID about finding out where the designer is! But you keep asking me that! So stop it. Nobody knows that and it's not relevant.

2.) Stop claiming lies. ID makes predictions.

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1156


Furthermore, if sugar molecules (http://www.nrao.edu/pr/2000/sugar/) can be found in the deepest reaches of space then it is not much of a stretch for simple proteins to bootstrap themselves to more complex proteins (such as prions, which "reproduce" but are not technically alive) which can form the basis for the formation of intelligent life. Out of the question. Proteins are unbeliveably more complex than simple sugar molecules. It is impossible to get them by chance. Furthermore, we have never, ever seen ONE protein in nature. Only in cells. It's not that strange since it's impossible that the come together by chance. And NO they do not reproduce, proteins are not alive.


And what's your evidence that the mind is seperate from the brain? the fact that one can interfere with thought by interfering with the brain is very strong evidence that ideas are resident in the brain.1.) That's easy. People who are in vegetative state are tested, and are found to have normal consciousness, where in fact, they should not have any.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/02/proving_dr_novella_wrong_imagi.html

2.) No, that only means you are interfering with the brains output, not the mind itself.

[Lector Malibu]

Are you insane!? You refuted nothing. Admit that you are wrong. Give me a link where anything I said was refuted.

Your theory of ID has been refuted on several occasions by the scientific community and is dismissed largely. I'm am not saying your post on the internet has been refuted , rather the information on ID you present. I'm insane? Well you have psychotically posted how many responces to this in the last day? You either have absolutely no life or some mental obsessive stuff going on . Must be nice too sit around all day and ramble on about ID and creationist theory, Fuck , at least post on another topic, there are several on the board.



OK, what do you consider a proof of ID?What proof is there? Show me proof How do you explain the scores and scores of fossil remains we have uncovered that do support evolution?? and do support evolution and evolution theory??


Yes, but he was talking about his work. Scot Minnich's work about the flagellum is peer reviewd. I gave you a link, read it.Whoopty fucking doo! Has it yielded concrete proof as an explanation , Has it been acepted largely by the scientific community?? No, didn't think so.



Where has it been tested?We are still watching right down to the cellular level how organism's adapt and yes Evolve to their ever changing environment , in that way and several others and guess what?? we get tangible results, something ID theory has yet to offer.

[ID-guy]

Your theory of ID has been refuted on several occasions by the scientific community and is dismissed largely. I'm am not saying your post on the internet has been refuted , rather the information on ID you present. I'm insane? Well you have psychotically posted how many responces to this in the last day? You either have absolutely no life or some mental obsessive stuff going on . Must be nice too sit around all day and ramble on about ID and creationist theory, Fuck , at least post on another topic, there are several on the board.No it has never been refuted by other scientists. Do you know why my points have also never been refuted? Because they can't be! Because nobody ever refuted ID, that's the truth. It doesn't matter where you look, you won't find any links to refute what I said.

Sure, you can look at wikipedia or some evolutionists' blog and read how ID has been refuted and such, but when you actually try to debate someone on ID, you won't beat him. Not because ID is the ultimate truth, but because evolution is WRONG. That's why.

Science works by inferring to the best explanation. And for now that is ID in the bilogical science. I'm not saying that ID is the ultimate truth, nobody is saying that, I'm just saying that FOR NOW, that is the best explanation and evolution is not. It's that simple.



What proof is there?I already showed you but you refused to accept it, so I asked you, what do you want. What kind of proof for ID do you want? Now answer my question.


Show me proof How do you explain the scores and scores of fossil remains we have uncovered that do support evolution?? and do support evolution and evolution theory?? No fossil supports evolution theory. Do you know why? Because it can't! No single fossil or bone in the dirt can be evidence for anything.

How do you prove anything with fossils? You can't. If you find a fossil, what can you prove with it? That it DIED! That's all. That is all you can prove! You can't prove that it had any kids! Let alone kids that lived and had kids of their own! Or even different kids! How do you prove that!? You can't. You can't prove that anyone today is a descendant of any fosil you find! You can only assume that, but you can prove it!


Whoopty fucking doo! Has it yielded concrete proof as an explanation , Has it been acepted largely by the scientific community?? No, didn't think so.It's still peer reviewed, and that is what you asked for, and I gave you, so there. I don't care if other scientists reject it just because it's ID, it's still been peer reviewed and therefore it's science!


We are still watching right down to the cellular level how organism's adapt and yes Evolve to their ever changing environment , in that way and several others and guess what?? we get tangible results, something ID theory has yet to offer.I didn't ask you that! I asked you, where ID has been tested and refuted. Answer my question.

[Dystisis]

But it's not since not everything carries information. Only that which is specified by intelligence has information.

No, I do not "believe" I accept based on scientific findings and logic. If only inteligence creates information, and we have informtion in ourselves, than there is only one logical answer to where we came from.

Actually I don't Quite simple. First, it's not ID's busieness. ID is about detecting design, not the designer.

Second reason. Imagine if I asked you, where the computers came from. And you said, from people! And thatn, I asked you, so where do people come from, and you said that you don't know. And than I said, well since you don't know, than you can't say people make computers! Do you see how wrong that would be? Just because I don't know where our designer came from, doesn't mean there isn't one, or that I have got to explain how he got there.

Third reason. If he is outside the universe, the time space continuum, than he is not bound by our rules, and not by our definition of "existance", which means you can't define what "creating" a designer outside our universe would mean. We don't know if he needed to be "created" or even what "existance" is outside this universe, so it's not really something we should oncern ourselves about.
Prove that not everything carries information.
Prove that only that which is specified by intelligence has information.

If you asked me "where do computers come from?", I would list all the components used to make the computer, and where those ingredients were made/gathered. The place the computer comes from is not "humans". Also, sorry to break your bubble but I do believe humans are made when a man and a woman get together. ;)

Anyways, your arguments are wrong, because everything perceptable is/holds information. Which makes the "information/design detection" (is that what you call it?) stuff obsolete.

Also, your idea of something being "outside the space/time continuum" is a bit... physically impossible.

[Lector Malibu]

No it has never been refuted by other scientists. Do you know why my points have also never been refuted? Because they can't be! Because nobody ever refuted ID, that's the truth. It doesn't matter where you look, you won't find any links to refute what I said.


O really?? here is some suggested reading from a link I have provided. One even mentions your Baptist fanatic Dembski duking it out

Dawkins, Richard. The Blind Watchmaker. Norton, 1986. Anyone who really cares to learn how the processes of evolution work would do well to read this book. "A lovely book. Original and lively, it expounds the ins and outs of evolution with enthusiastic clarity, answering, at every point, the cavemen of creationism." —Isaac Asmiov.
Perakh, Mark. Unintelligent Design. Prometheus Books, 2004. A thorough dissection and refutation of creationist and ID claims. Highly recommended.
Young, Matt and Taner Edis. Why Intelligent Design Fails, A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism. Rutgers University Press, 2004. A very thorough refutation of ID claims.
Pennock, Robert T., ed. Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics. Philosophical Theological, and Scientific Perspectives. MIT Press, 2001. This book is thorough, perhaps overkill, with contributions from most of the major players in this controversy.
Shermer, Michael. How We Believe, Science, Skepticism, and the Search for God." 2nd ed. Freeman, 2000. Chapter 5 has detailed refutations of the ten classic "proofs of God".
Smith, George H. Atheism, the Case Against God. Prometheus, 1979. This is the one book I recommend to those who ask why some of us consider the case for religions (all of them) unpersuasive. Smith considers every argument made for any supernatural being, and all arguments for religion(s), and demolishes them all, thoroughly.
Suskind, Leonard. The Cosmic Landscape, String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design. Little, Brown and Company, 2006. The cosmic dimension of the issue. A bit heavy going for non-scientists.
Dembski, William A. and Michael Ruse, eds. Debating Design, from Darwin to DNA. Cambridge University Press, 2004. As close as you will get to a fair presentation of two sides of the ID controversy.
Stenger, Victor J. Has Science Found God? The Latest Reslts in the Search for Purpose in the Universe. Prometheus, 2003. An antidote to the current popular hype falsely suggesting that science has found reasons justifying belief in God.
Scott, Eugenie C. Evolution vs. Creationism, an Introduction. Greenwood Press, 2004. A collection of resources, including primary source documents, addressing cosmology, law, education and religious issues from all sides of the debate.
Kitcher, Philip. Abusing Science, the Case Against Creationism. MIT Press, 1982. An older book, but the content of the arguments for ID are essentially the same as those used for creationism.
Davis, Percival and Dean. H. Kenyon. Of Pandas and People, the Central Question of Biological Origins. Haughton, 1989, 1993. This is the "textbook" many creationists are promoting for use in the public schools. Necessary reading for those concerned about this issue.
The Skeptic's Dictionary. Intelligent Design. (http://skepdic.com/intelligentdesign.html) By Robert Todd Carroll. This is an excellent starting point for understanding the larger picture, with many links to authoritative resources on the web.
Scientific American's 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense (http://tinyurl.com/6ucl8).
Mark I. Vuletic's Defender's Guide to Science and Creationism (http://www.vuletic.com/hume/cefec/) Detailed answers and authoritative references to questions creationists use to challenge evolution.
The Talk.Origins archive (http://www.talkorigins.org/). Up-to-date scientific answers to creationist misrepresentations.
Index to Creationist Claims (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html). Comprehensive list of creationist claims, short refutation, and links and references to source materials.
Creation-evolution controversy (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Creation%20vs.%20evolution%20debate) from TheFreeDictionary. Good history of creationism, with many links.
The Kitzmiller vs. Dover area School District (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision.html) 2006 decision by Judge John Jones III. Covers the legal aspects of the question of teaching intelligent design in schools. Long (37 pages), but very revealing.
Unintelligent Design. (http://www.theshrubbery.com/udn/) Sometimes humor, satire, and even ridicule are the best responses to expose the absurdity of a dumb idea.

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/philosop/creation.htm (http://www.lhup.edu/%7Edsimanek/philosop/creation.htm)

Won't find any ?? Bullshit flat out




Sure, you can look at wikipedia or some evolutionists' blog and read how ID has been refuted and such, but when you actually try to debate someone on ID, you won't beat him. Not because ID is the ultimate truth, but because evolution is WRONG. That's why.Well you just said there was no refute ever, Now your saying there is. You just contradicted yourself . ID is not acepted by the scientific community as the right answer period.


Science works by inferring to the best explanation. And for now that is ID in the bilogical science. I'm not saying that ID is the ultimate truth, nobody is saying that, I'm just saying that FOR NOW, that is the best explanation and evolution is not. It's that simple.It is not the best explanation nor is Dembski's plan of convincing us that Christ is the creator. It has been not proven as there is no proof of the theory.



I already showed you but you refused to accept it, so I asked you, what do you want. What kind of proof for ID do you want? Now answer my question.Citing text from pro ID /creationist cites is not proof at all. Show me tangible proof to support the theory of ID. Faith is not applicable in the science world.


No fossil supports evolution theory. Do you know why? Because it can't! No single fossil or bone in the dirt can be evidence for anything.Oh and whys that? Because it debunks ID?


How do you prove anything with fossils? You can't. If you find a fossil, what can you prove with it? That it DIED! That's all. That is all you can prove! You can't prove that it had any kids! Let alone kids that lived and had kids of their own! Or even different kids! How do you prove that!? You can't. You can't prove that anyone today is a descendant of any fosil you find! You can only assume that, but you can prove it!So based on that brilliant logic we have no ancestors whatsoever , Is that what you are saying??



It's still peer reviewed, and that is what you asked for, and I gave you, so there. I don't care if other scientists reject it just because it's ID, it's still been peer reviewed and therefore it's science!It has been dismissed in large , flat out.



I didn't ask you that! I asked you, where ID has been tested and refuted. Answer my question.Read any of the suggestions in the link above. ID theory has been tested and debated and refuted many times over for quite awhile now. Those are just the facts, You are not the first one to push ID.

[ID-guy]

O really?? here is some suggested reading from a link I have provided. One even mentions your Baptist fanatic Dembski duking it out

Dawkins, Richard. The Blind Watchmaker. Norton, 1986. Anyone who really cares to learn how the processes of evolution work would do well to read this book. "A lovely book. Original and lively, it expounds the ins and outs of evolution with enthusiastic clarity, answering, at every point, the cavemen of creationism." —Isaac Asmiov.
Perakh, Mark. Unintelligent Design. Prometheus Books, 2004. A thorough dissection and refutation of creationist and ID claims. Highly recommended.
Young, Matt and Taner Edis. Why Intelligent Design Fails, A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism. Rutgers University Press, 2004. A very thorough refutation of ID claims.
Pennock, Robert T., ed. Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics. Philosophical Theological, and Scientific Perspectives. MIT Press, 2001. This book is thorough, perhaps overkill, with contributions from most of the major players in this controversy.
Shermer, Michael. How We Believe, Science, Skepticism, and the Search for God." 2nd ed. Freeman, 2000. Chapter 5 has detailed refutations of the ten classic "proofs of God".
Smith, George H. Atheism, the Case Against God. Prometheus, 1979. This is the one book I recommend to those who ask why some of us consider the case for religions (all of them) unpersuasive. Smith considers every argument made for any supernatural being, and all arguments for religion(s), and demolishes them all, thoroughly.
Suskind, Leonard. The Cosmic Landscape, String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design. Little, Brown and Company, 2006. The cosmic dimension of the issue. A bit heavy going for non-scientists.
Dembski, William A. and Michael Ruse, eds. Debating Design, from Darwin to DNA. Cambridge University Press, 2004. As close as you will get to a fair presentation of two sides of the ID controversy.
Stenger, Victor J. Has Science Found God? The Latest Reslts in the Search for Purpose in the Universe. Prometheus, 2003. An antidote to the current popular hype falsely suggesting that science has found reasons justifying belief in God.
Scott, Eugenie C. Evolution vs. Creationism, an Introduction. Greenwood Press, 2004. A collection of resources, including primary source documents, addressing cosmology, law, education and religious issues from all sides of the debate.
Kitcher, Philip. Abusing Science, the Case Against Creationism. MIT Press, 1982. An older book, but the content of the arguments for ID are essentially the same as those used for creationism.
Davis, Percival and Dean. H. Kenyon. Of Pandas and People, the Central Question of Biological Origins. Haughton, 1989, 1993. This is the "textbook" many creationists are promoting for use in the public schools. Necessary reading for those concerned about this issue.
The Skeptic's Dictionary. Intelligent Design. (http://skepdic.com/intelligentdesign.html) By Robert Todd Carroll. This is an excellent starting point for understanding the larger picture, with many links to authoritative resources on the web.
Scientific American's 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense (http://tinyurl.com/6ucl8).
Mark I. Vuletic's Defender's Guide to Science and Creationism (http://www.vuletic.com/hume/cefec/) Detailed answers and authoritative references to questions creationists use to challenge evolution.
The Talk.Origins archive (http://www.talkorigins.org/). Up-to-date scientific answers to creationist misrepresentations.
Index to Creationist Claims (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html). Comprehensive list of creationist claims, short refutation, and links and references to source materials.
Creation-evolution controversy (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Creation%20vs.%20evolution%20debate) from TheFreeDictionary. Good history of creationism, with many links.
The Kitzmiller vs. Dover area School District (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision.html) 2006 decision by Judge John Jones III. Covers the legal aspects of the question of teaching intelligent design in schools. Long (37 pages), but very revealing.
Unintelligent Design. (http://www.theshrubbery.com/udn/) Sometimes humor, satire, and even ridicule are the best responses to expose the absurdity of a dumb idea.

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/philosop/creation.htm (http://www.lhup.edu/%7Edsimanek/philosop/creation.htm)

Won't find any ?? Bullshit flat out You din't get it did you? You just don't get it. The point was that you can go, and look for refutations of ID, and you will find CRAP, and when you do, you will post that CRAP, and guess what, you did. Of the fucking course that you will find tons of stuff claiming to refute ID, but guess what, it's just the same CRAP that all of you posted here, and I refuted and than you couldn't come up with anything new. Do you know why? Because there is nothing new!

Oh and just to show you...

See this stupid link you posted?

The Talk.Origins archive (http://www.talkorigins.org/). Up-to-date scientific answers to creationist misrepresentations.

There is the same thing at Creationwiki that refutes all those refutations!

http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Creationist_claims

So now what!?


Well you just said there was no refute ever, Now your saying there is. You just contradicted yourself . ID is not acepted by the scientific community as the right answer period.Again, WTF is wrong with you!? Where did I contradict myself!? Learn to read please! And don't jump ahead of yourself because you are geting on my nerves, ok?

I didn't say that ID can not be refuted EVER! Of god's sake, that would be the most retarded thing to say ever! I just said that it has never been refuted. Yes it can happen, but it hasn't. Try to understand what I'm saying, ok?


It is not the best explanation nor is Dembski's plan of convincing us that Christ is the creator. It has been not proven as there is no proof of the theory.Why is it not the best explanation, explain yourself. And where did you get the idea that Dembski is trying to prove that Christ is the creator?


Citing text from pro ID /creationist cites is not proof at all. Show me tangible proof to support the theory of ID. Faith is not applicable in the science world. Yes it is. I got my sources, and you got yours. I'm sure not going to cite proof for ID from evolutionists' blogs. And again, I'm telling you to answer my question.


Oh and whys that? Because it debunks ID?No, because it can't prove anything. Tell me how it debunks ID.


So based on that brilliant logic we have no ancestors whatsoever , Is that what you are saying?? Yes we do, you just cant prove by the fossils that we had "different" ancestors than we do today.


It has been dismissed in large , flat out.I don't care! Is your brain capeable of understanding this!? It is fucking PEER REVIEWD and therefore it is science!


Read any of the suggestions in the link above. ID theory has been tested and debated and refuted many times over for quite awhile now. Those are just the facts, You are not the first one to push ID.I did and it's all crap. Cite me a real refutation of ID. Don't just post links, show me a real refutation.

[ID-guy]

Prove that not everything carries information.I don't have to. This is a negative statement which does not have to be proven. I could tell you to prove that I had a pink unicorn in my closet too. See how dumb that is? Science doesn't workt that way. You have to prove that everything does have information, if you can't than than means we don't have to belive that everything has information.


Prove that only that which is specified by intelligence has information.Things that are specified by intelligence by definition have infoamtion. If you invent a word you just specified an order of letters to become meaningful, and thus created information. Nothing else we know can make that. So that means only that which intelligence specifies is information.


If you asked me "where do computers come from?", I would list all the components used to make the computer, and where those ingredients were made/gathered. The place the computer comes from is not "humans".So computers come from themselves? Nopeople are needed to create computers?


Also, sorry to break your bubble but I do believe humans are made when a man and a woman get together. ;)Again, you miss teh point. I'm talking about the first humans.


Anyways, your arguments are wrong, because everything perceptable is/holds information. Which makes the "information/design detection" (is that what you call it?) stuff obsolete.Prove that everything holds information.


Also, your idea of something being "outside the space/time continuum" is a bit... physically impossible.No it's not. Have you ever heard of Fermilab? They are testing to see if particles are going to leave our universe when they colide in a large hadron colider.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

There is no mechanism in nature that will keep the good parts, and throw away the bad ones. For that you need teleology. Natural forces don't have that. There is no way abiogenesis of the proteins could work that way. A protein does have to be constructed all at once. There is no natural selection involved here since proteins are not alive. Natural selection only works on living organisms.

Natural selection works on any self-reproducing system located in a natural environment. The proteins that are good at copying themselves go on to convert other proteins into copies of themselves, while the proteins that cannot do not lend themselves to self-reproduction fall by the wayside as the good reproducers take over. That's why diseases like variant-CJD and kuru are so nasty, because the rogue proteins ("prions") rapidly convert the host organism's native proteins into a form incompatible with their native function.


No you don't. And clades are not a taxonomic order...

Anyway, no there is no proof of that. We only saw that species can change. There is no proof that you can get anything above species level bey evolution. Prove me wrong.
Yes you do. Two seperate species in different locations gain enough mutations so that they can no longer interbreed, resulting in two different species. Then it happens again, resulting in four different species. If this goes on for long enough (A few billion years, say...) then you have an entire "tree of life" with a common ancestor. It's not a difficult idea to comprehend, so I don't entirely understand why it's giving you so much trouble.

And there is proof that species evolve into others - we have enough transitional fossils to say that it actually happened in Earth's natural history. Check out this page (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html) if you don't believe me, and make a not of all the species' names mentioned that qualify as "transitional fossils". I recommend you also read the definition of a "transitional fossil" in order to avoid confusion.


No, they say that the fossils used to show horse evolution are just imagination.Incorrect. This quote shows why you are incorrect:


As they see it, species remain largely stable for long periods and then suddenly change dramatically. The transition happens so fast, they [Gould and Eldredge] suggest, that the chance of intermediate forms being fossilized and found is nil.

What the above statement and the one directly following it (which you cite as evidence for the evolution of the horse being false) means is that the popular conception of the evolution of the horse being a gradual process is incorrect. Boyce Rensberger's quote is a statement in support of "punctuated equilibrium", not design.

It's not "damage control" but a refinement of the original idea.


Easy! They had those things all the time. It doesn't mean they evolved from some other creature, it just means they have some structures that are similar to other living beings.

1.) Ostrich never leaves the ground. So what? How is that a proof that we came from a rock 4.6 billion years ago? It isn't. It's just a flightless bird. Even if it lost the ability to fly. That just shows that by evolution you can LOSE not GAIN things!

2.) Same thing with the blind salamander. He lost the eyesight, not evolved one! How can theat be proof that he could also gain one! The same with the Mexican cave fish.

3.) Flightless beetles. Same thing, they LOST, not GAINED something. You are supposed to gain something by evolution, not lose stuff.

4.) Human atavistic tail. Yes, again, no proof we got it from apes. We just have one that is not normally expresed in our genes, that's all. Just like our eyes. We have eyes, monkeys have eyes, fish have eyes, not a proof that we had a common ancestor, so why would a tail be?

And so on, everything you showed here was about losing things not gaining them. You need tho show that we can gain, not lose body parts by evolution."Losing" and "gaining" things is a false dichotomy on your part. The ostrich did not just lose the ability to fly, it gained the ability to run very fast thanks to the long legs which it also evolved - the loss of the wings when hand in hand with the development of the legs.

Similarly, the blind cave salamander gains an advantage in the cave environment by not having a pair of useless eyes that could get easily wounded and infected. It lost its sight but the result was a net improvement because eyes in a totally dark environment are a useless liability, hence natural selection favoured those proto-salamanders who lost their eyes.

Humans lost their tails for similar reasons, and doubtless many beetles also gained additional advantages (depending on the species in question) by losing the power of flight. The difference between "losing" or "gaining" things is meaningless in evolution - if environmental conditions favour those without wings or tails, then natural selection will ensure that mutations that head in the direction of taillessness or winglessness will come to be. "Losing" features is still evolution.


What do you consider positive evidence for design?Evidence that a being capable of designing Earth life exists or existed, and evidence that the being in question was responsible for designing Earth life.


1.) No it doesn't. ID is about detecting design nothing more. Why don't you show me how evolution builds houses? Whats, that you say? Evolution is not about that!? Well duh! Neither is ID about finding out where the designer is! But you keep asking me that! So stop it. Nobody knows that and it's not relevant.

2.) Stop claiming lies. ID makes predictions.

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr...ls.php/id/1156 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1156)Design infers a designer. You can't legitemately claim that life on Earth was designed if you don't have evidence of the designer. Stating that life on Earth was designed also begs the question: Who or what designed the designer? if complex life giving rise to intelligence capable of design (us) is only possible if a designer exists, then such a complex being would itself need a designer. ID doesn't even attempt to answer this question, it simply ignores it totally, in spite of it's extreme relevance to the question of design.

How can you legitimately claim that life on Earth was designed if you have no evidence whatsoever of a being capable of designing such a complex system?

And no, claiming that DNA etc is too complex to arise naturally is not evidence for a designer, as it is completely circular reasoning.

All the so-called "predictions" of ID have turned out to be false, or nothing to with the question of design. The bacterial flagellar motor is not irreducibly complex, the ID crowd should really stop beating that dead horse by now. The fossil record is patchy because the chances of a given organism being fossilised is very low, so one should not be surprised when species appear to "leap" into the record - but even in spite of that, all the fossils found, no matter if they have any immediate ancestor or not, can be reliably placed in the "tree of life" or be found to have some kind of relation with other life on Earth. The fact that similar parts can be found in different organism is not evidence of design - haven't you heard of "convergent evolution"? Neither does the fact that "junk" DNA is not so useless validate design - it simply shows that we know more about DNA than we previously did.


Out of the question. Proteins are unbeliveably more complex than simple sugar molecules. It is impossible to get them by chance. Furthermore, we have never, ever seen ONE protein in nature. Only in cells. It's not that strange since it's impossible that the come together by chance. And NO they do not reproduce, proteins are not alive.I don't think the sugar molecules in space appeared through "chance" and neither did proteins on Earth. What the discovery of sugar molecules in space means is that even in extremely rarefied environments, relatively complex structures can form. A sugar molecule is considerably complex in comparison to a hydrogen atom, hydrogen being the most common element in the universe.

In fact, look through Google, I've found even more complex molecules (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4552-space-molecules-point-to-organic-origins.html) have been found in space other than sugar. Amino acids, the building blocks of life, have been found in meteorites that have landed on Earth. If amino acids are readily found even in the lifeless void of space, then proteins naturally occurring is not a stretch if the conditions are right. It's not a matter of chance. It's a matter of the conditions being right.

Prions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prion) are not alive, and whether or not viruses are alive is a matter of debate among biologists, but it is without a doubt that they reproduce, although they reproduce differently from each other.


1.) That's easy. People who are in vegetative state are tested, and are found to have normal consciousness, where in fact, they should not have any.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/02...ong_imagi.html (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/02/proving_dr_novella_wrong_imagi.html)

2.) No, that only means you are interfering with the brains output, not the mind itself.Impairment of physical function due to brain damage is not the same as the impairment of mental function due to brain damage. It's entirely possible for one's physical function to be impaired while mental functions are still fine. But damage the brain enough (say, put a bullet through it) and all functions are impaired, not just the physical ones.

The fact that they used MRIs to look for sign of consciousness is a vindication of materialism, not dualism. If dualism were correct then there would be cases of people still functioning even though MRI scans would indicate no activity.

All the evidence suggests that the mind is inseperable from the brain. Unless of course you have evidence of a mind existing independantly of a brain?

[Lector Malibu]

Hey ID Guy

I have to jet as I have a life. I could give two fucks whether I'm getting on your nerves or not. Some free advice, shut off your fucking computer and go live life , Fuck do something , Check out the board plenty of other threads to troll on as that 's how you get your kicks apparently, each to there own I guess..

[ID-guy]

Natural selection works on any self-reproducing system located in a natural environment. The proteins that are good at copying themselves go on to convert other proteins into copies of themselves, while the proteins that cannot do not lend themselves to self-reproduction fall by the wayside as the good reproducers take over. That's why diseases like variant-CJD and kuru are so nasty, because the rogue proteins ("prions") rapidly convert the host organism's native proteins into a form incompatible with their native function.Proteins do not replicate. Why are you saying that they do?


Yes you do. Two seperate species in different locations gain enough mutations so that they can no longer interbreed, resulting in two different species. Then it happens again, resulting in four different species. If this goes on for long enough (A few billion years, say...) then you have an entire "tree of life" with a common ancestor. It's not a difficult idea to comprehend, so I don't entirely understand why it's giving you so much trouble.Everything stated above is a FACT. I don't dispute anything. But the point is, that's all evolution has ever been proven to do. Oh and in case you didn't know, there are 8 orders in biological clasification. The level of species is the lowes one. You need to prove you can get all 8 by evolution. Right now, you are at only 1, and that is all that has ever been observed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_classification


And there is proof that species evolve into others - we have enough transitional fossils to say that it actually happened in Earth's natural history. Check out this page (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html) if you don't believe me, and make a not of all the species' names mentioned that qualify as "transitional fossils". I recommend you also read the definition of a "transitional fossil" in order to avoid confusion.I told you already, no fossil counts for evolution since you can prove it is transitional to anything. You can assume by the way it looks, but you can't prove it.

In any case, here is why any of those fossils aren't good candidates for transitional fossils.

http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Transitional_fossils_are_lacking


Incorrect. This quote shows why you are incorrect:



What the above statement and the one directly following it (which you cite as evidence for the evolution of the horse being false) means is that the popular conception of the evolution of the horse being a gradual process is incorrect. Boyce Rensberger's quote is a statement in support of "punctuated equilibrium", not design.

It's not "damage control" but a refinement of the original idea.Nope, it's damage control. Since punctuated equilibrium goes agains the claims of gradual evolution. You can't prove punctuated equilibrium because it is not falsifiable.


"Losing" and "gaining" things is a false dichotomy on your part. The ostrich did not just lose the ability to fly, it gained the ability to run very fast thanks to the long legs which it also evolved - the loss of the wings when hand in hand with the development of the legs.But he already had legs to begin with. So he gained no NEW body parts.


Similarly, the blind cave salamander gains an advantage in the cave environment by not having a pair of useless eyes that could get easily wounded and infected. It lost its sight but the result was a net improvement because eyes in a totally dark environment are a useless liability, hence natural selection favoured those proto-salamanders who lost their eyes.Great! That shows how natural selection works, I agree with you. But it still gained no new body parts, and you can't say that this is proof of a mechainsm that claims we came from a single cell. Since you can't prove how we gain new body parts.


Humans lost their tails for similar reasons, and doubtless many beetles also gained additional advantages (depending on the species in question) by losing the power of flight. The difference between "losing" or "gaining" things is meaningless in evolution - if environmental conditions favour those without wings or tails, then natural selection will ensure that mutations that head in the direction of taillessness or winglessness will come to be. "Losing" features is still evolution.Yes, it still can be called evolution, because it's change over time, which I do not dispute. But again, it is not an evidece that we can also gain new body parts. But you need that proof in order to prove that we could have came from a single cell.


Evidence that a being capable of designing Earth life exists or existed, and evidence that the being in question was responsible for designing Earth life.So you are actually looking for a direct evidence of a being that created the Earth? Like a picture or something?


Design infers a designer. You can't legitemately claim that life on Earth was designed if you don't have evidence of the designer.Yes I can. Because Design automatically means that there was a designer. It's as simple as that. That is why we can conclude when we find design that there was a designer, and that it was not something else.


Stating that life on Earth was designed also begs the question: Who or what designed the designer? if complex life giving rise to intelligence capable of design (us) is only possible if a designer exists, then such a complex being would itself need a designer. ID doesn't even attempt to answer this question, it simply ignores it totally, in spite of it's extreme relevance to the question of design.Two things to note here.

1.) It is a meningless question since ID is about detecting design, it is not about knowing who te designer is.

2.) If I asked you where computers came from, and you said people made them, and than I asked you where did people come from, and you said you don't know. And than, would it be correct from me to say that you can't say that people make computers because you don't know where people come from? No, ofcurse no, it would be stupid. Just because you don't know where peopple came from, doesn't mean that you are not right about where computers come from. And in any case, you are investigating computers, and not where people come from.

Its the same in this case. We are investigating where the people came from, not where our designer came from. Just becasue we don't know doesn't mean that we are not right in concluding that we were designed.


How can you legitimately claim that life on Earth was designed if you have no evidence whatsoever of a being capable of designing such a complex system?Because if we find design in living organisms, than that logically tells us that there was a designer. Becasue only intelligence can design. So it is a logical conclusion that excludes everything else except intelligence. Design is only a mark of intelligence.


And no, claiming that DNA etc is too complex to arise naturally is not evidence for a designer, as it is completely circular reasoning.It is not circular reasoning, and I was claiming that it was inforamtion, something that only intelligence makes.


All the so-called "predictions" of ID have turned out to be false, or nothing to with the question of design.No they are all correct.


The bacterial flagellar motor is not irreducibly complex, the ID crowd should really stop beating that dead horse by now.[/qiote]Yes it is IC. Prove me wrong.

[quote]The fossil record is patchy because the chances of a given organism being fossilised is very low, so one should not be surprised when species appear to "leap" into the record - but even in spite of that, all the fossils found, no matter if they have any immediate ancestor or not, can be reliably placed in the "tree of life" or be found to have some kind of relation with other life on Earth.No they can't even some evolutionists say so.


Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity. The relationships between major groups within an emergent new class of biological entities are hard to decipher and do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin's original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution.http://www.biology-direct.com/content/2/1/21


The fact that similar parts can be found in different organism is not evidence of design - haven't you heard of "convergent evolution"?Yes I did but that is not a proof of any theory, that is just a prediction. But convergent evolution makes evolution unfalsifiable, which makes her not science.


Neither does the fact that "junk" DNA is not so useless validate design - it simply shows that we know more about DNA than we previously did.But it is a confirmed prediction. One that evolutionists claimed is not going to be true. They called "junk-DNA" junk, because they thought that it's just junk from what natural selection worked on but didn't get used later on.


I don't think the sugar molecules in space appeared through "chance" and neither did proteins on Earth. What the discovery of sugar molecules in space means is that even in extremely rarefied environments, relatively complex structures can form. A sugar molecule is considerably complex in comparison to a hydrogen atom, hydrogen being the most common element in the universe.1.) Than what made them?

2.) Yes, but no where near proteins.


In fact, look through Google, I've found even more complex molecules (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4552-space-molecules-point-to-organic-origins.html) have been found in space other than sugar. Amino acids, the building blocks of life, have been found in meteorites that have landed on Earth. If amino acids are readily found even in the lifeless void of space, then proteins naturally occurring is not a stretch if the conditions are right. It's not a matter of chance. It's a matter of the conditions being right.Again, amino acids are like words, proteins are like books. There is no way you are going to get those. Anyway, even if you do what than? Proteins by themselves are useless, they are not alive.


Prions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prion) are not alive, and whether or not viruses are alive is a matter of debate among biologists, but it is without a doubt that they reproduce, although they reproduce differently from each other.Great, but proteins can't.


Impairment of physical function due to brain damage is not the same as the impairment of mental function due to brain damage. It's entirely possible for one's physical function to be impaired while mental functions are still fine. But damage the brain enough (say, put a bullet through it) and all functions are impaired, not just the physical ones.Actually no. This guy survived when a spike ran through his frontal lobes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Gage


The fact that they used MRIs to look for sign of consciousness is a vindication of materialism, not dualism. If dualism were correct then there would be cases of people still functioning even though MRI scans would indicate no activity.How can that vindicate materialism if she was diagnosed as having no mind at all!?


Her brain was massively damaged, to the extent that she had been diagnosed as having no mind at all.And she functioned just fine! That shows that brain is not everything we use. There is also the immaterial mind.


All the evidence suggests that the mind is inseperable from the brain. Unless of course you have evidence of a mind existing independantly of a brain?Not this evidence it doesn't!

[ID-guy]

Hey ID Guy

I have to jet as I have a life. I could give two fucks whether I'm getting on your nerves or not. Some free advice, shut off your fucking computer and go live life , Fuck do something , Check out the board plenty of other threads to troll on as that 's how you get your kicks apparently, each to there own I guess..Oh don't worry, I will, as soon as I'm done here.