Critique of Intelligent Design

[Dagosa]

Clueless person with nothing to back it up! Just rambling about things he can't understand

You’re the one rambling about genes and inorganic molecules…..like you want to sound smart ? Prove it.
Tell us wtf you mean.

 

[Dagosa]

Spinoza and Einstein saw a LOT of evidence and therefore embraced it.

You’re funny….No science illiterate. More Then two people have to supply the evidence. It takes nearly EVERY science research facility in the world dedicated to creationism to come up with the same conclusion….not two fking people science illiterate.
Next, Hannity and Tucker will be your go to. You may think they saw a lot of evidence …..but YOU CAN PRODUCE IT CAN YOU ?

 

[Foxfyre]

You’re funny….No science illiterate. More Then two people have to supply the evidence. It takes nearly EVERY science research facility in the world dedicated to creationism to come up with the same conclusion….not two fking people science illiterate.
Next, Hannity and Tucker will be your go to. You may think they saw a lot…..but YOU CAN PRODUCE IT CAN YOU ?

Have a nice night Dagosa. I'll look for somebody to bounce ideas around with who isn't high on something and is able to read and understand what is being said. You are so far off the tracks here I doubt I could ever pull you back to a coherent thought. Thanks for understanding.

 

[Dagosa]

Have a nice night Dagosa. I'll look for somebody to bounce ideas around with who isn't high on something and is able to read and understand what is being said. You are so far off the tracks here I doubt I could ever pull you back to a coherent thought. Thanks for understanding.

Hint, two people don’t make it science.Sleep on it.

 

[Foxfyre]

Hint, two people don’t make it science.Sleep on it.

I would put the wisdom, knowledge, and scientific understanding of those two people up against what you multiplied by 1000 know. Nor did I mention science in my post. Maybe a remedial course in reading comprehension might help you?

 

[Dagosa]

I would put the wisdom, knowledge, and scientific understanding of those two people up against what you multiplied by 1000 know. Nor did I mention science in my post. Maybe a remedial course in reading comprehension might help you?

Then you’d be wrong. And you didn’t produce anything that they actually said what you claimed. You just claimed it was their science understanding then you say you didn’t mention science. Lunatic speak.

 

[Foxfyre]

Then you’d be wrong. And you didn’t produce anything that they actually said what you claimed. You just claimed it was their science understanding then you say you didn’t mention science. Lunatic speak.

I did not mention science in my post. Again I really think a remedial reading comprehension program, maybe including some reasoning and critical thinking help, might benefit you. Please look into it.

 

[zaangalewa]

I rest my case.

Makes this sentence any sense in the English language? Means this "I can not show a concrete example because I have none. For me it's enough to defame. This satisfies me. Really to learn and really to know something is much too hard." Is such a sentence characterizing you? If so: Why do you write here in "science and technology"?

PS: I understood by the way meanwhile what means: "I rest my case". It means "It is totally clear that I am right and you are wrong - no need to speak about with you". That's a typical anti-philosophical statement of intentional ignorants.

 

[zaangalewa]

Dagosa

The biological process "to fit" means that dies out what not fits. So in case an intelligent species really should exist: Where fits it in? What is the counterpart of this "intelligence"?

 

[Leo123]

How is it even possible to 'understand' evolution? I don't understand creation, but I believe it because it makes sense to me.

Evolution is, obviously organisms evolving from one state, form to another. That is all it is. Nothing complicated to understand. Cells have the ability to replicate over and over. However, there is 0 evidence that a living cell was made out of a primordial soup or lightning etc. Anyone who studies molecules instinctively knows this. A living cell can have millions upon millions of ribosomes along with chains of other molecules that have to be put together in certain patterns and have certain connections, etc. Where do those patterns come from? Where did the ribosome come from? How does it make other molecules line up in certain ways?

Time gap? Lots of time to develop, etc? Nope, ribosomes are only good for a couple hours. That's just the tip of the iceberg in trying to support an evolution theory for the creation of life. Right now, I see intelligent design.

 

[rupol2000]

Creationism has long been refuted by ordinary logic. Nagarjuna did this.
Creationism is a common scam that doesn't care if it is refuted, creationists will continue to act like intrusive advertisers and it will always work for the plebeians

There is no point in arguing about anything with creationists, they should just be put in prison for fraud.

 

[rupol2000]

The “evidence” of creationists is the usual fraudulent sophisms, there are false premises everywhere. For example: “complex systems are created and do not appear on their own, a watchmaker created a watch and God created the universe” - this is one of the “proofs of God”, and here the substitution of a deliberately false premise: complex systems are always created - this is a lie.

This is similar to this sophism:
What you haven’t lost, you have. You didn't lose your horns. So you have horns"
Here the statement “What you have not lost, you have” is a lie, therefore the conclusion is also false.

 

[Dagosa]

Have a nice night Dagosa. I'll look for somebody to bounce ideas around with who isn't high on something and is able to read and understand what is being said. You are so far off the tracks here I doubt I could ever pull you back to a coherent thought. Thanks for understanding.

As long as you use people’s names who are scientists to make your argument sound plausible, you’re going to have to back it up with with a reference. Otherwise, it’s woo woo.

 

[Dagosa]

Makes this sentence any sense in the English language? Means this "I can not show a concrete example because I have none. For me it's enough to defame. This satisfies me. Really to learn and really to know something is much too hard." Is such a sentence characterizing you? If so: Why do you write here in "science and technology"?

PS: I understood by the way meanwhile what means: "I rest my case". It means "It is totally clear that I am right and you are wrong - no need to speak about with you". That's a typical anti-philosophical statement of intentional ignorants.

So you just rewrote your word salad of misused punctuation. You should be doing it more often. Then, you pretend that was how you originally wrote it. How does a bullshit artist live with himself ? Easily...

 

[Dagosa]

So in case an intelligent species really should exist:

The phrase ” in case “, admits you have no evidence. Why make up shit ” just in case”. Just say, “ we don’t know.” Are you afraid ? That’s pretty much what all religions promote, fear.

 

[Woodznutz]

Creationism has long been refuted by ordinary logic. Nagarjuna did this.
Creationism is a common scam that doesn't care if it is refuted, creationists will continue to act like intrusive advertisers and it will always work for the plebeians

There is no point in arguing about anything with creationists, they should just be put in prison for fraud.

So, we should just wait around for stuff to create itself? I need some handles for a dresser I'm making. How long do I have to wait until they 'evolve'?

 

[Woodznutz]

The phrase ” in case “, admits you have no evidence. Why make up shit ” just in case”. Just say, “ we don’t know.” Are you afraid ? That’s pretty much what all religions promote, fear.

We need more fear, shame, and guilt in our thinking. Keeps us on the straight and narrow.

 

[rupol2000]

So, we should just wait around for stuff to create itself? I need some handles for a dresser I'm making. How long do I have to wait until they 'evolve'?

Wait for the almighty god to create a stone that he himself cannot lift.

 

[zaangalewa]

As long as you use people’s names who are scientists to make your argument sound plausible, you’re going to have to back it up with with a reference. Otherwise, it’s woo woo.

The phrase ” in case “, admits you have no evidence. Why make up shit ” just in case”. Just say, “ we don’t know.” Are you afraid ? That’s pretty much what all religions promote, fear.

Perhaps "Science in the ass" will publish this brilliant ideas from a member of the species homo stupidus what have to do nothing with nothing. But who knows? Perhaps the science of stupid nothingness will be a big theme in the next century.

You never heard anything with substance about the real scientific theory of evolution, isn't it? You have not any lousy idea about what the theory of evolution really says and what it not says. But you "know" everyone else is wrong because an allknowing entity like you called "the science" is not able to be wrong.

But the reality in science is another one: Science is wrong on the upside. Science is not able to find out what's really true - but science is able to find out what's currently not wrong. And what's still not wrong is still true.

 

[Seymour Flops]

This thread will develop a critique of intelligent design, otherwise known as religious creationism.

Intelligent Design is not even in the same ballpark with religious creationism. Had to stop reading when the first sentence was a lie.