Creationists

[CandySlice]

You and your other screen name CS have dragged this thread into the toilet. Your continual ad hominem attacks, repetitive references to ICR and Haran Yahya, and your non-relevant cut and pastes make it un-enjoyable for everyone viewing. I am putting you and Candyslice (you) on ignore. If you can actually post up a coherent thought of your own, I might respond, but we will just have to wait and see.

If you're putting me on ignore, how you will you know if I've responded?

Silly 12 year old!

Earlier today I dropped the little thing like a hot rock, so not to be outdone I guess, he has to save face by ignoring us. . .too little too late though it may be. Poor fragile ego just can't stand the heat.

 

[konradv]

Kill this thread. It deserved to die 5,000 posts ago.

 

[UltimateReality]

The title says it all...

Penis Worm Shakes Evolutionary Tree: Scientific American

 

[UltimateReality]

"...much of contemporary evolutionary genetics departs from the conception of evolution underlying neo-Darwinism, resulting in a widening gap between what formal models allow, and what the prevailing view of the causes of evolution suggests."

Biology Direct | Abstract | Constructive neutral evolution: exploring evolutionary theory's curious disconnect

 

[UltimateReality]

Five Myths of ID:

MYTH #1: Intelligent Design (ID) is just a fancy name for Creationism.

The true story: Intelligent Design theory is not a form of, nor is it synonymous with “creationism.” Rather, it is an over-arching scientific theory that disputes wholly naturalistic/materialistic accounts of the origin of the universe and the origin of life. As such it is an indispensable ally for those who espouse various creation models. ID makes NO CLAIM about the age of the earth.

MYTH #2: ID has been dis-proven by the fossil record, which supports common descent.

The true story: ID does not rule out the theory of common descent, nor does it support it. It is true that some advocates of ID also doubt the integrity of the theory of common descent, but that question is completely separate from ID theory, strictly speaking. One of the leading scientists in the ID movement, biochemist Michael Behe, Ph.D., is comfortable with the theory of common descent. Other ID scientists are more skeptical of common descent, such as biologist Jonathan Wells, Ph.D.

MYTH #3: ID claims that the “intelligent agent” had to supernaturally intervene in natural history over and over again.

The true story: ID’s claim is much more modest. ID simply states that there are characteristics of the universe and of living systems that are BEST EXPLAINED by a designing intelligence. ID is not “interventionist” as many theistic evolutionists (and atheistic evolutionists) like to claim. The idea of a designing intelligence steadily and purposefully guiding the development of life at the sub-atomic level is compatible with ID, but that particular scenario is not required by ID, either.

MYTH #4: ID uses a disguised form of the “God of the gaps” fallacy.

The true story: ID does not say “We don’t yet know how life emerged from non-life, therefore an intelligence must have done it.” Rather, it makes a two-fold argument: 1) Neo-Darwinian explanations for the emergence and divergence of life are sorely insufficient in their explanatory power and 2) there are features of nature, such as the specified complexity of the digital information in DNA, that are best explained by intelligent agency. We already know from direct experience how to detect intelligence in other branches of science, so inferring intelligence based on the same type of observed effects is completely reasonable. In scientific practice, we infer the existing cause that is KNOWN to produce the effect in question. Since biochemistry contains information, ID theorists infer that there must be an informer, because there are no other sources of information. Ironically, whenever a materialist says, “We don’t yet know how life emerged from non-life, but one day science will explain it,” they are actually using the Science of the Gaps fallacy.

MYTH #5: ID research has not produced peer-reviewed literature.

The true story: There are more than 50 peer-reviewed papers that have come out of ID research. A list has been compiled HERE. An important article on this topic can be found HERE.

Top Five Myths Christians (and Non-Christians) Often Believe About Intelligent Design « Hard-Core Christianity

 

[VoteForTheDucks]

If you tell someone the same thing over and over again at a young enough age, most people will believe it for the rest of their lives.

 

[eots]

If you tell someone the same thing over and over again at a young enough age, most people will believe it for the rest of their lives.

Is that what they told you..

 

[LOki]

The "God thing" you refer to has been explained to you numerous times in the past 600 pages.

I do not dispute this. I think I was very clear that, I have been exposed to literally hundreds of self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of some "God."

WRONG!! ID Theory on the source of information in DNA is none of these.

Really?

If Intelligent Design Theory asserts that change in information leads only to loss of specificity of the information or loss of generality of the information, then it makes a self-contradicting case for both the Designer as well as its design--particularly in light of the demonstrable fact that Intelligent Design Theorists agree that mutation (i.e. genetic mutation) has been observed to increase information in a genome (even if IDT demands such phenomina are useless to NDT) in the well documented instances of micro-evolution.

If Intelligent Design Theory asserts that the source (i.e., their "Designer") of information in DNA (indeed, ALL information) is NOT subject to the theory's assertion that all information must have an intelligent source, then it is making a special-pleading case for the Designer it posits.

If Intelligent Design Theory asserts that the intelligent source of information is self informed; which it necessarily must be in order that information should exist at all, then Intelligent Design Theory is making a question-begging case for the source of information.

If Intelligent Design Theory asserts the necessary existence of an intelligent source of information because Intelligent Design Theorists do not know of, or cannot imagine, a source of information that is not intelligent, then Intelligent Design Theory is making an appeal-to-ignorance case for the source of information.

I am pretty sure the Intelligent Design Theory is at least one of these.

Even though you refuse to acknowledge this verifiable fact of reality, it remains certainly true; does it not?

Of course it does.

If you don't understand the concept that has been explained to you numerous times by now, then you will probably never be able to grasp the religious and philosophical notions of the Creator.

You'll just have to excuse me for giving you the benefit of the doubt that you might have an account for this "Creator" you posit, that is NOT a self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance account.

You do recognize that such fundamentally flawed notions are impossible to accept as intellectually valid? You don't actually expect me to consider any of those self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts to be worth considering as accounts of a real thing, by any intellectually rigorous standard, do you?

No, not when you consider you've ignored the valid scientific arguments presented to you ad nauseum.

I'm sure you believe I have ignored the "valid scientific arguments" presented by you, but that belief is held in denial of the attention I gave those argument in rebutting them, or linking to rebuttals of them.

The fact that you literally refuse (ad-nauseam) to aknowledge any rebuttals to your arguments, is no evidence at all to support your accusation that I have ignored any valid scientific arguments presented to me.

I wouldn't think so if you considered yourself a rational human being. If I am to assume that you are a rational human being, I cannot assume that you would accept such accounts so fundamentally flawed that they lack logical validity. So again, excuse me for giving you the benefit of the doubt.

If you have an account for this "Creator" you posit, that is NOT a self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance account, please share it.

Please repeat this again. Someone might not have got it the first 10 times.

Happily!

OR ... you could just admit that you believe in magic.

If asshats like you would just (honestly) attribute the whole thing to "magic," you'd find folks like me taking a far less hostile position against your claims.

Q. How do explain the vastness of the known universe and the existence and diversity of life?
A. God made everything using magic.

Q. God? What God? Certainly not this God from your Bible--that thing is riddled with errors of fact! How do you explain that the Bible presumes a flat Earth when in reality it is clearly a sphere? And Geo-centrism; explain the patent geo-centric assertions of Biblical cosmology.
A. Magic. The Earth is unambiguously the center of God's creation, and certainly flat ... it is Satan's evil magic that makes it appear otherwise, so as to help lure the people that God loves away from righteousness. Satan lies, and Spherical-Earth, Helio-centric solar system, and certainly Evolution are all (magical) lies from Satan.

Q. Fine. There is still other weird stuff ... like Noah's Flood. Where did all the water for this flood come from?
A. Magic. Using magic, God flooded the whole world.

Q. What about the lack of evidence that such a flood ever occurred? No single layer of silt deposit featuring all the organisms (including unicorns) created all mixed together, no concurrent flood stories from all the different cultures, etc...
A. Magic. Using magic, God mixed and separated sedimentary layers in an effort to organize and tidy up a little; using magic he also blurred (or just deleted) the memories of different peoples in different places, etc...

Q. Why? Why do that?
A. Because you need to believe in magic, in order for magic to be real.

Q. But that's circular reasoning--question begging--logically invalid. How do you account for that?
A. Logic whatever ... it's magic. It's all magic, all the way around, and all the way down.​

Clearly such honesty would not make you any less of a superstitious retard, but at least you'd be honest.

Because I cannot imagine any reason consistent with integrity of intellectual honesty that you would refuse to do so.

Your lack of understanding also brings to light your failure to grasp your OWN Darwinian religious beliefs as well.

Spoken like a true Hovindist.

Let's look at your QUOTE, "How the **** should I know? Besides, the Theory of Evolution is not a theory on the identity of the common ancestor of all life."

From Wiki:
"In evolutionary biology, a group of organisms share common descent if they have a common ancestor. There is strong quantitative support for the theory that all living organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor.[1][2]"

Three things are thus far made apparent from your source:

1. "trong quantitative support for the theory that all living organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor" strongly refutes the notion that such position has any corresponding relationship with religion (in the belief in supernatural agencies, and "ritual observance of faith" sense).[*] That the notion "that all living organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor" is not quite a "just so story" in quite the manner of so many accounts of a "Creator" who created an existence that is "just so" precisely the way the believers of their "Creator" say it is.[*] There's nothing that would lead one to the conclusion that the Theory of Evolution is a theory of the identity of the common ancestor of all life. I accept the possibility that your source might later support a different conclusion.

Loki, did you think that by moving the goal posts no one would notice that I have shown you to be entirely inept at understanding components of the TOE. And that I have shown without a doubt the claims I made about evolutionary theories claims are 100% true, and your false assertion of a strawman argument is another example of your utter and total intellectualy dishonesty. When I made the assertion that the TOE claimed man descended from a single cell organism, or an amoeba like organism, you screamed STRAWMAN!! Did you forget the whole reason I posted up this evidence from Wiki??? It has proven your strawman accusation wrong again and exposed your ignorance. Your distraction technique of yelling strawman when you don't have an answer has thus far failed miserably.

I didn't move any goal posts. I just respond directly to your dopey moving target--the target that moves to a different subject each and every time I point out your retarded errors of fact, your fatal errors of logic, your disingenuous semantic equivocations, and your lack of integrity in intellectual honesty.

From Wiki:
"The last universal ancestor (LUA) (also called the last universal common ancestor, LUCA), that is, the most recent common ancestor of all currently living organisms,[1] is believed to have appeared about 3.9 billion years ago."

This appears to be consistent with the evidence. However, I fail to see that the Theory of Evolution is a theory of the identity of the common ancestor of all life.

Strawman.

You use this wiki entry to somehow demonstrate that via the TOE I should be able to tell you what single celled organism human beings ultimately evolved from; I point out that your wiki entry does no such thing--because it does no such thing--and you want yo call that a strawman?

You're just hilarious! Do it again!

From Wiki:
"Considering what we know of the offspring groups (see phylogenetic bracketing), the LUA was a small, single-cell organism. It would have had a cell wall and a ring-shaped coil of DNA floating freely within the cell, like modern bacteria."

Yes. This description appears to be a sensible conclusion drawn from the available data, but its not an implication that the Theory of Evolution is a theory of the identity of the common ancestor of all life.

Strawman.

Just HILARIOUS!

From Wiki:
"Charles Darwin proposed the theory of universal common descent through an evolutionary process in his book On the Origin of Species, saying, "Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed."

I don't think that anyone would dispute that Darwin is not presenting the Theory of Evolution as a theory of the identity of the common ancestor of all life.

Strawman.

It is no wonder you struggle with the religious concept of God when you have so blatantly demonstrated your total lack of understanding of the very metaphysical beliefs on origins you espouse.

"Metaphysical" is an awfully big word to be used by someone who struggled with difference between what constitutes a definition, what constitutes a theory, and what constitutes an argument.

The fact that I do not accept the dopey notions you assign to me; the fact that my metaphysical beliefs are entirely alien to your superstitious metaphysics; is no indication at all that I have any lack of understanding of the metaphysical beliefs on origins that I actually espouse.

Let me remind you that where you have imposed upon yourself an ontological barrier preventing you from concluding that a Christian Creator is not necessary for the existence of everything you observe, no such barrier prevents me from concluding that a creator is responsible for the existence of everything I observe if applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence points to that conclusion.

CRICKETS CHIRPING

Digging deeper into the LUA, we come across the concept of horizontal gene transfer. If there was ever an example of evolutionary biologists making up "just so" stories to force the evidence to fit their theory, this is it.

Seriously? "Just so story"?

I'm not at all certain you know what you're talking about. I am pretty certain that you're misusing the term though.

Horizontal gene transfer cannot be a "Just-So story considering that the mechanisms for it seem pretty well understood--you know, in precisely the way the "Creator" of most typical accounts is not.

Your denial of the presupposition of the Darwinian party line when it comes to evidence just demonstrates your blind faith in the concept.

You're just making this shit up--just like a true Hovindist. Seriously. It's the precise made-up bullshit from you I have been exposing this whole time. The same made-up bullshit that you wish us all to believe is some kind of heady "sarcasm" that is lost on the "mental midgets" that surround you.

This is pot calling the kettle black.

^This is just your wishful thinking talking; it is the kettle calling the clean white china black.

Having already presumed the absolute certainty of the existence of this invented Creator of yours, you simply dismiss any verifiable evidence that contradicts your baseless preconceptions, SOLEY on the basis that such evidence does not support your baseless conclusions.

Having placed yourself on a pedestal with your absolute certainty, you simply refuse to accept that others refuse to conform to your bullshit intellectual paradigm; that others are capable of refusing to conform to your bullshit intellectual paradigm.

Strawman. I lost count. How many is that you've presented so far?

ZERO.

Evolutionary biologists presuppose Darwinism is true and force fit the evidence to the theory.

I will remind you again UltimateReality (CHRIST! Your nick is prima-facie evidence of your sanctimonious hubris), that where you have imposed upon yourself an ontological barrier preventing you from concluding that a Christian Creator is not necessary for the existence of everything you observe, no such barrier prevents me from concluding that a creator is responsible for the existence of everything I observe if applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence points to that conclusion.

Whatever. You wouldn't know valid logic if it hit you in the face.

Since you have not directly observed me being being hit in the face (or presented with, in any other manner) a logically valid assertion by you or any of your intellectually and morally deficient tribe, I fail to see how--with any intellectual integrity at all--you fell qualified make this accusation about me.

Their response when genetic evidence didn't add up??? Evolution has to be true so the genes must have transferred. What an absolute joke!!! And you call this science? Yeah, whatever.

This is how you wish to go about this? You're just going to deny the verifiable reality of horizontal gene transfer, and then use that denial as a rationalization to assign to your opponents assertions that they simply do not make, and then you're going to accuse them of sumitting "Just-So" stories as evidence? Really?

Yes, really. By the way, you can quite wasting you time because I haven't clicked on a single link you've attached. You ruined that along time ago with your childish behavior linking to stupid pictures or other nonsense. You're a child.

AND THERE YOU HAVE IT FOLKS!​

A candid admission from the intellectually dishonest superstitious retard's own mouth--failure to substantiate one's position is NOT due to any failure to produce it, but rather UltimateReality's REFUSAL to consider it!

LET'S HAVE A BIG ROUND OF APPLAUSE FOR OUR INTELLECTUALLY AND MORALLY DEFECTIVE WOO-PEDDLER!

You should all consider UltimateReality the definitive example of the intellectual integrity of Intelligent Design proponents.

Considering your brilliant and uncompromising track record, I really thought I could no longer be surprised by your intellectual dishonesty--HOLY **** WAS I WRONG!

Ad Hominem attack. And really it is you has proven time and again that you lack integrity, so you can stop projecting your behavior on me.

Look here Pumpkin, considering your candid admission that your a desperate denialist, don't you think that this accusation (as well as all the others) is just a tad self-indicting?

Of course not! That's what denialism is all about!

I suppose I can try and explain God to you one more time.

(FINALLY!) Please do!

If we just assume for a second all the made up BS about evolution is true, ID theory's hypothesis could easily be applied to Darwin's statement above as the intelligent agent (lower case) responsible for "breathing life" into the so called LUA.

I REFUSE to dispute this. Seriously. You CANNOT from this point forward EVER claim I "... presuppose Darwinism (you Hovindist retard) is true and force fit the evidence to the theory."

If the shoe fits...

I should shove it right up your ass where it fits the best.

No Problem.

However, ID goes farther because there is evidence that the same intelligent agent returned to earth several times since it's formation to "seed" new life forms.

Oh!

AWESOME! I can't wait! For you SURELY are about to present this evidence. Yes?

I have been hoping one of you guys would finally come through, and UltimateReality ... you're really going to do it! Right?

And considering your complaint regarding how "Evolutionary biologists presuppose Darwinism is true and force fit the evidence to the theory", I can expect that the evidence you will shortly provide will no no way require me to presuppose this "intelligent agent" you posit is real in order for me to conclude that said "evidence" is actually "... evidence that [an] intelligent agent returned to earth several times since it's formation to "seed" new life forms."

Just for the record ... is there a secret number of times someone must ask? I just can't figure why you guys have been holding back for so long!

ID makes no references to the intelligent agent's identity, only hypothesizes that there is ample evidence that he/she/it predates the universe.

Whoa! WHOA WHOA! Pal!

First, there is NO ******* DOUBT that Intelligent Design identifies the "intelligent agent's" identity.

"Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialistic world view, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."​

Who cares? Right? Because you're about to lay on us that evidence!

Except that you don't. :frownyface: WTF?

You just claim that ID ... WHAT? "... hypothesizes that there is ample evidence that he/she/it predates the universe."

Do you mean to tell me that all every time you asshats went on about how "there is evidence" to support your claims, you were just presenting some ******* HYPOTHESIS that there is such evidence? NOT that there IS evidence, but that you've got some really good reason to assert there is evidence; and perhaps you predict you're going to find some? REALLY?!?!?

And this differs from evolutionary theorizing how???

In that the evidence that supports the theory of evolution demonstrably exists, is what immediately comes to mind.

MY religious belief is that the intelligent agent is the Intelligent Agent (upper case) described in the collection of 66 books known as the Bible. This Agent as identified as the God Jehovah or Yahweh.

Aren't you just lucky then that your Intelligent Agent (upper case) is the same intelligent agent identified when Intelligent Design expresses it's goal to "... replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."

Please explain to me how my religious beliefs make me lucky??? The powerball is up to 80 million so I really want to know.

Why? Particularly since I didn't say your religious beliefs made you lucky. I said that you were lucky that your Intelligent Agent (upper case) is the same intelligent agent identified when Intelligent Design expresses it's goal to "... replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."

Not the same thing.

Why do you say that? Are you claiming your "God" thing is visible? Based on claims made about Him, I fail to understand why he can't make some time so He can be visible to me, and put this whole thing to rest.

Nope, it was just another comparison that you seem totally inept at understanding.

Perhaps I understood it all to well, and just had a lapse in my disbelief in your reliability in disingenuously framing my point.

And you complain that I should parse your semantics so carefully. Tsk.

Also, I assert that the concept of your personal "God" thing is objectively real--just as the concept of leprechauns is also objectively real. Your task (which I am certain you will refuse to accept) is to demonstrate in what way leprechauns are verifiably less real than any "God" thing you might posit.

And it's effect is quantifiable. It's properties are describable in a meaningful, verifiable, and useful manner. It has so many things in common with other objectively real things.

Please apply this same logic and explain the multiple universe theory to me.

Why? Why should I accept the multi-verse hypothesis to be an established scientific theory? Besides the fact that you're terribly uncomfortable with the way your Intelligent Design "Theory" is panning out here; why should I do this for you?

While you are at it, please help me understand the M-theory parameters required for reconciliation of Quantum mechanics and string theory with theoretical physics.

Granted that you are desperate to change the subject to one you feel more comfortable with, why should I just agree to do this for you?

Your ignorant use of the adjective infers that just because something is invisible to the human eye, it doesn't exist.

You'll just have to excuse me for not creating a comprehensive inventory of all the properties of verifiable real things that every "God" thing I have been exposed to fails to exhibit, and all the properties those "Gods" share with verifiable imaginary things.

CRICKETS CHIRPING

Yet we know that the wind and gravity are real.

And we have evidence that these various and sundry "God" things--including yours--is not.

CRICKETS CHIRPING

 

[LOki]

Loki explain how life sprang into existence through this invisible method of naturalism ?

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions.--Francis Crick (Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, 1981, p. 88)​

I think I'll go with that. A "perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions."

What Crick doesn't tell you is the odds of carrying out 43 "might haves" in specific order with time constraints. Yeah, cause that doesn't take faith!!!

That's correct it doesn't require any faith.

Whereas your certainty that a "Designer" magicked up everything absolutely does.

Why do you continually mix the religious beliefs presented with rigorous scientific method of ID?? Do you need to use trickery, i.e., intellectual dishonesty to validate your points? This is a strawman if there ever was one!!!

Nonsesnse. Your denial that Intelligent Design Theory is just Creationism dresses in the vocabulary of science is the intellectually dishonest trickery being perpetrated here.

This is great "just so" fairy tale for the origin of the DNA molecule. But can you please explain how the information got there?

"... by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions."

Can you please tell me how a magnetic tape with the encyclopedia Britannica stored on it PHYSICALLY varies from a blank magnetic tape?

I know you'd rather change the subject, but why must I explain how recording heads transfer signal to magnetic tape?

Why do I have to explain AGAIN that DNA cannot be a "code" in the equivocating way you retards insist it is?

Again, you fallaciously mix religion with science. I guess this is natural for you to do, since your TOE does it all the time. But ID theory stands on science alone, not religion.

There is no science going on in Intelligent Design Theory; it is ALL religion.

Because it's a vacuous assertion. It's literally a fairy tale--complete with a central fairy, which was (unimaginatively) declared omnipotent, and (conveniently) not subject to any kind of verification.

I've read the Bible. It demonstrates nothing. The Eddas explain our creator. Pick it up and read it sometime if you want to know Odin.

What makes your God and your creation story in the Bible objectively more real and valid than Odin and the creation story in the Eddas?

the fact it easily reconciled with scientific observation and evidence.

Then do it!

Besides, I asked for an account that was NOT some self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance account of "God."

I didn't quite understand the question. Can you repeat this?

Sure!

 

[LOki]

You are correct. Courts of law cannot be depended on to make declarations about science philosophy. To keep quoting Dover is REALY, REALLY pathetic on evo-fundies part.... REALLY PATHETIC. Why don't you and your Rugged buddy use that mush sloshing around in your head to come up with something better than "the court said so!"??? The court also says it is okay to murder unborn babies but this is a large part of the population that believes this is the worst type of genocide, and extremely EVIL.

"But people [who aren't totally blinded by their metaphysical materialism] understand the difference between the truth standards of knowledge and the truth standards of power."

"First, the new trend in science toward enlisting the political and judicial system to help one side to prevail in a scientific dispute is highly injurious to the health of science itself, to say nothing of the polity, and it must be stopped. If a scientific consensus is so insecure that it has to have its claims imposed on the public by court order—as happened in the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover decision in Pennsylvania with respect to the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution—it can scarcely expect to command the respect of that public, and it forfeits whatever intellectual authority it might otherwise be entitled to. Similar efforts are now afoot to impose an artificial consensus on the subject of climate change. They are equally to be deplored."

"A judge could rule that Einstein is right and the faster-than-light neutrinos are wrong. Or that you can’t teach about them in school. Or whatever. That then becomes the official “truth.”"

When "Our Best Science" Is Not Good Enough

"Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory."--William Dembski (Touchstone Magazine. Volume 12, Issue4: July/August, 1999)​

Is this clear enough? Not only is Intelligent Design just creationism dressed in the vocabulary of science, it is really apparent that Intelligent Design is specifically Christian Creationism dressed up in the vocabulary of science.

Funny. I couldn't find a single source of this quote that wasn't Wiki or an atheist website.

Anyone want to hazard a guess as to the ONE PLACE this jackass just couldn't be bothered to look for this quote?

 

[LOki]

Loki has the right to remain silent, especially when he gets totally owned.

Loki, did you think that by moving the goal posts no one would notice that I have shown you to be entirely inept at understanding components of the TOE. And that I have shown without a doubt the claim I made about evolutionary theory's claims are 100% true, and your false assertion of a strawman argument is another example of your utter and total intellectualy dishonesty. When I made the assertion that the TOE claimed man descended from a single cell organism, or an amoeba like organism, you screamed STRAWMAN!! Did you forget the whole reason I posted up this evidence from Wiki??? It has proven your strawman accusation wrong again and exposed your ignorance. Your distraction technique of yelling strawman when you don't have an answer has thus far failed miserably.

loki, yahweh of mischief, speaking of your primal-facial evidence of your sanctimonious hubris, why have you not responded to the question I posed about abiogenesis? If you have theory which includes a bunch of actual processes, why don't you test it by doing an experiment that produces a living cell?? Oh wait, you mean to tell me your "just so" story isn't falsifiable??? Where did the information in DNA come from?

"Owned." HILARIOUS!

Mr. "Just-so" Story.

 

[LOki]

Loki there is not enough evidence to suggest a theory for the origins of life.

You are wrong. You simply have no basis for making this statement. You have imposed upon yourself an intellectually dishonest denial of the significant validity of select evidence and logically valid arguments that do not conform to, validate, or support your conclusions; you have imposed upon yourself an ontological barrier preventing you from concluding that a Christian Creator is not necessary for the existence of everything you observe; you simply dismiss any verifiable evidence that contradicts your baseless preconceptions, on the basis that such evidence does not support your baseless conclusions.

You have chosen to disqualify yourself from being a valid judge of what constitutes the evidence that supports the theory.

No, I simply made a decision after looking at evidence and the explanations of the evidence.

You have made it unambiguously clear that evidence has no bearing what-so-ever on what you choose to believe.

 

[ima]

I do not dispute this. I think I was very clear that, I have been exposed to literally hundreds of self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of some "God."

WRONG!! ID Theory on the source of information in DNA is none of these.

Really?

If Intelligent Design Theory asserts that change in information leads only to loss of specificity of the information or loss of generality of the information, then it makes a self-contradicting case for both the Designer as well as its design--particularly in light of the demonstrable fact that Intelligent Design Theorists agree that mutation (i.e. genetic mutation) has been observed to increase information in a genome (even if IDT demands such phenomina are useless to NDT) in the well documented instances of micro-evolution.

If Intelligent Design Theory asserts that the source (i.e., their "Designer") of information in DNA (indeed, ALL information) is NOT subject to the theory's assertion that all information must have an intelligent source, then it is making a special-pleading case for the Designer it posits.

If Intelligent Design Theory asserts that the intelligent source of information is self informed; which it necessarily must be in order that information should exist at all, then Intelligent Design Theory is making a question-begging case for the source of information.

If Intelligent Design Theory asserts the necessary existence of an intelligent source of information because Intelligent Design Theorists do not know of, or cannot imagine, a source of information that is not intelligent, then Intelligent Design Theory is making an appeal-to-ignorance case for the source of information.

I am pretty sure the Intelligent Design Theory is at least one of these.

I'm sure you believe I have ignored the "valid scientific arguments" presented by you, but that belief is held in denial of the attention I gave those argument in rebutting them, or linking to rebuttals of them.

The fact that you literally refuse (ad-nauseam) to aknowledge any rebuttals to your arguments, is no evidence at all to support your accusation that I have ignored any valid scientific arguments presented to me.

Happily!

OR ... you could just admit that you believe in magic.

If asshats like you would just (honestly) attribute the whole thing to "magic," you'd find folks like me taking a far less hostile position against your claims.

Q. How do explain the vastness of the known universe and the existence and diversity of life?
A. God made everything using magic.

Q. God? What God? Certainly not this God from your Bible--that thing is riddled with errors of fact! How do you explain that the Bible presumes a flat Earth when in reality it is clearly a sphere? And Geo-centrism; explain the patent geo-centric assertions of Biblical cosmology.
A. Magic. The Earth is unambiguously the center of God's creation, and certainly flat ... it is Satan's evil magic that makes it appear otherwise, so as to help lure the people that God loves away from righteousness. Satan lies, and Spherical-Earth, Helio-centric solar system, and certainly Evolution are all (magical) lies from Satan.

Q. Fine. There is still other weird stuff ... like Noah's Flood. Where did all the water for this flood come from?
A. Magic. Using magic, God flooded the whole world.

Q. What about the lack of evidence that such a flood ever occurred? No single layer of silt deposit featuring all the organisms (including unicorns) created all mixed together, no concurrent flood stories from all the different cultures, etc...
A. Magic. Using magic, God mixed and separated sedimentary layers in an effort to organize and tidy up a little; using magic he also blurred (or just deleted) the memories of different peoples in different places, etc...

Q. Why? Why do that?
A. Because you need to believe in magic, in order for magic to be real.

Q. But that's circular reasoning--question begging--logically invalid. How do you account for that?
A. Logic whatever ... it's magic. It's all magic, all the way around, and all the way down.​

Clearly such honesty would not make you any less of a superstitious retard, but at least you'd be honest.



I didn't move any goal posts. I just respond directly to your dopey moving target--the target that moves to a different subject each and every time I point out your retarded errors of fact, your fatal errors of logic, your disingenuous semantic equivocations, and your lack of integrity in intellectual honesty.

You use this wiki entry to somehow demonstrate that via the TOE I should be able to tell you what single celled organism human beings ultimately evolved from; I point out that your wiki entry does no such thing--because it does no such thing--and you want yo call that a strawman?

You're just hilarious! Do it again!

Just HILARIOUS!

^This is just your wishful thinking talking; it is the kettle calling the clean white china black.

ZERO.

Since you have not directly observed me being being hit in the face (or presented with, in any other manner) a logically valid assertion by you or any of your intellectually and morally deficient tribe, I fail to see how--with any intellectual integrity at all--you fell qualified make this accusation about me.

AND THERE YOU HAVE IT FOLKS!​

A candid admission from the intellectually dishonest superstitious retard's own mouth--failure to substantiate one's position is NOT due to any failure to produce it, but rather UltimateReality's REFUSAL to consider it!

LET'S HAVE A BIG ROUND OF APPLAUSE FOR OUR INTELLECTUALLY AND MORALLY DEFECTIVE WOO-PEDDLER!

You should all consider UltimateReality the definitive example of the intellectual integrity of Intelligent Design proponents.

Look here Pumpkin, considering your candid admission that your a desperate denialist, don't you think that this accusation (as well as all the others) is just a tad self-indicting?

Of course not! That's what denialism is all about!

I should shove it right up your ass where it fits the best.

No Problem.

In that the evidence that supports the theory of evolution demonstrably exists, is what immediately comes to mind.

Why? Particularly since I didn't say your religious beliefs made you lucky. I said that you were lucky that your Intelligent Agent (upper case) is the same intelligent agent identified when Intelligent Design expresses it's goal to "... replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."

Not the same thing.

Perhaps I understood it all to well, and just had a lapse in my disbelief in your reliability in disingenuously framing my point.

And you complain that I should parse your semantics so carefully. Tsk.

Why? Why should I accept the multi-verse hypothesis to be an established scientific theory? Besides the fact that you're terribly uncomfortable with the way your Intelligent Design "Theory" is panning out here; why should I do this for you?

Granted that you are desperate to change the subject to one you feel more comfortable with, why should I just agree to do this for you?

And we have evidence that these various and sundry "God" things--including yours--is not.

CRICKETS CHIRPING

Loki, you need to get a life.

 

[ima]

WRONG!! ID Theory on the source of information in DNA is none of these.

Really?

If Intelligent Design Theory asserts that change in information leads only to loss of specificity of the information or loss of generality of the information, then it makes a self-contradicting case for both the Designer as well as its design--particularly in light of the demonstrable fact that Intelligent Design Theorists agree that mutation (i.e. genetic mutation) has been observed to increase information in a genome (even if IDT demands such phenomina are useless to NDT) in the well documented instances of micro-evolution.

If Intelligent Design Theory asserts that the source (i.e., their "Designer") of information in DNA (indeed, ALL information) is NOT subject to the theory's assertion that all information must have an intelligent source, then it is making a special-pleading case for the Designer it posits.

If Intelligent Design Theory asserts that the intelligent source of information is self informed; which it necessarily must be in order that information should exist at all, then Intelligent Design Theory is making a question-begging case for the source of information.

If Intelligent Design Theory asserts the necessary existence of an intelligent source of information because Intelligent Design Theorists do not know of, or cannot imagine, a source of information that is not intelligent, then Intelligent Design Theory is making an appeal-to-ignorance case for the source of information.

I am pretty sure the Intelligent Design Theory is at least one of these.

I'm sure you believe I have ignored the "valid scientific arguments" presented by you, but that belief is held in denial of the attention I gave those argument in rebutting them, or linking to rebuttals of them.

The fact that you literally refuse (ad-nauseam) to aknowledge any rebuttals to your arguments, is no evidence at all to support your accusation that I have ignored any valid scientific arguments presented to me.

Happily!

OR ... you could just admit that you believe in magic.

If asshats like you would just (honestly) attribute the whole thing to "magic," you'd find folks like me taking a far less hostile position against your claims.

Q. How do explain the vastness of the known universe and the existence and diversity of life?
A. God made everything using magic.

Q. God? What God? Certainly not this God from your Bible--that thing is riddled with errors of fact! How do you explain that the Bible presumes a flat Earth when in reality it is clearly a sphere? And Geo-centrism; explain the patent geo-centric assertions of Biblical cosmology.
A. Magic. The Earth is unambiguously the center of God's creation, and certainly flat ... it is Satan's evil magic that makes it appear otherwise, so as to help lure the people that God loves away from righteousness. Satan lies, and Spherical-Earth, Helio-centric solar system, and certainly Evolution are all (magical) lies from Satan.

Q. Fine. There is still other weird stuff ... like Noah's Flood. Where did all the water for this flood come from?
A. Magic. Using magic, God flooded the whole world.

Q. What about the lack of evidence that such a flood ever occurred? No single layer of silt deposit featuring all the organisms (including unicorns) created all mixed together, no concurrent flood stories from all the different cultures, etc...
A. Magic. Using magic, God mixed and separated sedimentary layers in an effort to organize and tidy up a little; using magic he also blurred (or just deleted) the memories of different peoples in different places, etc...

Q. Why? Why do that?
A. Because you need to believe in magic, in order for magic to be real.

Q. But that's circular reasoning--question begging--logically invalid. How do you account for that?
A. Logic whatever ... it's magic. It's all magic, all the way around, and all the way down.​

Clearly such honesty would not make you any less of a superstitious retard, but at least you'd be honest.



I didn't move any goal posts. I just respond directly to your dopey moving target--the target that moves to a different subject each and every time I point out your retarded errors of fact, your fatal errors of logic, your disingenuous semantic equivocations, and your lack of integrity in intellectual honesty.

You use this wiki entry to somehow demonstrate that via the TOE I should be able to tell you what single celled organism human beings ultimately evolved from; I point out that your wiki entry does no such thing--because it does no such thing--and you want yo call that a strawman?

You're just hilarious! Do it again!

Just HILARIOUS!

^This is just your wishful thinking talking; it is the kettle calling the clean white china black.

ZERO.

Since you have not directly observed me being being hit in the face (or presented with, in any other manner) a logically valid assertion by you or any of your intellectually and morally deficient tribe, I fail to see how--with any intellectual integrity at all--you fell qualified make this accusation about me.

AND THERE YOU HAVE IT FOLKS!​

A candid admission from the intellectually dishonest superstitious retard's own mouth--failure to substantiate one's position is NOT due to any failure to produce it, but rather UltimateReality's REFUSAL to consider it!

LET'S HAVE A BIG ROUND OF APPLAUSE FOR OUR INTELLECTUALLY AND MORALLY DEFECTIVE WOO-PEDDLER!

You should all consider UltimateReality the definitive example of the intellectual integrity of Intelligent Design proponents.

Look here Pumpkin, considering your candid admission that your a desperate denialist, don't you think that this accusation (as well as all the others) is just a tad self-indicting?

Of course not! That's what denialism is all about!

I should shove it right up your ass where it fits the best.

No Problem.

In that the evidence that supports the theory of evolution demonstrably exists, is what immediately comes to mind.

Why? Particularly since I didn't say your religious beliefs made you lucky. I said that you were lucky that your Intelligent Agent (upper case) is the same intelligent agent identified when Intelligent Design expresses it's goal to "... replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."

Not the same thing.

Perhaps I understood it all to well, and just had a lapse in my disbelief in your reliability in disingenuously framing my point.

And you complain that I should parse your semantics so carefully. Tsk.

Why? Why should I accept the multi-verse hypothesis to be an established scientific theory? Besides the fact that you're terribly uncomfortable with the way your Intelligent Design "Theory" is panning out here; why should I do this for you?

Granted that you are desperate to change the subject to one you feel more comfortable with, why should I just agree to do this for you?

CRICKETS CHIRPING

Loki, you need to get a life.

Seriously.

 

[Hollie]

Fact and Fiction on Evolution Intelligent design's five favorite myths

Fact and Fiction on Evolution - Reason.com

IDiots delight.


Evolution is just a theory; it's not verifiable or provable, and shouldn't be taught as fact.

Evolution is, in fact, the foundation of the entire science of modern biology and much of modern medicine. No, there is no absolute ''proof" of evolution, but that's not how science works. The evolutionary theory of origin of species is supported by abundant evidence from the fossil record and genetics research—indicating, for instance, that both humans and modern apes are related to primates who lived millions of years ago or that modern birds are related to dinosaurs. And how much scientific evidence is there disproving evolutionary theory ? Zero. Yes, there are many unanswered questions about evolution. But the answer to these questions is more scientific research, not filling the gaps with ''God did it."



Opponents of intelligent design are intolerant, closed -minded ''Darwinian fundamentalists" who don't want to allow alternative viewpoints in the classroom. If their position is so strong, what are they afraid of?

Opponents of intelligent design don't want science classrooms to become a platform for pseudoscience. Would it be intolerant for high school health classes to exclude material about the healing power of pyramids or about demonic possession as a cause of mental illness ? Is it intolerant not to teach Holocaust denial in history classes ?



One thing that worries scientists and champions of science is that acceptance of intelligent design will undermine students' understanding of the scientific method itself. And those worries aren't groundless. Here's what conservative columnist Tony Snow says in support of teaching intelligent design: ''ID is useful largely because it punctures the myth of scientific invincibility, while providing a basis for promoting the cause of 'hard' science. . . . Let science teachers tell kids that science is a matter of inspired guesswork, not of invincible decree." Of course, no true scientist believes science is ''invincible"; scientific research is all about trial and error. But the notion that science is ''inspired guesswork" merely promotes scientific illiteracy and irrationalism.


The science establishment opposes intelligent design because it doesn't want challenges to the status quo.

This argument shows a fundamental lack of understanding of how science works. Scientific hypotheses are constantly challenged, revised, and even disproved. For every scientist invested in the prevailing ''orthodoxy," there are probably at least 10 who would love nothing more than to revolutionize their field. But the status quo must be challenged through scientific inquiry, not wishful thinking.


Intelligent design is a science -based challenge to evolution.

The words of intelligent-design champions themselves leave no doubt that their motivation is religious, not scientific. A good overview of the topic is given by University of Chicago professor Jerry Coyne in the August 22 New Republic. Coyne quotes mathematician William Dembski, one of the much -vaunted ''real scientists" who champion intelligent design: ''At a fundamental level . . . what drives me in this is that I think God's glory is being robbed by these naturalistic approaches to biological evolution, creation, the origin of the world."


Darwinism is a vehicle for atheism and materialism.

Newsflash: Charles Darwin was a Christian. The Roman Catholic Church, the United Methodist Church, the Episcopal Church, the Lutheran World Federation, and the Central Conference of American Rabbis have all issued statements that evolutionary science is not incompatible with the basic tenets of religious faith. In Catholic schools, evolution has been taught for years, with no fuss, as part of the science curriculum.

 

[UltimateReality]

I do not dispute this. I think I was very clear that, I have been exposed to literally hundreds of self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of some "God."

WRONG!! ID Theory on the source of information in DNA is none of these.

Really?

If Intelligent Design Theory asserts that change in information leads only to loss of specificity of the information or loss of generality of the information, then it makes a self-contradicting case for both the Designer as well as its design--particularly in light of the demonstrable fact that Intelligent Design Theorists agree that mutation (i.e. genetic mutation) has been observed to increase information in a genome (even if IDT demands such phenomina are useless to NDT) in the well documented instances of micro-evolution.

If Intelligent Design Theory asserts that the source (i.e., their "Designer") of information in DNA (indeed, ALL information) is NOT subject to the theory's assertion that all information must have an intelligent source, then it is making a special-pleading case for the Designer it posits.

If Intelligent Design Theory asserts that the intelligent source of information is self informed; which it necessarily must be in order that information should exist at all, then Intelligent Design Theory is making a question-begging case for the source of information.

If Intelligent Design Theory asserts the necessary existence of an intelligent source of information because Intelligent Design Theorists do not know of, or cannot imagine, a source of information that is not intelligent, then Intelligent Design Theory is making an appeal-to-ignorance case for the source of information.

I am pretty sure the Intelligent Design Theory is at least one of these.

I'm sure you believe I have ignored the "valid scientific arguments" presented by you, but that belief is held in denial of the attention I gave those argument in rebutting them, or linking to rebuttals of them.

The fact that you literally refuse (ad-nauseam) to aknowledge any rebuttals to your arguments, is no evidence at all to support your accusation that I have ignored any valid scientific arguments presented to me.

Happily!

OR ... you could just admit that you believe in magic.

If asshats like you would just (honestly) attribute the whole thing to "magic," you'd find folks like me taking a far less hostile position against your claims.

Q. How do explain the vastness of the known universe and the existence and diversity of life?
A. God made everything using magic.

Q. God? What God? Certainly not this God from your Bible--that thing is riddled with errors of fact! How do you explain that the Bible presumes a flat Earth when in reality it is clearly a sphere? And Geo-centrism; explain the patent geo-centric assertions of Biblical cosmology.
A. Magic. The Earth is unambiguously the center of God's creation, and certainly flat ... it is Satan's evil magic that makes it appear otherwise, so as to help lure the people that God loves away from righteousness. Satan lies, and Spherical-Earth, Helio-centric solar system, and certainly Evolution are all (magical) lies from Satan.

Q. Fine. There is still other weird stuff ... like Noah's Flood. Where did all the water for this flood come from?
A. Magic. Using magic, God flooded the whole world.

Q. What about the lack of evidence that such a flood ever occurred? No single layer of silt deposit featuring all the organisms (including unicorns) created all mixed together, no concurrent flood stories from all the different cultures, etc...
A. Magic. Using magic, God mixed and separated sedimentary layers in an effort to organize and tidy up a little; using magic he also blurred (or just deleted) the memories of different peoples in different places, etc...

Q. Why? Why do that?
A. Because you need to believe in magic, in order for magic to be real.

Q. But that's circular reasoning--question begging--logically invalid. How do you account for that?
A. Logic whatever ... it's magic. It's all magic, all the way around, and all the way down.​

Clearly such honesty would not make you any less of a superstitious retard, but at least you'd be honest.



I didn't move any goal posts. I just respond directly to your dopey moving target--the target that moves to a different subject each and every time I point out your retarded errors of fact, your fatal errors of logic, your disingenuous semantic equivocations, and your lack of integrity in intellectual honesty.

You use this wiki entry to somehow demonstrate that via the TOE I should be able to tell you what single celled organism human beings ultimately evolved from; I point out that your wiki entry does no such thing--because it does no such thing--and you want yo call that a strawman?

You're just hilarious! Do it again!

Just HILARIOUS!

^This is just your wishful thinking talking; it is the kettle calling the clean white china black.

ZERO.

Since you have not directly observed me being being hit in the face (or presented with, in any other manner) a logically valid assertion by you or any of your intellectually and morally deficient tribe, I fail to see how--with any intellectual integrity at all--you fell qualified make this accusation about me.

AND THERE YOU HAVE IT FOLKS!​

A candid admission from the intellectually dishonest superstitious retard's own mouth--failure to substantiate one's position is NOT due to any failure to produce it, but rather UltimateReality's REFUSAL to consider it!

LET'S HAVE A BIG ROUND OF APPLAUSE FOR OUR INTELLECTUALLY AND MORALLY DEFECTIVE WOO-PEDDLER!

You should all consider UltimateReality the definitive example of the intellectual integrity of Intelligent Design proponents.

Look here Pumpkin, considering your candid admission that your a desperate denialist, don't you think that this accusation (as well as all the others) is just a tad self-indicting?

Of course not! That's what denialism is all about!

I should shove it right up your ass where it fits the best.

No Problem.

In that the evidence that supports the theory of evolution demonstrably exists, is what immediately comes to mind.

Why? Particularly since I didn't say your religious beliefs made you lucky. I said that you were lucky that your Intelligent Agent (upper case) is the same intelligent agent identified when Intelligent Design expresses it's goal to "... replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."

Not the same thing.

Perhaps I understood it all to well, and just had a lapse in my disbelief in your reliability in disingenuously framing my point.

And you complain that I should parse your semantics so carefully. Tsk.

Why? Why should I accept the multi-verse hypothesis to be an established scientific theory? Besides the fact that you're terribly uncomfortable with the way your Intelligent Design "Theory" is panning out here; why should I do this for you?

Granted that you are desperate to change the subject to one you feel more comfortable with, why should I just agree to do this for you?

And we have evidence that these various and sundry "God" things--including yours--is not.

CRICKETS CHIRPING

As I have stated in the past, you get the prize for using the most words to say absolutely nothing. You still, after all this time, don't seem to grasp or understand that have invalidated your strawman accusations. All your "much ado about nothing" cannot conceal that fact to anyone with a 3rd grade education who can read. Nice try though.

Also, you have proven time and again you are totally inept at drawing comparisons. The reason I mentioned the multi-universe theory and quantum mechanics is because these are area's of science that can't stay true to the naturalistic and materialistic party line you so vehemently defend. For science to progress, sometimes outside the box thinking is required. What I find interesting is that all of the posters on here who argue against ID prove time and again that it is not science that drives their belief system, but their materialistic belief system that drives their science. These folks never make good scientists because they arrogantly think they already know the outcome before they begin.

Finally, although it has been pointed out to you numerous times, you continue the intellectually dishonest tactic of switching to Creationism in the middle of your argument. You seem totally incapable of distinguishing the differences in the two concepts although they have been explained to you too many times to count. If you want to address your perceived deficiencies in ID Theory, please stick to that. Don't play your intellectually dishonest game of peppering Creationism, which is a religious belief that requires faith, in with your response. This is your typical strawman tactic that you apply when you are losing. I have never argued that the Bible or my religious belief system is anything but that. While I have stated I believe it does not contradict science, I have never made many of the claims you attribute to me in your strawman rebuttals. I think you, like Hollie, are either too stupid, or too intellectually dishonest, to make the distinction between myself and YWC.

 

[Hollie]

WRONG!! ID Theory on the source of information in DNA is none of these.

Really?

If Intelligent Design Theory asserts that change in information leads only to loss of specificity of the information or loss of generality of the information, then it makes a self-contradicting case for both the Designer as well as its design--particularly in light of the demonstrable fact that Intelligent Design Theorists agree that mutation (i.e. genetic mutation) has been observed to increase information in a genome (even if IDT demands such phenomina are useless to NDT) in the well documented instances of micro-evolution.

If Intelligent Design Theory asserts that the source (i.e., their "Designer") of information in DNA (indeed, ALL information) is NOT subject to the theory's assertion that all information must have an intelligent source, then it is making a special-pleading case for the Designer it posits.

If Intelligent Design Theory asserts that the intelligent source of information is self informed; which it necessarily must be in order that information should exist at all, then Intelligent Design Theory is making a question-begging case for the source of information.

If Intelligent Design Theory asserts the necessary existence of an intelligent source of information because Intelligent Design Theorists do not know of, or cannot imagine, a source of information that is not intelligent, then Intelligent Design Theory is making an appeal-to-ignorance case for the source of information.

I am pretty sure the Intelligent Design Theory is at least one of these.

I'm sure you believe I have ignored the "valid scientific arguments" presented by you, but that belief is held in denial of the attention I gave those argument in rebutting them, or linking to rebuttals of them.

The fact that you literally refuse (ad-nauseam) to aknowledge any rebuttals to your arguments, is no evidence at all to support your accusation that I have ignored any valid scientific arguments presented to me.

Happily!

OR ... you could just admit that you believe in magic.

If asshats like you would just (honestly) attribute the whole thing to "magic," you'd find folks like me taking a far less hostile position against your claims.

Q. How do explain the vastness of the known universe and the existence and diversity of life?
A. God made everything using magic.

Q. God? What God? Certainly not this God from your Bible--that thing is riddled with errors of fact! How do you explain that the Bible presumes a flat Earth when in reality it is clearly a sphere? And Geo-centrism; explain the patent geo-centric assertions of Biblical cosmology.
A. Magic. The Earth is unambiguously the center of God's creation, and certainly flat ... it is Satan's evil magic that makes it appear otherwise, so as to help lure the people that God loves away from righteousness. Satan lies, and Spherical-Earth, Helio-centric solar system, and certainly Evolution are all (magical) lies from Satan.

Q. Fine. There is still other weird stuff ... like Noah's Flood. Where did all the water for this flood come from?
A. Magic. Using magic, God flooded the whole world.

Q. What about the lack of evidence that such a flood ever occurred? No single layer of silt deposit featuring all the organisms (including unicorns) created all mixed together, no concurrent flood stories from all the different cultures, etc...
A. Magic. Using magic, God mixed and separated sedimentary layers in an effort to organize and tidy up a little; using magic he also blurred (or just deleted) the memories of different peoples in different places, etc...

Q. Why? Why do that?
A. Because you need to believe in magic, in order for magic to be real.

Q. But that's circular reasoning--question begging--logically invalid. How do you account for that?
A. Logic whatever ... it's magic. It's all magic, all the way around, and all the way down.​

Clearly such honesty would not make you any less of a superstitious retard, but at least you'd be honest.



I didn't move any goal posts. I just respond directly to your dopey moving target--the target that moves to a different subject each and every time I point out your retarded errors of fact, your fatal errors of logic, your disingenuous semantic equivocations, and your lack of integrity in intellectual honesty.

You use this wiki entry to somehow demonstrate that via the TOE I should be able to tell you what single celled organism human beings ultimately evolved from; I point out that your wiki entry does no such thing--because it does no such thing--and you want yo call that a strawman?

You're just hilarious! Do it again!

Just HILARIOUS!

^This is just your wishful thinking talking; it is the kettle calling the clean white china black.

ZERO.

Since you have not directly observed me being being hit in the face (or presented with, in any other manner) a logically valid assertion by you or any of your intellectually and morally deficient tribe, I fail to see how--with any intellectual integrity at all--you fell qualified make this accusation about me.

AND THERE YOU HAVE IT FOLKS!​

A candid admission from the intellectually dishonest superstitious retard's own mouth--failure to substantiate one's position is NOT due to any failure to produce it, but rather UltimateReality's REFUSAL to consider it!

LET'S HAVE A BIG ROUND OF APPLAUSE FOR OUR INTELLECTUALLY AND MORALLY DEFECTIVE WOO-PEDDLER!

You should all consider UltimateReality the definitive example of the intellectual integrity of Intelligent Design proponents.

Look here Pumpkin, considering your candid admission that your a desperate denialist, don't you think that this accusation (as well as all the others) is just a tad self-indicting?

Of course not! That's what denialism is all about!

I should shove it right up your ass where it fits the best.

No Problem.

In that the evidence that supports the theory of evolution demonstrably exists, is what immediately comes to mind.

Why? Particularly since I didn't say your religious beliefs made you lucky. I said that you were lucky that your Intelligent Agent (upper case) is the same intelligent agent identified when Intelligent Design expresses it's goal to "... replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."

Not the same thing.

Perhaps I understood it all to well, and just had a lapse in my disbelief in your reliability in disingenuously framing my point.

And you complain that I should parse your semantics so carefully. Tsk.

Why? Why should I accept the multi-verse hypothesis to be an established scientific theory? Besides the fact that you're terribly uncomfortable with the way your Intelligent Design "Theory" is panning out here; why should I do this for you?

Granted that you are desperate to change the subject to one you feel more comfortable with, why should I just agree to do this for you?

CRICKETS CHIRPING

As I have stated in the past, you get the prize for using the most words to say absolutely nothing. You still, after all this time, don't seem to grasp or understand that have invalidated your strawman accusations. All your much ado about nothing cannot conceal that fact to anyone with a 3rd grade education that can read. Nice try though.

Also, you have proven time and again you are totally inept at drawing comparisons. The reason I mentioned the multi-universe theory and quantum mechanics is because these are area's of science that can't stay true to the naturalistic and materialistic party line you so vehemently defend. For science to progress, sometimes outside the box thinking is required. What I find interesting is that all of the posters on here who argue against ID prove time and again that it is not science that drives their belief system, but their materialistic belief system that drives their science. These folks never make good scientists because they arrogantly think they already know the outcome before they begin.

Finally, although it has been pointed out to you numerous times, you continue the intellectually dishonest tactic of switching to Creationism in the middle of your argument. You seem totally incapable of distinguishing the differences in the two concepts although they have been explained to you too many times to count. If you want to address your perceived deficiencies in ID Theory, please stick to that. Don't play your intellectually dishonest game of peppering Creationism, which is a religious belief that requires faith, in with your response. This is your typical strawman tactic that you apply when you are losing. I have never argued that the Bible or my religious belief system is anything but that. While I have stated I believe it does not contradict science, I have never made many of the claims you attribute to me in your strawman rebuttals. I think you, like Hollie, are either too stupid, or too intellectually dishonest, to make the distinction between myself and YWC.

And the creationist continues to stalk me

 

[UltimateReality]

Quote: Originally Posted by LOki
"This appears to be consistent with the evidence. However, I fail to see that the Theory of Evolution is a theory of the identity of the common ancestor of all life."

Strawman.

So typical of Loki to deny this is a strawman argument. He cannot go back and find any quote where I claimed that the TOE is a theory of the identity of the common ancestor. This is more of his intellectual dishonesty and trickery. He knows good and well that I know this is not a main tenet of evolutionary theory, but it is certainly a a goal of researchers. TOE researchers are dedicating money and time in an attempt to prove common ancestry and one of the goals of that research would be to identify genetically, the Last Universal Ancestor for as far back as the evidence would lead. In his quote above, he is dishonestly insinuating I have made this claim. I never did. He also dishonestly portrays himself to be confused that my question asking him to identify the single-celled organism is somehow a statement by me. He knows that I knew the answer to he question when I asked it. Researchers have not been able to yet identify a specific single-cell organism they claim all life descended from. But as you have seen demonstrated over and over by Loki in 600 pages, he does not like to be backed in a corner by being asked to respond to a question where the answer is "I don't know". Rather than admit that science, and more importantly, HE doesn't have the answer, he plays the intellectually dishonest game of distraction and fallacy accusation. Either that, or with all his thesaurus supplied flowery language, he really just doesn't get it. Either way, he is either incredibly dishonest or incredibly foolish.

I will not subject myself to his dishonest games anymore after I complete my responses to his current posts. Arguing with fools will merely give you gray hair and to what outcome?

 

[UltimateReality]

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions.--Francis Crick (Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, 1981, p. 88)​

I think I'll go with that. A "perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions."

What Crick doesn't tell you is the odds of carrying out 43 "might haves" in specific order with time constraints. Yeah, cause that doesn't take faith!!!

That's correct it doesn't require any faith.

Whereas your certainty that a "Designer" magicked up everything absolutely does.

Nonsesnse. Your denial that Intelligent Design Theory is just Creationism dresses in the vocabulary of science is the intellectually dishonest trickery being perpetrated here.

"... by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions."

I know you'd rather change the subject, but why must I explain how recording heads transfer signal to magnetic tape?

Why do I have to explain AGAIN that DNA cannot be a "code" in the equivocating way you retards insist it is?

There is no science going on in Intelligent Design Theory; it is ALL religion.

Then do it!

Besides, I asked for an account that was NOT some self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance account of "God."

I didn't quite understand the question. Can you repeat this?

Sure!

Just what have I claimed about the code? It contains Shannon information, but not just Shannon information, but information with specificity. Here, maybe this example will help you understand: Both the following number sequences contain the same amount of Shannon information, 33.2 bytes: 3480397121 and 602 545 1256. However, the first sequence does not specify anything. The second, however, when entered into a telephone keypad, will result in an electronic communication line being opened. You have presented your strawman argument before about the "abstractness" of the English alphabet to argue against DNA "code", which I'm sure you just read on an atheist rebuttal website and you really had no understanding of what you were arguing. ID does not claim what you keep strawmanning about code. It claims DNA contains complex information or Shannon information, but it also claims information that specifies something, which distinguishes it from the gibberish you want to infer "just happened" in the primordial soup.

Your entire post above is quite the joke. Rather than pick up a book like Signature In The Cell and read what claims are being made by ID, you rely on atheist websites for all your information. Your only source of information on the topic is what you have read on the internet. How sad. You will remain hopelessly lost in your ignorance.

 

[UltimateReality]

Loki has the right to remain silent, especially when he gets totally owned.

Loki, did you think that by moving the goal posts no one would notice that I have shown you to be entirely inept at understanding components of the TOE. And that I have shown without a doubt the claim I made about evolutionary theory's claims are 100% true, and your false assertion of a strawman argument is another example of your utter and total intellectualy dishonesty. When I made the assertion that the TOE claimed man descended from a single cell organism, or an amoeba like organism, you screamed STRAWMAN!! Did you forget the whole reason I posted up this evidence from Wiki??? It has proven your strawman accusation wrong again and exposed your ignorance. Your distraction technique of yelling strawman when you don't have an answer has thus far failed miserably.

loki, yahweh of mischief, speaking of your primal-facial evidence of your sanctimonious hubris, why have you not responded to the question I posed about abiogenesis? If you have theory which includes a bunch of actual processes, why don't you test it by doing an experiment that produces a living cell?? Oh wait, you mean to tell me your "just so" story isn't falsifiable??? Where did the information in DNA come from?

"Owned." HILARIOUS!

Mr. "Just-so" Story.

LOL emoticon's do not count as a logical rebuttal.

Please point me to the experiment that uses "ordinary chemical reactions" to produce highly specified molecular machines that not only build proteins, but make incredibly accurate copies of the original information in the information carrying molecule. And while you are at it, please address the enigma of how the very machines that make the copies or build the proteins require the very code they are using to exist in the first place? If there ever was a chicken/egg problem, this is it. I'll be waiting.