Proof of ID the World is Looking For

Originally posted by Gigatronix

Originally posted by XIDIXIDIX


Actuallly that looks awefully familiar to the one Atheist majormalfunction used to make Christians look silly.

Wouldn't suprise me. Nothing says "I'm losing this argument" like quoting an ignorant joke written by someone else. These types of images are used specifically to enrage someone, therby bypassing the actual argument and leading the conversation right into senselessness.

Yeah, I can't argue that Gigatronix, I see it all the time too

Hello, XIDIXIDIX. Nice to see the thread still getting a few responses. Nicer still to know you found it interesting. You seem very certain that the OP was a set-up. Would you care to explain why you think so? This is a good place for exposing plots and conspiracies.

several reasons actually give you away astyanax, Ill list them below.


"So far, none of the responses (as I'm sure any fair-minded observer would agree) comes close to providing experimental, falsifiable evidence for intelligent design.- Originally posted by Astyanax "


Now you said here and i quote:
"What we are looking for here is unfalsifiable proof of intelligent design."


Then Ms. Ashley's response was interesting:
"Not even macro has that."


I see you had ducked this because you had seen it coming and said "Macro evolution" is NOT a scientific term (typical semantic tomfoolery astyanax) you then suggested a link to speciation

'Macroevolution' is not a scientific term. The word you're looking for is speciation. Since I used that word in the sentence you quote, it is clear that species changing into other species is just what I mean.

You sought examples. Here is an article on speciation, abounding in them.

I thought this was absolutley jaw dropping and not in the way that I believe it to be true but that you actually felt this confident saying something so utterly untrue, and before you call my bluff in anyway for saying that, I won't get into the same little tit for tat gamesmanship that went on here I'd rather just have a tete a tete mono e mono formal ATS debate. You can show that mountain or library of evidence for same and I am confident I can give some of their dignity back including a few laughs of their own at YOUR expense this time. I thought why would someone who has posted very eloquent explanations of Natural selection have such a double standard for assuming the consequent? Indulge me for a short while here but I have seen this same fallacy used to debunk Dawkins Natural selection for the same reasons as natural selection can not think it isn't a thing at all

When you said this: ("Absolute rubbish. Natural selection has passed countless tests of the kind I laid out in the OP and come through with flying colours. Intelligent design never has, because it is not science, and therefore it cannot pass such a test. End of story.
" originally posted by Astyanax) I just said to myself "wanna bet"

well........ do you?

Natural Selection is an un-conscious mechanism. If it is to select a change by chance then conventional wisdom dictates this change must provide the life form or organism with an effective alternativeadvantage. Yet many complex organs in living things provide no advantage at all unless they are fully intact to start with. It is impossible for natural selection to make a selection in that direction.

so there must be a predetermined plan and a selection mechanism working consciously according to this plan. However, the theory of evolution claims these life forms happened with no predetermined plan and unconscious of any kind of selection mechanism what so ever.


Again the macro or transmutation to another species or trans speciation (Ill come up with one still allowable but I won't assume you do not know their IS in fact a difference) similar to lamarkism could be substantiated by any number of examples where you would use speciation in the same context for micro evolution. Simple variation is described but variation has limits as YOU KNOW. So you ducked that one and went back to making fools out of the fundies.

You asked me how i know this was a setup, the bottom line is YOU told me on page 5

The trouble here -- and it is precisely the problem with intelligent design as a hypothesis -- is that it can explain any and all phenomena. It is not a testable (i.e. falsifiable) proposition. There is no natural phenomenon that cannot be attributed to the work of a Creator, and no way to disprove that attribution. You will never be able to find a phenomenon to satisfy the requirements of Step One.

Hence there is no way to proceed through the remaining seven steps

[edit on 17-8-2008 by XIDIXIDIX]

reply to post by XIDIXIDIX

You asked me how i know this was a setup, the bottom line is YOU told me on page 5

Originally quoted by Astyanax
The trouble here -- and it is precisely the problem with intelligent design as a hypothesis -- is that it can explain any and all phenomena. It is not a testable (i.e. falsifiable) proposition. There is no natural phenomenon that cannot be attributed to the work of a Creator, and no way to disprove that attribution. You will never be able to find a phenomenon to satisfy the requirements of Step One.

Hence there is no way to proceed through the remaining seven steps.

So you agree with me, then.

You agree that intelligent design is an unfalsifiable proposition, and therefore in no way scientific.

Excellent!

Welcome, my friend, to the world of logic and commonsense.

Thank you, you realize of course in the context I gave my answer using the same reasons given for natural selection and Trans speciation that it too, fails under the same protocols given in the OP. I am a believer in evolution but I am honest about it and do not have the same double standards for areas of evolution that remain unproven using the same scientific method. I believe this is what enrages religious people the most is this idea that species changes are taking place all the time when evidence shows no such thing has happened. Many citations given for living fossils that show no changes prove this.

This is where one must choose his mechanism carefully. To say that these fossils still alive were perfectly suited for their environment hence no further changes needed to take place when environmental pressures most certainly were in place to the extent the species was so close to extinction we had already thought it was for millions of years. Also to say that ALL of those found were under the same theoretical umbrella is too unrealistic for the most ardent believer in evolution. To say you are a believer in the theory of Natural selection as the mechanism which has already been debunked and Dawkins has finally seen the light and has changed his tune on the subject.

This brought Darwinists to start using the mutation argument back into the scientific arena and to use the experiments of Prof. lenski's e-coli as proof advantageous mutation does in fact occur. The problem with this is Bacteria can hardly be used in an example for species because they do not procreate the same way "species" of animals do. They are asexual and should be recognized as "phyla" not species. I am expecting the next area of linguistic programming coming from the Darwinist camp to be a merging of these two words like many others they have done with the word "species". Whether they do or not, one thing remains clear about lenski's work, it is BIG in that it has found new areas of adaptation once believed untrue but it fails to offer any veracity to the concept of species change at all and in the end what we have is e-coli forced to survive on a new diet, something that really doesn’t surprise me at all considering the many mutations that can take place with bacteria, finding one that finally works to the advantage of the bacterium’s survival would is to be expected. When you consider however that this change was one of the basic dynamics for survival i.e.; having something to eat, this is a change we have seen in humans also where we have seen people who have conditioned themselves to eat food that has rotted for years saturated with botulism.

The fact of evolution in our ability to survive stays within the parameters already coded in our DNA and is just a matter of using it in ways our bodies have time to make the necessary enhancements but to this day I have seen no such evidence to claim we are all the product of a common ancestor

[edit on 19-8-2008 by XIDIXIDIX]


[edit on 19-8-2008 by XIDIXIDIX]

reply to post by Astyanax
Not a chance in hell that the GDI people can prove anything, quite simply because "GOD" is testing their faith by not intervening when catastrophe happens,innocent people die at the hands of criminals,when natural disasters kill thousands, or when disease kills millions. AWESOME, sounds like my kind of "GOD", and let us not forget that the only way to enter the "paradise of GOD" is to kneel and grovel to that super nice bearded guy in the sky, OR ELSE! So remember when the faithful ask for proof of their "GOD" and it doesnt happen, thats "GODS'" way of saying I lOVE YOU, HAVE FAITH!!

Originally posted by spookjr
reply to post by Astyanax

 

Not a chance in hell that the GDI people can prove anything, quite simply because "GOD" is testing their faith by not intervening when catastrophe happens,innocent people die at the hands of criminals,when natural disasters kill thousands, or when disease kills millions. AWESOME, sounds like my kind of "GOD", and let us not forget that the only way to enter the "paradise of GOD" is to kneel and grovel to that super nice bearded guy in the sky, OR ELSE! So remember when the faithful ask for proof of their "GOD" and it doesnt happen, thats "GODS'" way of saying I lOVE YOU, HAVE FAITH!!

You give the perfect example for why I stay agnostic because I would hate to be associated with people who act like you do. You are not a believer so what. God doesn’t act like you would if you were a God so what. One of the reasons given their God isn't one that man invented is for this same reason you give to post your silly ad-hom against them.

Another words if it were man made man invented like so many others I’ve read about, the God wouldn't be so hard to live with and allow much more indulgence than those we see are not to engage in. What really makes you look like an ignorant fool is that you have no better an answer than they do as I posted above.

If Atheist ever want to be seen as more than mouthy little antagonists, they need to stop talking like you just did and too many of them do. So many of them align themselves with Science but their behavior is an embarrassment to most Scientists. You can cite Prof. Dawkins if you care to but Dawkins is better known for using his position to advance his atheism than anything else and this has cost him more respect among his peers than I think he is even aware of. (Not that he cares)

Until you can be as tolerant as you all demand for gays lesbians etc, you are nothing but hypocrites. Then you wonder why it is so hard for Atheists to get a place in politics etc, if you care to debate me on the subject I would be more than happy to make a bigger fool out of you than you have just made out of yourself in your last post. You are good at looking like a perpetual ad-hom machine but let’s see how good you are when the competition uses facts and logic rather than ridicule only the simple minded, think is funny.







[edit on 19-8-2008 by XIDIXIDIX]

reply to post by Astyanax


What if just maybe most creationists are so sure that they are just ignoring your thread. I mean I don't really need to see empiricle evidence if I have seen something or witnessed something so spectacular that it proves what is said in the Bible is true.

Consider this a free bump for your question, but I have no doubt that God created this world and the universe.

reply to post by XIDIXIDIX

Bring it on, stud.

Originally posted by spookjr
reply to post by XIDIXIDIX

 

Bring it on, stud.

So you can prove in a debate that all of us living today are the product of darwinian natural selection mmmm ok Ill set it up

reply to post by XIDIXIDIX
I can prove that there is no way to prove that there is a god. Can you prove that there is? If you can then I will kiss your butt on national T.V. Set up a debate if you like, just make sure to let me know when.

Originally posted by spookjr
reply to post by XIDIXIDIX

 

I can prove that there is no way to prove that there is a god. Can you prove that there is? If you can then I will kiss your butt on national T.V. Set up a debate if you like, just make sure to let me know when.

That's what I thought you'd say, so like I said, your answer is no better than theirs is or you'd defend it but you can't and you know it

This whole argument is pretentious and utter dribble. Sure, I personally think almost all religion is as well, but this kind of stuff really just creates tension and does not solve anything.

I'm not religious, but last time I checked the story was that God is omnipotent and can do [B]*Anything*[/B]. Are there any arguing points against something that can do anything?

Of course not!

I think that doesn't always click with people who try to argue with IDers. Trying to argue someone out of believing in God is like trying to argue them out of their favorite color, but harder and more futile.

It's perfectly acceptable that God created evolution, God made you, God made science. He can do *anything* and did make *everything* according to the story, right? Jesus (lol), God made the heaven and the earth and all life, but I guess man has copyrighted the scientific method, right?

Can you prove that God did not create evolution, and therefore man and science? If he's omnipotent than it was all part of the plan.

Anyway, it's mean on a certain level too. It's like telling a kid Santa doesn't exist.

It's not amiable and it's not scientifically virtuous. You may as well use science to dispute the existence of Bigfoot or Aliens.

Not working to good huh? Sometimes I think this whole forum has their heads shoved so far up their rear ends that they can't tell left from right.

The problem with the people who argue for evolution is that they are rewriting the character of God. That's out of bounds just as much as IDers rewriting scientific fact to fit their story.

reply to post by TH3ON3

What if just maybe most creationists are so sure that they are just ignoring your thread.

Well, we're on page 16 now, hadn't you noticed? They've all been and gone. A good few took up the challenge. Nobody won the gold tureen, so now it's all 'fixed', of course.

I mean I don't really need to see empiricle evidence if I have seen something or witnessed something so spectacular that it proves what is said in the Bible is true.

Then what you have is, in fact, empirical evidence. You no longer need faith. You know. Your eyes have seen the glory.

Consider this a free bump for your question, but I have no doubt that God created this world and the universe.

Good for you, but it doesn't help the rest of us.

reply to post by logician magician
My, that was quite fiery.

Not taking a crack at the OP proposition, then? Just slinging a quick Logical Hypercontext Fragmentation Charge at the thread as your Rapid Offensive Unit warps through its Sector?

O, will the Gold Tureen never be won?

no argument here! Why? Because Faith and Science DO NOT go hand in hand on this subject. Why? simple.

Faith is:

(Heb 11:1) To have faith is to be sure of the things we hope for, to be certain of the things we cannot see.

Science is:
In its broadest sense, science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") refers to any systematic knowledge or practice. In its more usual restricted sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on scientific method, as well as to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research. This article focuses on the more restricted use of the word.

Thus, one you don't need proof and the other you do. It's water and oil, the two shall never mix.

reply to post by Komodo

Faith and Science DO NOT go hand in hand on this subject. (For) one you don't need proof and the other you do.

But if they're going to dress their faith up as science and teach it in schools, they're going to need something that at least passes for proof.

That's what this thread is about: giving 'intelligent design' advocates a chance to prove their case scientifically.

Call it a helping hand to the less fortunate. There but for the grace of God, eh?

[edit on 27-8-2008 by Astyanax]

reply to post by XIDIXIDIX


I can in three small letters:

DNA.

But I'm sure you'll try to slide God in there somewhere and feel all righteous, dismissing 56 years of molecular biology (that never, not once, had to resort to 'God did it' to make coherent sense) in the process.

Do you want to live in ignorance? Seemingly you bask in it.

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by XIDIXIDIX

 

I can in three small letters:

DNA.

But I'm sure you'll try to slide God in there somewhere and feel all righteous, dismissing 56 years of molecular biology (that never, not once, had to resort to 'God did it' to make coherent sense) in the process.

Do you want to live in ignorance? Seemingly you bask in it.

whats so hysterical about your posts Dave, is that you you open your mouth and say absolutley nothing to do with the person you are responding to. Slide God into it? how many times have I told you Dave, I am Jewish and an agnostic. I believe in evolution Dave, just not the part that says we came from a common ancestor.

DNA? That happens to be the very research that crushed Darwin Dave and when you can quit assuming I am a religious person and quit swimming in your own ignorance is when you can suggest who else is basking in it. You're simply too ignorant yourself to talk about such things David, and be taken seriously







[edit on 27-8-2008 by XIDIXIDIX]

reply to post by XIDIXIDIX

whats so hysterical about your posts Dave, is that you you open your mouth and say absolutley nothing to do with the person you are responding to.

A bit like you, then, when you started burbling meaninglessly about tieclips and mousetraps when criticizing my response to Clearskies? When you made out that I stated or implied that the refutation of the irreducible-complexity argument depends on the verdict in some stupid court case in America? Methinks you go a little too far, Sir Pot, in adverting the negritude of Mr. Kettle.

Slide God into it? how many times have I told you Dave, I am Jewish and an agnostic.

You can tell him that as often as you like, but you're still here on this thread defending creationism. Some agnostic.

I believe in evolution Dave, just not the part that says we* came from a common ancestor.

Oh, so you believe the human race evolved from several distinct ancestors? You confess, ipso facto, to being a racist?

Or are you (improbably, illogically and in defiance of grammar) merely stating a belief that life on Earth evolved independently, numerous times over? Each time, choosing and using the same linkage of pyrines and pyramidines, just by accident, to transmit and replicate genetic information? In a fashion that, despite the multiple origins you propose, nevertheless allows genetic material to be transposed between pretty much any two species taken at random? This is your theory of evolution? No surprise, then, that you have talked yourself into the fanciful idea that DNA

happens to be the very research that crushed Darwin

By the Palladium, if I had to believe in a tale of evolutionary origins as far-fetched as that, I'd be a creationist myself!

You're simply too ignorant yourself to talk about such things David, and be taken seriously.

He knows what he's talking about, my Roman-numerical friend. You're the one who's floundering out of his depth here; this is a thread about science - not rhetoric or law, as you seem to think it is.
*My emphasis - Astyanax