I have a question for those who hate creationism

[geauxtohell]

To simplify MDR's excellent explanation, Pasteur demonstrated that a sterile environment is incapable of producing life. The stuff of life must be added to it in order for life to form.

His theory I don't believe has ever been successfully challenged.

Why would it be? Pasteur refuted spontaneous generation, which is now seen to be as laughable as believing the Earth is the center of the Universe.

What he did not do was establish Intelligent Design or weigh in on the origins of life in this world.

It was a simple (but important experiment) with straight forwards conclusions. MDR is making claims about Pasteur's work that simply aren't there.

In fairness to Pasteur, at that time mankind was only beginning to understand simple genetic inheritance. We had no understanding of amino acids or nucleotides. There is no way Pasteur could have commented on "The RNA Word" with his work.

In a similar vein, Darwin's proposed mechanism for genetic inheritance was completely goofy. Scientists do the best that they can with the knowledge of he world they have at the time.

Therefore, for MDR to claim that Pasteur's work has any implications for the current debate of abiogenesis is either completely ignorant or just patently dishonest.

 

[geauxtohell]

To simplify MDR's excellent explanation, Pasteur demonstrated that a sterile environment is incapable of producing life. The stuff of life must be added to it in order for life to form.

His theory I don't believe has ever been successfully challenged.

The universe is hardly sterile!

Some of it no doubt is. Some isn't. But no scientific theory exists to explain how the substance of life formed to create an unsterile environment.

That is not true. Here is one such theory:

http://physwww.mcmaster.ca/~higgsp/3D03/OrgelRNAWorld.pdf

Miller and Urey received a noble prize for their work on this question in the 1950s .

 

[Greenbeard]

So you have defined energy as God! Thank you.

Energy cannot be created and exists eternally, not by definition but by repeatable experiment!!!

God as a mere scalar? Sacrilege!

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I've followed this issue for years. Until you showed up, I never met anyone who mentioned Pasteur's work relating to this in the least.

That's because you've been following the evolutionist's narrative for years, which, among other things, confounds the classical rendition of irreducible complexity and its scientific expression as applied to prebiotic chemistry, with Behe's rendition, which is obviously false, a straw man.

Politics? Syllogisms? Analogies? The matter is ultimately one of scientific research, experimentation, and falsification.

There is a whole other world of ID thought out there that has always begun with Pasteur's law for obvious reasons and proceeds accordingly.

On the other hand, the ID establishment is compelled to address the Darwinian notion of a common ancestry as well and that is where most of the energy is focused. Here the matter becomes less scientifically scrutable, as specified complexity and probability are inversely related and are predicated on the methodological naturalism of classical empiricism.

Is it unreasonable to conclude that highly complex and specified biological infrastructures and systems were designed rather than achieved by a mindless, stochastic and ultimately unquantifiable mechanism of natural causality?

No.

Are such calculi scientifically verifiable in any empirical sense?

Maybe. Maybe not. If not today, maybe in the future. If not now, maybe never.

And so the evolutionist will say that the calculi of specified complexity abuse the art of mathematical probability because the mathematician, whether his guesses be reasonable or not, presupposes a set of parameters that cannot be empirically substantiated. So not only is specified complexity as applied to speciation bad science or pseudo science, it's bad math because its calculations allege to show something about reality that may not be true. If the parameters are wrong, the calculation is useless. Think a syllogism whose conclusion is valid because it duly follows from the major and minor premises, but because the premises are absurd, the conclusion, however valid, is not true. So goes the evolutionist's criticism.

But what the evolutionist never tells you is that the parameters of his algorithms are a collection of educated guesses, too, starting with the jumping off points of the supposed incremental processes of complexity, which are calculated on the basis of known outcomes. The mechanisms of the pathways are presupposed, too, and the pathways themselves are in reality unpredictable but for the convenience of the known outcomes. LOL! None of the parameters but the known outcomes can be directly or empirically substantiated.

Are the Darwinian algorithms necessarily unreasonable?

No.

But the evolutionist is merely saying that a known outcome must have necessarily been achieved by a random chain of mutations within a medium of constants because, after all, the various species are here in the forms that they are, and the parameters of the Darwinian algorithms do in fact allow for the processes to arrive at the known destinations. Hence, the outcomes are specified, but not complex in the sense of their derivations.

Ultimately, the evolutionist's characterization of specified complexity is based on his rejection of the methodological naturalism of classical empiricism in favor of a methodological/absolute naturalism, an apriority that might be wrong.

The argument that ID is not scientifically valid with regard to prebiotic chemistry is nothing more than the bigotry of intellectual dishonesty and the blather of political sloganeering.

The argument that ID is not scientifically valid with regard to the history of speciation is arguably true, albeit, only when one disregards the validity of a classical naturalism. In what sense is the construct of a common ancestry scientific other than the fact that a majority of scientists say so as they embrace a metaphysical apriority that begs the question?

 

[geauxtohell]

That's because you've been following the evolutionist's narrative for years, which, among other things, confounds the classical rendition of irreducible complexity and its scientific expression as applied to prebiotic chemistry, with Behe's rendition, which is obviously false, a straw man.

You mean I read actual scientific journals and texts and listen to actual scientists? That would be correct.

Politics? Syllogisms? Analogies? The matter is ultimately one of scientific research, experimentation, and falsification.

There is a whole other world of ID thought out there that has always begun with Pasteur's law for obvious reasons and proceeds accordingly.

On the other hand, the ID establishment is compelled to address the Darwinian notion of a common ancestry as well and that is where most of the energy is focused. Here the matter becomes less scientifically scrutable, as specified complexity and probability are inversely related and are predicated on the methodological naturalism of classical empiricism.

Is it unreasonable to conclude that highly complex and specified biological infrastructures and systems were designed rather than achieved by a mindless, stochastic and ultimately unquantifiable mechanism of natural causality?

No.

Are such calculi scientifically verifiable in any empirical sense?

Maybe. Maybe not. If not today, maybe in the future. If not now, maybe never.

"Maybe. Maybe not."??? That's the whole issue at stake here. As I said, no one is debating the validity of I.D. That is beyond the scope of mankind to settle. We are debating whether or not I.D. can every meet the standards of the scientific method.

Perhaps you should be a little less wishy-washy on this point.

And so the evolutionist will say that the calculi of specified complexity abuse the art of mathematical probability because the mathematician, whether his guesses be reasonable or not, presupposes a set of parameters that cannot be empirically substantiated. So not only is specified complexity as applied to speciation bad science or pseudo science, it's bad math because its calculations allege to show something about reality that may not be true. If the parameters are wrong, the calculation is useless. Think a syllogism whose conclusion is valid because it duly follows from the major and minor premises, but because the premises are absurd, the conclusion, however valid, is not true. So goes the evolutionist's criticism.

But what the evolutionist never tells you is that the parameters of his algorithms are a collection of educated guesses, too, starting with the jumping off points of the supposed incremental processes of complexity, which are calculated on the basis of known outcomes. The mechanisms of the pathways are presupposed, too, and the pathways themselves are in reality unpredictable but for the convenience of the known outcomes. LOL! None of the parameters but the known outcomes can be directly or empirically substantiated.

Are the Darwinian algorithms necessarily unreasonable?

No.

But the evolutionist is merely saying that a known outcome must have necessarily been achieved by a random chain of mutations within a medium of constants because, after all, the various species are here in the forms that they are, and the parameters of the Darwinian algorithms do in fact allow for the processes to arrive at the known destinations. Hence, the outcomes are specified, but not complex in the sense of their derivations.

Ultimately, the evolutionist's characterization of specified complexity is based on his rejection of the methodological naturalism of classical empiricism in favor of a methodological/absolute naturalism, an apriority that might be wrong.

The argument that ID is not scientifically valid with regard to prebiotic chemistry is nothing more than the bigotry of intellectual dishonesty and the blather of political sloganeering.

The argument that ID is not scientifically valid with regard to the history of speciation is arguably true, albeit, only when one disregards the validity of a classical naturalism. In what sense is the construct of a common ancestry scientific other than the fact that a majority of scientists say so as they embrace a metaphysical apriority that begs the question?

Another OPED post by you. Again, if you want to establish I.D. as legitimate, then the onus is on you to provide the scientific evidence for it.

It is not sufficient to simply point out the alleged holes in natural selection.

At some point, you are going to have to make an affirmative debate for your position.

Since Behe is not to be believed, what other published scientist do we turn to do discuss irreducible complexity?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The Pasteurian law of biogenesis, the prevailing theory of biological science,

LMAO. The "prevailing theory"? If any theory can make such a heady claim, it's evolution.

Again, you overstate Pasteur's findings:

CB000: Law of Biogenesis

I have not overstated the findings of his research. You're full of it. You're "LMAO" is bluster. However, I'll allow that the Pasteurian law of biogenesis is the prevailing first principle of biology, while evolutionary theory, albeit, as a matter of majoritism, is the prevailing theory of speciation.

As for your insinuation beyond that, you're lying again!

From the link you provided:

There is no law of biogenesis saying that very primitive life cannot form from increasingly complex molecules.​

I never claimed that the law of biogenesis refutes evolutionary speciation; it refutes spontaneous generation, and in the light of current research in prebiotic chemistry, its ramifications refute abiogenesis as well. It does not address what may or may not have occurred after life began, and I never said it did.

LIAR.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The various monomeric, organic precursors of biological systems do not possess the inherent, self-ordering chemical properties that would enable them, under natural conditions, to formulate the self-replicating components of specified complexity found in living organisms. That theory is falsifiable! Once again, nearly sixty years of abiogenic research necessarily concedes that it's falsifiable. --M. D. Rawlings

How is it falsifiable? It's an opinion. Those that have tried to demonstrate this to be a quantitative statement through experimentation have failed miserably. You could link the papers, but you know I'll link the obvious rebuttals.

Rebuttals? Lies aren't rebuttals. Dissembling isn't a rebuttal. All life comes from life. First you say that the law of biogenesis is based on good research; now you say it isn't falsifiable or real science. Make up your mind. Liar.

In the meantime, here is some reading for you:

http://physwww.mcmaster.ca/~higgsp/3...elRNAWorld.pdf

No. Lair. I've already read that paper. Here's some reading for you: Abiogenesis: The Holy Grail of Atheism. Scroll down to annotation 14 in the text of the article and read down from there. Don't stop until you see why it's all moot: you know, current science, the implications of subsequent research.

Furthermore, that statement is also not the crux of "Intelligent Design".

It most certainly is with regard to prebiotic chemistry. Liar.

Even if it were true, it merely causes problems for the current field of abiogenesis.

It is true, liar. All life comes from life, and until such time research overthrows that axiom, it will remain a scientific fact, liar.

A more valid I.D. hypothesis would be your statement with the caveat "which proves that evolution is guided by an outside force".

That's utter nonsense, liar. Abiogenesis and evolutionary theory are distinct fields. You're confounding them in a pathetic attempt to refute what you can't after insinuating that I don't know the difference, which you know to be a lie, liar.

By the way, you have still yet to show me how that force could be anything other than a supernatural power.

The Pasteurian law of biogenesis and its ramifications with regard to prebiotic chemistry don't address the supernatural nor do they have to. Liar.

And you are an intellectual lightweight.

Liar. LOL! You've been beat all to hell and back again, and so all you have left are lies. Lies don't count for rebuttals, lightweight. Liar.

As I said before, you aren't fooling anyone.

So says the liar.

Maybe you and edthecynic can strike up a career in a sideshow for liars down in Valence Electronville. It would be very entertaining, lots of laughs, just not very informative.

And by the way, why are you still arguing Behe's falsified notion of irreducible complexity and pretending it applies to ID thought universally? Evolutionists and their straw men! LOL!

Liar.

Hey, liar, in his book, Behe acknowledges that he derived his version of the construct from the famous Paleyan and Kantian formulations respectively. Behe coined the term for the construct; he is not the progenitor of the construct, and the classical version, applied by all scientists, evolutionist and ID scientists alike in simulated speciation studies, is not the same thing as his. You're simply exposing your ignorance about the history of ideas. LOL! So I'll chalk that untruth up to ignorance. If you repeat it again, it'll be a lie, 'cause now ya know better. And of course you will repeat it on this or another thread, because that's what you do. Liar.

But wait a minute, I already explained that once before. Never mind, you just lied again.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

That's because you've been following the evolutionist's narrative for years, which, among other things, confounds the classical rendition of irreducible complexity and its scientific expression as applied to prebiotic chemistry, with Behe's rendition, which is obviously false, a straw man.

You mean I read actual scientific journals and texts and listen to actual scientists? That would be correct.

Politics? Syllogisms? Analogies? The matter is ultimately one of scientific research, experimentation, and falsification.

There is a whole other world of ID thought out there that has always begun with Pasteur's law for obvious reasons and proceeds accordingly.

On the other hand, the ID establishment is compelled to address the Darwinian notion of a common ancestry as well and that is where most of the energy is focused. Here the matter becomes less scientifically scrutable, as specified complexity and probability are inversely related and are predicated on the methodological naturalism of classical empiricism.

Is it unreasonable to conclude that highly complex and specified biological infrastructures and systems were designed rather than achieved by a mindless, stochastic and ultimately unquantifiable mechanism of natural causality?

No.

Are such calculi scientifically verifiable in any empirical sense?

Maybe. Maybe not. If not today, maybe in the future. If not now, maybe never.

"Maybe. Maybe not."??? That's the whole issue at stake here. As I said, no one is debating the validity of I.D. That is beyond the scope of mankind to settle. We are debating whether or not I.D. can every meet the standards of the scientific method.

Perhaps you should be a little less wishy-washy on this point.

And so the evolutionist will say that the calculi of specified complexity abuse the art of mathematical probability because the mathematician, whether his guesses be reasonable or not, presupposes a set of parameters that cannot be empirically substantiated. So not only is specified complexity as applied to speciation bad science or pseudo science, it's bad math because its calculations allege to show something about reality that may not be true. If the parameters are wrong, the calculation is useless. Think a syllogism whose conclusion is valid because it duly follows from the major and minor premises, but because the premises are absurd, the conclusion, however valid, is not true. So goes the evolutionist's criticism.

But what the evolutionist never tells you is that the parameters of his algorithms are a collection of educated guesses, too, starting with the jumping off points of the supposed incremental processes of complexity, which are calculated on the basis of known outcomes. The mechanisms of the pathways are presupposed, too, and the pathways themselves are in reality unpredictable but for the convenience of the known outcomes. LOL! None of the parameters but the known outcomes can be directly or empirically substantiated.

Are the Darwinian algorithms necessarily unreasonable?

No.

But the evolutionist is merely saying that a known outcome must have necessarily been achieved by a random chain of mutations within a medium of constants because, after all, the various species are here in the forms that they are, and the parameters of the Darwinian algorithms do in fact allow for the processes to arrive at the known destinations. Hence, the outcomes are specified, but not complex in the sense of their derivations.

Ultimately, the evolutionist's characterization of specified complexity is based on his rejection of the methodological naturalism of classical empiricism in favor of a methodological/absolute naturalism, an apriority that might be wrong.

The argument that ID is not scientifically valid with regard to prebiotic chemistry is nothing more than the bigotry of intellectual dishonesty and the blather of political sloganeering.

The argument that ID is not scientifically valid with regard to the history of speciation is arguably true, albeit, only when one disregards the validity of a classical naturalism. In what sense is the construct of a common ancestry scientific other than the fact that a majority of scientists say so as they embrace a metaphysical apriority that begs the question?

Another OPED post by you. Again, if you want to establish I.D. as legitimate, then the onus is on you to provide the scientific evidence for it.

It is not sufficient to simply point out the alleged holes in natural selection.

At some point, you are going to have to make an affirmative debate for your position.

Since Behe is not to be believed, what other published scientist do we turn to do discuss irreducible complexity?

(1) We agree that Behe's application is false, but it is not the classical version of the construct. Your point is pointless.

(2) Why in the world would I state the matter any other way? I'm not being wishy-washy. That's the state of things. Unlike their application to prebiotic chemistry, the constructs of ID as applied to the history of speciation are difficult to define scientifically. They amount to a rational-mathematical calculation coupled with an analogous methodology of design detection.

(3) Yep. And that's the difference between you and me. I'm honest about the matter, and the typical evolutionist isn't. The problems with evolutionary theory with regard to a supposed common ancestry are more than just holes in its primary mechanism.


You miss the point altogether. Both ID and Darwinism are wish-washy in terms of science when it comes to evaluating something that is ultimately historical in nature. You evolutionists just pretend otherwise, just like you pretend not to understand the scientific validity of irreducible complexity's application to prebiotic chemistry, you know, just like you pretend that I haven't answered your challenge regarding its supposed lack of falsification.

Hence, my new signature, in your face every time you read my posts.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

It becomes a chicken and egg argument anyways.

Even if you want to say "God did it" then where did God come from?

"The video game say "play me."

LOL! That's not a chicken or the egg conundrum. It's the problem of infinite regression. God by definition exists eternally. He has no beginning. He is not a creature. He was not created. He exists.

Which God and why that one?

Because your religious beliefs tell you that is true?

How do you know an intelligent designer didn't design God and put him in charge of our cosmos?

You believe what you believe as an article of faith. That is fine.

It is not a scientific argument though.

Dude, of course we're not discussing science in this instance. That goes without saying. And, no, it has nothing to do with my personal religious beliefs. We are here. Something or another has existed eternally. Something or another was not created.

God or matter, one or the other: the first, the ultimate uncaused, cause, the unmoved, mover. Something or someone that was designed or created by another would not be it.

 

[geauxtohell]

The Pasteurian law of biogenesis, the prevailing theory of biological science,

LMAO. The "prevailing theory"? If any theory can make such a heady claim, it's evolution.

Again, you overstate Pasteur's findings:

CB000: Law of Biogenesis

I have not overstated the findings of his research. You're full of it. You're "LMAO" is bluster. However, I'll allow that the Pasteurian law of biogenesis is the prevailing first principle of biology, while evolutionary theory, albeit, as a matter of majoritism, is the prevailing theory of speciation.

As for your insinuation beyond that, you're lying again!

From the link you provided:

There is no law of biogenesis saying that very primitive life cannot form from increasingly complex molecules.​

I never claimed that the law of biogenesis refutes evolutionary speciation; it refutes spontaneous generation,

No crap. What have I been saying all along?

and in the light of current research in prebiotic chemistry, its ramifications refute abiogenesis as well. It does not address what may or may not have occurred after life began, and I never said it did.

LIAR.

"Ramifications"?

You really are desperate, aren't you? Pasteur's work says nothing about abiogenesis, and I suspect you are smart enough to know that.

If you aren't, read my earlier statements.

Once again, acting like a petulant child only makes you look like the fool you obviously mistake the rest of us for.

You aren't fooling anyone.

 

[geauxtohell]

The various monomeric, organic precursors of biological systems do not possess the inherent, self-ordering chemical properties that would enable them, under natural conditions, to formulate the self-replicating components of specified complexity found in living organisms. That theory is falsifiable! Once again, nearly sixty years of abiogenic research necessarily concedes that it's falsifiable. --M. D. Rawlings

How is it falsifiable? It's an opinion. Those that have tried to demonstrate this to be a quantitative statement through experimentation have failed miserably. You could link the papers, but you know I'll link the obvious rebuttals.

Rebuttals? Lies aren't rebuttals. Dissembling isn't a rebuttal. All life comes from life. First you say that the law of biogenesis is based on good research; now you say it isn't falsifiable or real science. Make up your mind. Liar.




No. Lair. I've already read that paper. Here's some reading for you: Abiogenesis: The Holy Grail of Atheism. Scroll down to annotation 14 in the text of the article and read down from there. Don't stop until you see why it's all moot: you know, current science, the implications of subsequent research.




It most certainly is with regard to prebiotic chemistry. Liar.




It is true, liar. All life comes from life, and until such time research overthrows that axiom, it will remain a scientific fact, liar.




That's utter nonsense, liar. Abiogenesis and evolutionary theory are distinct fields. You're confounding them in a pathetic attempt to refute what you can't after insinuating that I don't know the difference, which you know to be a lie, liar.




The Pasteurian law of biogenesis and its ramifications with regard to prebiotic chemistry don't address the supernatural nor do they have to. Liar.

And you are an intellectual lightweight.

Liar. LOL! You've been beat all to hell and back again, and so all you have left are lies. Lies don't count for rebuttals, lightweight. Liar.

As I said before, you aren't fooling anyone.

So says the liar.

Maybe you and edthecynic can strike up a career in a sideshow for liars down in Valence Electronville. It would be very entertaining, lots of laughs, just not very informative.

And by the way, why are you still arguing Behe's falsified notion of irreducible complexity and pretending it applies to ID thought universally? Evolutionists and their straw men! LOL!

Liar.

Hey, liar, in his book, Behe acknowledges that he derived his version of the construct from the famous Paleyan and Kantian formulations respectively. Behe coined the term for the construct; he is not the progenitor of the construct, and the classical version, applied by all scientists, evolutionist and ID scientists alike in simulated speciation studies, is not the same thing as his. You're simply exposing your ignorance about the history of ideas. LOL! So I'll chalk that untruth up to ignorance. If you repeat it again, it'll be a lie, 'cause now ya know better. And of course you will repeat it on this or another thread, because that's what you do. Liar.

But wait a minute, I already explained that once before. Never mind, you just lied again.

Come back when you are ready to act like an adult. You should save yourself the embarrassment of another temper tantrum/emoticon breakdown. You don't have much credibility left to lose.

Remember, you are still delinquent in offering an explanation that supports I.D. (as opposed to merely arguing against natural selection).

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Come back when you are ready to act like an adult. You should save yourself the embarrassment of another temper tantrum/emoticon breakdown. You don't have much credibility left to lose.

You guys incessantly misrepresent what is written, but I'm the bad guy because I call you out on it. edthecynic even goes so far as to lie about the science, an easy thing to Google. I gave him a chance to correct it, but, no, he chose to brazen it out, suggesting I didn't know what I was talking about.

Pathetic.

Remember, you are still delinquent in offering an explanation that supports I.D. (as opposed to merely arguing against natural selection).

Here's another example. The idea that I've offered nothing in support of ID is absurd, and I've never argued against natural selection. I've argued against the construct of a common ancestry.

Are you stupid or lying? It's one or the other. Since you're not stupid, well, not entirely stupid, you must be lying. I'm a simple man. I stick to the facts and the rules of logic. You don't like facts and logic pisses you off. You try to make me look stupid or dishonest, albeit, by changing my ideas. Do that and I'll hand you your ass in short order. I ain't to be trifled with. You guys just never seem to learn that lesson.

 

[geauxtohell]

You guys incessantly misrepresent what is written, but I'm the bad guy because I call you out on it. edthecynic even goes so far as to lie about the science, an easy thing to Google. I gave him a chance to correct it, but, no, he chose to brazen it out, suggesting I didn't know what I was talking about.

No, you are the "bad guy" because you tend to throw temper tantrums and act like a baby. Then you wonder why we don't take you seriously.

If you are misrepresented, perhaps you should try sticking to a simple message and communicating it in less then 4000 words.

Of course, you'd be lost without your acadmic fluff.

Here's another example. The idea that I've offered nothing in support of ID is absurd, and I've never argued against natural selection. I've argued against the construct of a common ancestry.

Are you stupid or lying? It's one or the other. Since you're not stupid, well, not entirely stupid, you must be lying. I'm a simple man. I stick to the facts and the rules of logic. You don't like facts and logic pisses you off. You try to make me look stupid or dishonest, albeit, by changing my ideas. Do that and I'll hand you your ass in short order. I ain't to be trifled with. You guys just never seem to learn that lesson.

You "ain't to be trifled with"? What are you doing now? Evoking your best R.D. Mercer impression? What in the hell are you going to do? Bore us to death with more banalities? Call us liars (again)? Whip out 4000 laughy emoticons? Call us stupid? Call us fascists?

I suspect you are going to do the only thing you can do, which is what you have been doing all along: sit there and pout.

I haven't tried to make you look stupid or dishonest. You've done a good enough job of that on your own. In fact, I've tried to be cordial in dealing with you. I've attempted to answer your questions. You simply ignore mine.

I don't have any illusions that I am going to change your mind on this issue. That is not my goal. It is nice to discuss this with the poster that understands the issues at hand and can honestly discuss the issue.

You just aren't that person.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

No, you are the "bad guy" because you tend to throw temper tantrums and act like a baby.

Then you wonder why we don't take you seriously.

Oh, shut up. You ninnies have been routed on every point.

Of course, you'd be lost without your acadmic fluff.

You "ain't to be trifled with"? What are you doing now? Evoking your best R.D. Mercer impression?

The satire just flies right over your head. I knew it would.

Call us liars (again)? Whip out 4000 laughy emoticons? Call us stupid? Call us fascists?

You're liars. You're stupid. (Valence Electronville, eh?) You're intellectual fascists and statist leftbots.

 

[geauxtohell]

No, you are the "bad guy" because you tend to throw temper tantrums and act like a baby.

Then you wonder why we don't take you seriously.

Oh, shut up. You ninnies have been routed on every point.

You "ain't to be trifled with"? What are you doing now? Evoking your best R.D. Mercer impression?

The satire just flies right over your head. I knew it would.

Call us liars (again)? Whip out 4000 laughy emoticons? Call us stupid? Call us fascists?

You're liars. You're stupid. (Valence Electronville, eh?) You're intellectual fascists and statist leftbots.

Like I said, you basically provided the expected response.

Good luck with your novel I.D. theory. I am sure you will continue to be disspointed in being ignored by the scientific community. You will probably continue to claim that this is all some sort of "statist" conspiracy and refuse to acknowlege a simple truth:

If you can't adequatley defend your position on a message board, you have no hope in the world of peer review.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

How did the universe come into being?

Opine and Educate me please.

I don't hate creationism, people can believe what they want to believe, there is no law against it. Scientifically they can theorize on a big bang, but not provide hard enough evidence to satisfy those who won't believe it anyway.

Let's face it, and be honest about it, there is no evidence I could provide that would make you believe anything but creationism. Your mind is made up and there is no changing it. That is the problem with debates like this one. All the facts in the world will not change the mind of someone who believes in a creator that cannot be proven exists.

The problem comes in when creationists want creationism taught in public schools. The church is the place to teach religion based creationism. The home is the place to teach religion based creationism. Public schools are not the place to teach religion based creationism.

Provide some facts and we'll see if your right about those of us who think the big bang theory is hogwash will still believe so.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If we believe in freedom of speech and thought, however, those who build and pay for the schools, short of teaching and promoting illegal acts or insurrection, should be able to teach anything they wish. There should be no legal issue.

Of course ID should be taught in public education, just not in the biology classroom.

 

[Moonglow]

How did the universe come into being?

Opine and Educate me please.

Nobody really knows, not even the creationists. That is why the creation myth has never been proven. That is why the creation myth was created by hundreds of societies trying to answer a question that they could not answer with certainty of an educated mind for the future of humankind.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

If you can't adequatley defend your position on a message board. . . .

The Pasteurian law of biogenesis, the prevailing first principle of biological science, states that "all [biological] life comes from [biological] life." Therefore, Intelligent Design states that the various monomeric, organic precursors of biological systems do not possess the inherent, self-ordering chemical properties that would enable them, under natural conditions, to formulate the self-replicating components of specified complexity found in living organisms. Hence, ID's theory of prebiotic chemistry, i.e., the construct of irreducible complexity in scientific terms as applied to prebiotic research. The theory is valid, falsifiable and currently stands.



Are you going to explain how ID's theory of prebiotic chemistry is not scientific or not?

 

[geauxtohell]

If you can't adequatley defend your position on a message board. . . .

The Pasteurian law of biogenesis, the prevailing first principle of biological science, states that "all [biological] life comes from [biological] life." Therefore, Intelligent Design states that the various monomeric, organic precursors of biological systems do not possess the inherent, self-ordering chemical properties that would enable them, under natural conditions, to formulate the self-replicating components of specified complexity found in living organisms. Hence, ID's theory of prebiotic chemistry, i.e., the construct of irreducible complexity in scientific terms as applied to prebiotic research. The theory is valid, falsifiable and currently stands.



Are you going to explain how ID's theory of prebiotic chemistry is not scientific or not?

You'll have to complete the "theory" by telling me how this process occurred if it didn't occur naturally. Again, it's not sufficient for you to simply point at evolution and point out the holes and claim that is proof of your idea. You have to actually propose your own alternative theory.

But sure, I'll play this little game with you.

P.S. You are going to have to do a little better than "some unknown outside force did it".