Are You Intelligently Designed?

Are You Intelligently Designed?

There are 409 comments on the The Capital-Journal story from Oct 23, 2012, titled Are You Intelligently Designed?. In it, The Capital-Journal reports that:

Sometimes, when I'm discussing or debating issues with online atheists, agnostics, and evolutionists, the huge topic of Intelligent Design comes up, and they ask me to explain the Intelligent Design hypothesis to them.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Capital-Journal.

Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#223 Jan 30, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
Nobody in science has the hubris to assume any equation describes reality perfectly, as we have not observed all of reality.
I have witnessed Einstein worship with my very eyes.
http://everythingimportant.org/Einstein_worsh...

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#224 Jan 30, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>So let's take a careful look at the charade practiced by the prancing parrots of evolutionism. Corn shares 66.7% of our cytochrome-c chain. So why aren't middle-school students being told that they are 66.7% indistinguishable from corn?
Because they have more in common with bananas.

Jeeze what a daft question.
Are people made up out of 100% cytochrome-c?(chain)hint hint
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#225 Jan 30, 2013
MAAT wrote:
Jeeze what a daft question.
Are people made up out of 100% cytochrome-c?(chain)hint hint
I appreciate your comment. The daft question was based on the idiotic propaganda that is frequently chanted by evolutionists. Haven't you been reading the slimy writings of Chimney1?
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#226 Jan 30, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
CAN YOU specify a formula to measure fitness?
So typical of a godbot to present arguments he is incapable of resolving himself.
My point is that children can't even be fooled by Chimney1's definition of fitness. It takes years of programming to achieve his level of delusion.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#227 Jan 30, 2013
post 160 and 202 in particular, state the point.

And you might read my links. particularly the one on whatsit page 8 or 9

And it might be helpfull not to go into flaming, but to simply state what you found unconvincing with credible arguements.

We are not just talking cyt-c in primates but in general and that differentiated from the rest of the genome we have in common. And whether that implies concestors. And that populations can recover and do. As in we do not see women suddenly giving birth to mud. Give or take the general timeframe and the oodles of options to recombine that's not about to happen either.

But we are also not going to some 1000 year empire of perfect specimens with weeding out nutters.

Or is that your suggestion to proof the position?

(pointed out that reducing the gene-diversity is exactly what one should not do. Viability of a population depends also on the unexpected, that would never occur if the options were not there.)

So i would say that fitness is amply defined and that several processes lead to a neutral or benificial process for general fitness.

Given all the options weak does not necessarily have to reproduce weak again.
So that eugenic agenda is getting rather on my nerves.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#228 Jan 30, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
He is not even saying that! He is saying that unless we, posting here on this forum, produce the exact mathematical algorithm used to count and estimate the degree of difference between DNA samples, he will do his best to ignore the conclusions.
The joke is, there are different methods used and available, and he knows damned well that so long as one method is used consistently, and shows relative differences in a nested hierarchy that correspond to evolutionary distance, it hardly matters WHICH method. The evidence is the same.
He is trying to bluff his way out, hoping his adversaries are too ignorant to understand this. This is because he is mostly used to lecturing his acolytes on his home site, not dealing with people who know what they are talking about.
Look at how is twisting and turning the experimental evidence that populations recover fitness when natural selection is re-introduced. In case you don't know Sanford (a hero of creationists who developed the idea of inevitable "Genetic Entropy" since the Biblical Fall), this experiment completely demolishes Sanford. And also Shubee, because he has his own pet hypothesis derived from Sanford.
Enjoy. Shubee is more fun than most creatards!
That is becasue Shoo Bee goes full on tard.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#229 Jan 30, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>My point is that children can't even be fooled by Chimney1's definition of fitness. It takes years of programming to achieve his level of delusion.
Wowee! Chimney is kicking your smarmy, lying ass all over the place. Look at what he left you with gutless. You have to resort to name calling because he has chewed your pet hypothesis to pieces.

I have enjoyed watching you twist and turn with every fact he and relevant point he has thrown at you.

I would say keep it up, but I know you will.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#230 Jan 30, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>My point is that children can't even be fooled by Chimney1's definition of fitness. It takes years of programming to achieve his level of delusion.
You project way too much.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#231 Jan 30, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
Look at what he left you with gutless. You have to resort to name calling because he has chewed your pet hypothesis to pieces.
That's very easy to do with unnamed references that rely on bogus methodologies that are based on absurd definitions.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#232 Jan 30, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
The similarity between chimp and human DNA is not in itself evidence of common ancestry. Measuring overall similarity is therefore not the issue, so you offered a straw man.
It certainly is an issue since I've submitted an unanswered challenge.
MIDutch

Sterling Heights, MI

#233 Jan 30, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>I have witnessed Einstein worship with my very eyes.
Yeah. That's why Albert Einstein was living (virtually unknown and laughed at by pretty much everyone who had the misfortune of coming in contact with him) in a cheap apartment behind the Asian market and restaurants strip mall in Richardson, Texas ... and you are considered one of the greatest scientists of all time.

.
.
.

Oh, wait.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#234 Jan 30, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>So let's take a careful look at the charade practiced by the prancing parrots of evolutionism. Corn shares 66.7% of our cytochrome-c chain. So why aren't middle-school students being told that they are 66.7% indistinguishable from corn?
Again you twist. Human and chimp cyt-c is indistinguishable, yet nobody claims the two species are identical.

However, to complete the propaganda, as you claim it is, we do see statements of the general sort you just did. I recall hearing we are x% the same as fish for example (do not remember the figure). So what?

And your whining about propaganda still does not address the issue - Sanford is falsified by experiment.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#235 Jan 30, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>I appreciate your comment. The daft question was based on the idiotic propaganda that is frequently chanted by evolutionists. Haven't you been reading the slimy writings of Chimney1?
You accuse me of slime...yet its you who have blatantly twisted my words at least twice in this discussion, and I do credit you with enough intelligence to know that it was not inadvertent.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#236 Jan 30, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>Even children can understand that your definition of fitness is flawed.
Really? You mean its not perfect, not ideal, not mathematical in its rigor?

Lets see...longevity and fecundity declined 1-3% per generation when natural selection was removed, and it was restored at a similar rate when natural selection was reintroduced. These measures are markers or proxies for general fitness...and remember its SANFORD that made the claim that fitness must be irreversibly declining due to genetic entropy, and it s SANFORD that used longevity as a proxy for fitness, quoting early Biblical figures...

So, genius, if Sanford used an inadequate marker, and experimenal biologists used an inadequate marker, do tell us all what a better, TESTABLE proxy for fitness should be. If you are stumped you should ask these clever hypothetical children that you maintain can do better.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#237 Jan 30, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>It certainly is an issue since I've submitted an unanswered challenge.
I really don't care if it upsets you that people claiming 98% similarity think it matters or proves common ancestry. Anybody interested enough to study biology will find out the real reasons DNA is evidence for common ancestry soon enough.

Similarity at the total genome level is not evidence of common ancestry. So what?

Its the pattern of similarity and differences specifically within pseudogenes, ERVs, and ubiquitous proteins that matter, and can only be reasonably explained by common ancestry.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#238 Jan 30, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>That's very easy to do with unnamed references that rely on bogus methodologies that are based on absurd definitions.
That is what we have been telling you all along and still you plow ahead.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#239 Jan 30, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>It certainly is an issue since I've submitted an unanswered challenge.
I asked you what your credentials are and all I got was a song and dance, side step of the question. At least mine was geared to get down to the facts and not designed as a means to malign others that have shown you to be a dumb ass. To be fair, I figured you might actually answer the question and show yourself off to be that.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#240 Jan 30, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? You mean its not perfect, not ideal, not mathematical in its rigor?
I'm saying that it's so far from perfect that it's downright silly.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#241 Jan 30, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>I'm saying that it's so far from perfect that it's downright silly.
Since you are claiming something is flawed, why don't you try something refreshing and lay it out for us. If it is so easy to explain it shouldn't be hard for a big boy like you.

Afterall, if you can't explain it in simple terms, you probably don't really understand it.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#242 Jan 30, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
And your whining about propaganda still does not address the issue - Sanford is falsified by experiment.
Garbage in; garbage out. Why not start with a realist sense of fitness?

Note that if we were actually debating reality, we would begin by questioning how researchers decide which diseases originate from externalities like environmental pollutants versus genomic decay.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Do alleged ERVs confirm common descent? 2 min Subduction Zone 93
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 4 min Subduction Zone 30,490
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 21 min young voter 3,841
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 39 min Subduction Zone 161,474
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 41 min Dogen 70,501
G-d versus Evolution? 5 hr Al Caplan 33
The Subduction Zone class on Evidence. (Jun '13) 6 hr Out of the Night 78
More from around the web