Theory of Intelligent Design

[Dennis2]

Infinite Force wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh boy, that one went over your head and I’m not even going to explain to you WHY I used the strata/fossil layers and called it an axiomatic fact for intelligent designer(s). FIGURE IT OUT ON YOUR OWN OR…you can ASSUME that I did not use the definition right. IT’S YOUR PICK, because I really don’t care if you accept or reject what I have to say. I’m not here to convince you nor anyone else.
<quoted text>
ONCE MORE! Re-read my previous post and you will find the answer. I’m not breaking it down into details for you since I speak in simplistic terms.
<quoted text>
Well of course it sounds stupid TO YOU because you didn’t even comprehend what I was trying to get across, and then you compared my explanation with your corrupted example, which is not even close to what I mentioned. YES, I realize how stupid you sound by not being able to comprehend what I was trying to get across to another poster.
<quoted text>
This is funny and all I have to say is dream on because IT IS VERY SIMPLE.
A. Bio-diversity was created by intelligent designer(s).
or
B. Bio-diversity was not created by intelligent designer(s) which demand MACRO-evolution to be the mechanism for different species origins.
It’s that simple and there is no OTHER CHOICES TO CHOOSE FROM. Once again, bio-diversity was either;
A. Designed by intelligent designer(s)
or
B. Not designed and MACRO-evolution would be the mechanism to explain bio-diversity on this planet when it comes to different species origins.

Easiest quiz ever. The answer is B. Which of course invalidates your silly axiom.

[Darwins Stepchild]

Chaz wrote:

<quoted text>
If it's "self evident" then you wouldn't HAVE to look at the strata layers. Do you even know the meanings of the terms you're using?

What you have to understand is that "self-evident" in IF-Speak means it is evident to himself and no one else.a In other words, he just made it up.

[15th Dalai Lama]

Infinite Force wrote:

<quoted text>
..........
Then it is so and Intelligent Design is an axiomatic fact according to the strata/fossil layers in millions of year’s intervals, because if you take MACRO-evolution out of the equation it’s ~self-evident~ that I.D. is correct.
..........

If you take evolution out, it's a fact that you are a fool. Of course no one is debating that.

[Drew Smith]

Infinite Force wrote:

<quoted text>
For pure fun and to expand MY knowledge about I.D.!

How much "knowledge" is there to I.D. other than "God did it"? What actual *theory* does it contain? What does it *explain*? What evidence would refute it?

[Infinite Force]

SupaAFC wrote:

<quoted text>
Argument from incredulity + false dichotomy = fail.

Strata/fossil layers don’t lie and by my model Intelligent Designer(s) exist and this is the reason why we see bio-diversity today.

SupaAFC wrote:

<quoted text>
So in other words, you're ignoring evolution.
Doesn't work that way Farcey. Refute evolution once and for all and earn your Nobel Prize. Pretending it doesn't exist is not a valid refutation.

Remember facts don’t contradict facts? Remember the stromatolites? Remember the pre-zygotic barrier? Remember the law of human bio-genesis? ONE (take your pick) of these four that I mentioned refutes MACRO-evolution easily.

SupaAFC wrote:

<quoted text>
No, you call him God. You've called him God in many threads that I can easily refer to.
Stop lying.

I done caught you in a lie that you are trying to cast on me by putting words in my mouth. Provide evidence when I SAID that GOD is the intelligent designer(s) who created life on planet earth? I’LL BE WAITING BECAUSE I NEVER MADE SUCH A CLAIM and as of now I do not even know if GOD or a higher civilization created us.

SupaAFC wrote:

<quoted text>
Fek's problem with ID, as is any rational person's problem with ID, is the fact that there is no. Frigging. Evidence. You continually change your "arguments" but not your conclusion - that's as a result of YOUR close-mindedness, not his.

It’s called being BIASED and close minded and this is why you and the other evolutionist argue against I.D.

SupaAFC wrote:

<quoted text>
And how the hell does evolution invoke magic? Please, explain that to me.

L.U.C.A (LAST UNIVERSAL COMMON ANCESTOR) that says ONE SPECIES gave birth to ALL SPECIES THAT WE SEE ON PLANET EARTH and in the strata/fossil layers over a 3 + billion year time frame. This is what I call magic.

SupaAFC wrote:

<quoted text>
You are yet to tell us the name of this "school". Just like you never told me the name of your "college university". Sadly for you Farce, the ultimate decision in what gets taught in schools are by the Supreme Court.
Guess who they keep ruling in favour for?

Intelligent Design is already been taught in one public school and I’m pretty sure more will follow this example. So your ruling in favor done hit a dead end when it comes to I.D. hitting public schools because of “Academic Freedom” and here is another state that may start teaching I.D. as well.

“Academic Freedom in Texas”

>>>> http://skepticblog.org/2009/03/23/academic-fr...

[Bob of Quantum-Faith]

Infinite Force wrote:

<quoted text>
Strata/fossil layers don’t lie and by my model Intelligent Designer(s) exist and this is the reason why we see bio-diversity today.

Fossils don't lie.

YOU do, however. ID is a lie.

Infinite Force wrote:

Remember facts don’t contradict facts? Remember the stromatolites? Remember the pre-zygotic barrier? Remember the law of human bio-genesis? ONE (take your pick) of these four that I mentioned refutes MACRO-evolution easily.

Facts don't lie.

YOU do, however. ID is a lie.

Infinite Force wrote:

I done caught you in a lie that you are trying to cast on me by putting words in my mouth. Provide evidence when I SAID that GOD is the intelligent designer(s) who created life on planet earth? I’LL BE WAITING BECAUSE I NEVER MADE SUCH A CLAIM and as of now I do not even know if GOD or a higher civilization created us.

YOU lie.
ID is a lie.

Infinite Force wrote:

It’s called being BIASED and close minded and this is why you and the other evolutionist argue against I.D.

You are both highly biased, and a liar.

ID is a lie.

Infinite Force wrote:

L.U.C.A (LAST UNIVERSAL COMMON ANCESTOR) that says ONE SPECIES gave birth to ALL SPECIES THAT WE SEE ON PLANET EARTH and in the strata/fossil layers over a 3 + billion year time frame. This is what I call magic.

You call that magic, yet you fail to see ID is entirely based on magic...

Irony.

Infinite Force wrote:

Intelligent Design is already been taught in one public school and I’m pretty sure more will follow this example. So your ruling in favor done hit a dead end when it comes to I.D. hitting public schools because of “Academic Freedom” and here is another state that may start teaching I.D. as well.
“Academic Freedom in Texas”
>>>> http://skepticblog.org/2009/03/23/academic-fr...

Public Schools make many mistakes.

They get sued.

They loose.

ID is a lie.

[MikeF]

Infinite Force wrote:

<Intelligent Design is already been taught in one public school and I’m pretty sure more will follow this example.

A school whose name you been asked several times to provide but you haven't. So there's no reason to believe you.

Infinite Force wrote:

So your ruling in favor done hit a dead end when it comes to I.D. hitting public schools because of “Academic Freedom” and here is another state that may start teaching I.D. as well.
“Academic Freedom in Texas”
>>>> http://skepticblog.org/2009/03/23/academic-fr...

Your link argues in favor of evolution.

[Infinite Force]

Drew Smith wrote:

<quoted text>
How much "knowledge" is there to I.D. other than "God did it"?

Start surfing around and read the intelligent design web-sites and you will find a great deal of knowledge that I.D. claim.

Drew Smith wrote:

<quoted text>
What actual *theory* does it contain?

You lost me on this one. Could you please re-phrase this so I can understand what you are talking about?

Drew Smith wrote:

<quoted text>
What does it *explain*?

How bio-diversity got on this planet is for starters and if you want to know more, I encourage you to start visiting I.D. web-sites and listen to what they have to say. You don’t have to accept it, but at least listen to what they have to say.

Drew Smith wrote:

<quoted text>
What evidence would refute it?

The same evidence we used to prove its ~cause~ or you can find new evidence that does not support the cause of I.D. and argue it.

[Infinite Force]

MikeF wrote:

<quoted text>
A school whose name you been asked several times to provide but you haven't. So there's no reason to believe you.

"God or Ape, Louisiana Teachers Get New Handbook to Teach Both"

>>>> http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/266544

MikeF wrote:

<quoted text>
Your link argues in favor of evolution.

The point I was getting across is that Texas is a possible candidate to teach intelligent design alone side with T.O.E, because of “Academic freedom” is in favor of intelligent design.

[MIDutch]

Infinite Force wrote:

<quoted text>
Intelligent Design is already been taught in one public school and I’m pretty sure more will follow this example. So your ruling in favor done hit a dead end when it comes to I.D. hitting public schools because of “Academic Freedom” and here is another state that may start teaching I.D. as well.
“Academic Freedom in Texas”
>>>> http://skepticblog.org/2009/03/23/academic-fr...

Funny that you link to a website that thinks teaching ID in schools is a really STUPID idea.

[MikeF]

Infinite Force wrote:

"God or Ape, Louisiana Teachers Get New Handbook to Teach Both"
>>>> http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/266544

Yeah, well the Louisiana ACLU has already started on that. Stay tuned for "Dover, Part II"

Infinite Force wrote:

The point I was getting across is that Texas is a possible candidate to teach intelligent design alone side with T.O.E, because of “Academic freedom” is in favor of intelligent design.

No argument. We all know 'academic freedom' is bullshit for creationism.

[Drew Smith]

I asked: "How much "knowledge" is there to I.D. other than "God did it"?"

Infinite Force wrote:

Start surfing around and read the intelligent design web-sites and you will find a great deal of knowledge that I.D. claim.

I was asking *you*. Can you provide a specific example of this "knowledge"?

***

I asked: "What actual *theory* does it contain?"

Infinite Force wrote:

You lost me on this one. Could you please re-phrase this so I can understand what you are talking about?

I'm talking about I.D. "theory". In science, theories are designed to explain what we observe. What is the *theory* of I.D.? What already known natural processes does it include as part of its theory?

***

I asked: "What does it *explain*?"

Infinite Force wrote:

How bio-diversity got on this planet is for starters

And what natural process does it propose to explain the biodiversity of Earth?

***

I asked: "What evidence would refute it?"

Infinite Force wrote:

The same evidence we used to prove its ~cause~ or you can find new evidence that does not support the cause of I.D. and argue it.

You don't understand. In order for something to qualify as a theory of science, one must be able to identify something that, if observed, would falsify the theory. I'm asking you to identify an example of something that, if observed, would falsify I.D. Can you provide such an example?

[Noodly James]

Infinite Force wrote:

<quoted text>
“axiomatic adj

Goodie. Therefore since I disagree it is NOT axiomatic now is it? Axiomatic refers to a personal belief. There are no axiomatics in the real world as all it takes is a change in perception to argue the contrary.

Infinite Force wrote:

Then it is so and Intelligent Design is an axiomatic fact

No, it doesn't. You have done nothing but deny evolution. Strata aren't in million year intervals with distinct forms after each. They also have nothing to do with a designer. You are having a problem delineating the difference between what constitutes reality and fantasy, not to mention the definition of science. Taking evolution out doesn't allow you to replace it with a fairy tale. When you have a mechanism and an observable entity performing the mechanism of creating then you will have something. When you can get around the DNA, Developmental Biology, etc then you might be able to approach the concept of evolution.

Infinite Force wrote:

And what might this choice be when you are looking at the I.D. model and MACRO-evolution is out of the equation?

You are incorrect. We got into this before and you kept your goalposts in the Challenger space shuttle. Your expectation for proof is ridiculous. There is plenty of evidence to support evolution. Did your genie create all the different sizes of dogs? Cats? How about ferrets? Again, I want a mechanism and a picture.

Infinite Force wrote:

First of all, you obviously have a problem accepting the I.D. model as it is, because YOU KNOW that it demands Intelligent Designer(s). If you don’t know how to look at another model because of your closed mindedness, then that’s not my problem.

Your problem is that you don't understand the basics of science and that you get angry when people don't agree with you. I would have no issue with a designer if there were a design apparent with a designer, preferably in the act of designing something, instead of a ball of centrally heated mud flying through space around a torch.

Infinite Force wrote:

This double standard shit is getting old. The mechanism that gives rise to biodiversity is either:
A. MACRO-evolution
or
B. Intelligent Design
And this is it. There is no other choice we have to choose from. If B is magic because we can’t observe it DIRECTLY then A is magic because we cannot DIRECTLY observe it either. YOU CANCEL YOURSELF OUT AND YOU DON’T EVEN REALIZE IT.

But we DO observe it. Just look at all the modern dogs. Therefore there is more direct evidence just from fifi than you can even make up for a designer. If the designer were apparent then organisms would be immutable.

Infinite Force wrote:

Whatever and good thing you and your other evolution followers who despises I.D. are not the final decision makers, because I.D. had already hit a school and is being taught and in time it will be in more schools. Thank GOD we don’t let biased two faced hypocrites like you make decisions on which models are employed as a reference and which ones are not.

There I was being nice and look where it got me. Fine. Thank god we don't let ignorant idiots like you define science. Your absolute incompetence when it comes to the scientific method is appalling. You need to learn what science is before you argue against it. Who is two faced? Two faced would signify that I had done anything other than help you expose your idiocy to the web. By followers of evolution you are referring to the scientific establishment. Even your immensely incoherent and baseless ignorance has to accept that the scientific establishment has a better idea about science than you do. This selfsame establishment is the one which claims ID is ridiculous. Therefore you are on the opposite side to that of the experts.

[Noodly James]

MikeF wrote:

<quoted text>
Yeah, well the Louisiana ACLU has already started on that. Stay tuned for "Dover, Part II"
<quoted text>
No argument. We all know 'academic freedom' is bullshit for creationism.

Maybe he should realize that ID can be taught outside of class (in Louisiana)...not in.

[Dogen]

Infinite Force wrote:

<quoted text>
“axiomatic adj 1: evident without proof or argument; "an axiomatic truth"; "we hold these truths to be self-evident" [syn: axiomatic, self-evident,...

No, read the first two words again. This is a statement of belief.

Infinite Force wrote:

<quoted text>
Then it is so and Intelligent Design is an axiomatic fact according to the strata/fossil layers in millions of year’s intervals, because if you take MACRO-evolution out of the equation it’s ~self-evident~ that I.D. is correct.

You're a dunderhead. Can't you think through something like this? In spite of quoting a reasonable definition of axiomatic fact you don't seem to have grasp it very well.

Infinite Force wrote:

<quoted text> MACRO-evolution is not part of the scientific method and neither is it science, therefore it does not require me to make this pseudo-science part of my model when I make my case for I.D.

Are you out of your crack smoking brain? Evolution is the pinnacle of the scientific method. It is the empirically researched theory in the history of science.

Infinite Force wrote:

<quoted text> IT, YOU HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO ACCEPT I.D. AS THE ORIGIN OF BIO-DIVERSITY WHEN LOOKED AT THRU MY LENS (model).

Your lens is opaque. Your model makes sense and does not conform to the scientific method. Your model is confabulated convoluted nonsense.

Infinite Force wrote:

<quoted text>
I’m not being clever

Well, I have to give you that one.

Infinite Force wrote:

<quoted text> The mechanism that gives rise to biodiversity is either:
A. MACRO-evolution
or
B. Intelligent Design

And since we can rule out the latter as being the product of desperate religious delusions we are left with A.

Infinite Force wrote:

<quoted text> B is magic because we can’t observe it DIRECTLY then A is magic because we cannot DIRECTLY observe it either. YOU CANCEL YOURSELF OUT AND YOU DON’T EVEN REALIZE IT.

B. is magic because we cannot observe it AT ALL.
A. is science because we can observe it.

Infinite Force wrote:

<quoted text> Whatever and good thing you and your other evolution followers who despises I.D. are not the final decision makers, because I.D. had already hit a school and is being taught and in time it will be in more schools.

Great. We will always need janitors.

[Dogen]

Chaz wrote:

<quoted text>
That's like saying "if I subtract my friends and family, then it is "self evident" that Santa Claus is the person who left all those gifts for me under the Christmas tree".
You realize how stupid that is, right?

No, he has no clue.

[Dogen]

Infinite Force wrote:

<quoted text>
called it an axiomatic fact for intelligent designer(s). FIGURE IT OUT ON YOUR OWN OR…you can ASSUME that I did not use the definition right.

Well, if you have to "call it" then you did not use the definition right. Huge surprise.

Infinite Force wrote:

<quoted text>
I’m not here to convince you nor anyone else.

On that subject, why are you here?

To make yourself look foolish?
If so then you are doing well.

A cry for help?
Heard but we are really not in a position to do anything. Call 911 and tell them you are having paranoid delusions.

Do demonstrate how illogical and irrational religious can be?
For this you are doing very well indeed.

If you are here for any other reason then you are probably failing.

Infinite Force wrote:

<quoted text> Well of course it sounds stupid TO YOU because you didn’t even comprehend what I was trying to get across, and then you compared my explanation with your corrupted example, which is not even close to what I mentioned.

It is difficult to understand psychosis beliefs from any frame of reference besides themselves. No amount of explaining will help you or us. We might as well be living on different worlds.

Good luck on your search for e.t. and the yeti. And I hope we do not interfere with your view of Venus.

[Dogen]

Infinite Force wrote:

<quoted text>
"God or Ape, Louisiana Teachers Get New Handbook to Teach Both"
>>>> http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/266544
<quoted text>
The point I was getting across is that Texas is a possible candidate to teach intelligent design alone side with T.O.E, because of “Academic freedom” is in favor of intelligent design.

“Academic freedom” by your definition is in favor of teaching pig latin as an alternative to english.

But to be fair, pig latin could be used as a language. I.D. could never be used as science.

[Infinite Force]

Noodly James wrote:

<quoted text>
Goodie. Therefore since I disagree it is NOT axiomatic now is it? Axiomatic refers to a personal belief. There are no axiomatics in the real world as all it takes is a change in perception to argue the contrary.
<quoted text>
No, it doesn't. You have done nothing but deny evolution. Strata aren't in million year intervals with distinct forms after each. They also have nothing to do with a designer. You are having a problem delineating the difference between what constitutes reality and fantasy, not to mention the definition of science. Taking evolution out doesn't allow you to replace it with a fairy tale. When you have a mechanism and an observable entity performing the mechanism of creating then you will have something. When you can get around the DNA, Developmental Biology, etc then you might be able to approach the concept of evolution.
<quoted text>
You are incorrect. We got into this before and you kept your goalposts in the Challenger space shuttle. Your expectation for proof is ridiculous. There is plenty of evidence to support evolution. Did your genie create all the different sizes of dogs? Cats? How about ferrets? Again, I want a mechanism and a picture.
<quoted text>
Your problem is that you don't understand the basics of science and that you get angry when people don't agree with you. I would have no issue with a designer if there were a design apparent with a designer, preferably in the act of designing something, instead of a ball of centrally heated mud flying through space around a torch.
<quoted text>
But we DO observe it. Just look at all the modern dogs. Therefore there is more direct evidence just from fifi than you can even make up for a designer. If the designer were apparent then organisms would be immutable.
<quoted text>
There I was being nice and look where it got me. Fine. Thank god we don't let ignorant idiots like you define science. Your absolute incompetence when it comes to the scientific method is appalling. You need to learn what science is before you argue against it. Who is two faced? Two faced would signify that I had done anything other than help you expose your idiocy to the web. By followers of evolution you are referring to the scientific establishment. Even your immensely incoherent and baseless ignorance has to accept that the scientific establishment has a better idea about science than you do. This selfsame establishment is the one which claims ID is ridiculous. Therefore you are on the opposite side to that of the experts.

I'm throwing in the white towel with you because this is beyond stupid.

[Infinite Force]

Dogen wrote:

<quoted text>
“Academic freedom” by your definition is in favor of teaching pig latin as an alternative to english.
But to be fair, pig latin could be used as a language. I.D. could never be used as science.

Your opinion does not matter to me.