T1B

Diogenes wrote:Mental migets often laugh at what they can't comprehend.

Yup... either that, or figure it has to be the work of some big powerful dude who lives in the sky.


Of course, mental midgets also laugh at other things they can't comprehend... like forming coherent sentences with the language someone once attempted to teach them.

Felix wrote:

Diogenes wrote:Mental migets often laugh at what they can't comprehend.

so because I refuse to believe what you believe (and I'm not sure what that is exactly), I'm a mental midget?

No, that would be because you can't grasp the first thing I'm saying here.

Diogenes wrote:Consider it devolution in action. Still more likely than speciation due to undirected natural causes or abiogenesis.

Simply put, there is no evidence for either of these propositions, and that there is a higher likelyhood based upon the observable nature of the universe that there was intelligent design guiding the genesis and development of life.

I have no problem with Darwin's theories as far as the mechanism behind this, but they in and of themselves fall short. I have no problem with either a literal or symbolic reading of Genesis. ID is not creationism. It doesn't deal with the nature of how or by what the universe was designed, as that is unknowable and unprovable. Just with observable phenomena, and the probability of everything we see around us coming into being by random chance.


And for the record, I don't give a rat's ass how many typos are in this post.

Get a life, spellcheck bitches.

Diogenes wrote: No, that would be because you can't grasp the first thing I'm saying here

sure I can, you believe we were created by some omnipotent being that requires humans to spend their entire lives being repentant for something they had nothing to do with....and if you don't, God will wreak havoc......is that about it

ID is not creationism.

now you're just being silly.....

The real problem here is you actually believe the shit written in the old testament.

People living to 900 plus years old? With the bible, it's no problem. It's unprovable.

D O G - G O D

Hmm. You might have something there. We could form a canine cult.

Felix wrote:

Diogenes wrote: No, that would be because you can't grasp the first thing I'm saying here

sure I can, you believe we were created by some omnipotent being that requires humans to spend their entire lives being repentant for something they had nothing to do with....and if you don't, God will wreak havoc......is that about it

ID is not creationism.

now you're just being silly.....

No. And No.

Mister Bushice wrote:The real problem here is you actually believe the shit written in the old testament.

People living to 900 plus years old? With the bible, it's no problem. It's unprovable.

it's not unprovable if you're willing to suspend all reasonability and rational thought.....

Mister Bushice wrote:The real problem here is you actually believe the shit written in the old testament.

People living to 900 plus years old? With the bible, it's no problem. It's unprovable.

So is the dogma passed off as 'science' in our public schools.

And like I said, the 900 years could be symbolic. Or literal.

Either way, it has nothing to do with ID.

Felix wrote:

Mister Bushice wrote:The real problem here is you actually believe the shit written in the old testament.

People living to 900 plus years old? With the bible, it's no problem. It's unprovable.

it's not unprovable if you're willing to suspend all reasonability and rational thought.....

Kind of like abiogenesis?

Diogenes wrote:
Kind of like abiogenesis?

given what we know of the evolution of the earth, abiogenesis is much easier to fathom than some omnipotent designer......

but hey bud, whatever floats your boat.....

Thanks to it being the end of the 3rd marking quarter, I really don't have (and recently haven't had) the time to get involved in the umpteenth crypto-creationist....errr....ID debate. I'm hip-deep in grading labs and calculating AP Bio test grades, but the virtual REEK of stupidity and dishonesty from Dio's pro-ID posts have oozed out my computer and demanded a quick drive-by:

First off, at the infamous Dover ID trial of 2005, it was conclusively shown that:

- "Of Pandas and People," a book recommended as an ID text by the Discovery Institute, was actually a creationist text in which the words God and Creator were given the "Find/Replace" treatment and replaced with "intelligent designer." This was PROVEN in a court of law after the "smoking gun" of earlier drafts of the text were subpoenaed from the publisher. Hell, they even found copies of poorly-edited proofs in which there were mixes of the two sets of terms. Oops.

- ID proponents like Michael Behe (who is actually a "fellow" for the Discovery Institute) need the qualifications for scientific evidence and experimentation lowered and the definition of science expanded to let ID be called "science." Behe admitted in court that the exact expansion of the definition of "science" that would be needed to allow ID to be considered scientific would also define ASTROLOGY as science. Outstanding. No wonder his colleagues at Lehigh put out a statement distancing himself from the boob.

If you want to read more about the delightful idiocy of the ID crowd, pick up a copy of "Monkey Girl," which describes the Dover ID trial. The "Christian" folks at Dover were shown to be a pack of lying sacks of shit (one guy was freaking caught lying on the stand). You can also google up Judge Jones's decision on the case.

Another good place for more thoughtful info is:

feed://pandasthumb.org/atom.xml

BTW, Dembski is a dissembling sack of crap. His agenda is not scientific, but religious. He blames "Darwinism" for all the evils of the world since 1859 and believes that overthrowing Darwin is the way to bring the world to a nicer place. That nicer place, apparently, justifies the slanders he has attempted vs. Dr. Forrest (read Panda's Thumb site for that), his deliberately misquoting Gould, Dawkins, etc. to further his agenda, and deliberately misrepresenting the nature of science, how science is done, scientific terms, and scientists.

ID, in practice, actually stands for "Intellectually Dishonest". Take for example, Dio's constant deliberate conflation of the topic of abiogenesis and Darwin's theories. They are two separate issues.

But, then again, ID proponents have never been good at either truth or science.

Or even common human decency. When Judge Jones handed down his decision, he and his family received death threats from the "Christian" folks who expected him (as a conservative Christian) to rule in favor of ID. Nice crowd.

Felix wrote:

Diogenes wrote:
Kind of like abiogenesis?

given what we know of the evolution of the earth, abiogenesis is much easier to fathom...

Just because it is the only dogma you can accept or comprehend, doesn't make it any less improbable.

And it isn't science by any streatch of the imagination.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:Darwin

Wasn't he the guy who coined the phrase 'survival of the fittest'?

Most of your diatribe and smears are pretty meaningless and irrelevant but....

Take for example, Dio's constant deliberate conflation of the topic of abiogenesis and Darwin's theories. They are two separate issues.

Link?

I've said repeatedly I have no problems with Darwin's theories as a mechanism for evolution. In fact I seperate them from abiogeensis and random speciation, which were tacked on (and are taught as 'science' in public schools) by his acolytes later.

Diogenes wrote: Just because it is the only dogma you can accept or comprehend, doesn't make it any less improbable.

look bud, calling it "dogma" doesn't make it any less scientific.....maybe you could hook me up to all of the articles by ID people that have been peer reviewed and published in scientific journals

And it isn't science by any streatch of the imagination.

and exactly what is your definition of "science"......

Moving Sale wrote:

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:Darwin

Wasn't he the guy who coined the phrase 'survival of the fittest'?

No. That was Spencer.

top to Bottom, MtLR, Dio

Felix wrote:

Diogenes wrote: And it isn't science by any streatch of the imagination.

and exactly what is your definition of "science"......

If it isn't verifiable, testable, or falsifiable, it isn't science.

You're welcome.

Diogenes wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:Darwin

Wasn't he the guy who coined the phrase 'survival of the fittest'?

No. That was Spencer.

Moving Sale wrote:

Diogenes wrote:

Moving Sale wrote: Wasn't he the guy who coined the phrase 'survival of the fittest'?

No. That was Spencer.

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/340400.html

Diogenes wrote:I've said repeatedly I have no problems with Darwin's theories as a mechanism for evolution. In fact I seperate them from abiogeensis and random speciation, which were tacked on (and are taught as 'science' in public schools) by his acolytes later.[/b]

BZZZZZZZT!!!

Intellectual dishonesty strikes again!

Dio, you MAKE THE REPEATED, SPECIFIC POINT of bringing up abiogenesis whenever evolution gets discussed. You do it deliberately. YOU were the one who threw the topic up. Period. Why? Because it is a typical Dembski/ID tactic to deliberately conflate the issues.

Oh, and trying to pin the blame on "Darwinists" doesn't help you. YOU brought up the topic.

Diogenes wrote: http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/340400.html

Mike,

Your thoughts?

ID strategies:

- keep throwing the "abiogenesis" straw man out there, even though it has nothing to do with evolution.

- keep referring to the modern understanding of naturalism as "Darwinism" so that it sounds like a movement

- make a point of referring to the aforementioned mischaracterization of natural selection as "dogma" to try to put it on equal footing with the purely religious pseudoscience calling itself ID

- deliberately misuse the terms "theory," "law," and "hypothesis." Keep calling ID a "theory" despite the admission by even ID proponents like Dembski and Behe that there are NO peer-reviewed articles, let alone a preponderance of them that grant ID the support required to be called a "theory."

- try to portray scientists as some monolithic, atheistic conspiracy, despite the facts that
1) science is -by its very nature- is a very open process open to debate (and very demanding of evidence and open access), and
2) there are many outspoken Christians who are convinced by natural selection (e.g., Ken Miller and Francis Collins jump immediately to mind). Dawkins is an atheist, but his science in no way was colored by his religious views.

Diogenes wrote:

Felix wrote:

Diogenes wrote: And it isn't science by any streatch of the imagination.

and exactly what is your definition of "science"......

If it isn't verifiable, testable, or falsifiable, it isn't science.

And that's why Judge Jones ruled -correctly- that ID isn't science.

Checkmate, muthafucka!

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:

Diogenes wrote:I've said repeatedly I have no problems with Darwin's theories as a mechanism for evolution. In fact I seperate them from abiogeensis and random speciation, which were tacked on (and are taught as 'science' in public schools) by his acolytes later.[/b]

BZZZZZZZT!!!

Intellectual dishonesty strikes again!

Dio, you MAKE THE REPEATED, SPECIFIC POINT of bringing up abiogenesis whenever evolution gets discussed. You do it deliberately. YOU were the one who threw the topic up. Period. Why? Because it is a typical Dembski/ID tactic to deliberately conflate the issues.

The subject at hand is ID, not evolution. The unlikelyhood of abiogenesis occuring is an argument in favor of ID. And I have seperated the two throughout this thread.

But just keep spinning and lying...

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:

Diogenes wrote:

Felix wrote: and exactly what is your definition of "science"......

If it isn't verifiable, testable, or falsifiable, it isn't science.

And that's why Judge Jones ruled -correctly- that ID isn't science.

So you are in favor of omitting talk of abiogenesis and speciation from the public science curriculum.

Good to know.

Diogenes wrote:

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:

Diogenes wrote: If it isn't verifiable, testable, or falsifiable, it isn't science.

And that's why Judge Jones ruled -correctly- that ID isn't science.

So you are in favor of omitting talk of abiogenesis and speciation from the public science curriculum.

Good to know.

What does speciation have to do with abiogenesis?

Oh, wait...that's right.

Nothing. You've conflated the issues again.

"Intellectually dishonest" strikes again.

Diogenes wrote: The unlikelyhood of abiogenesis occuring is an argument in favor of ID. .

No. It isn't. The unlikelyhood of abiogenesis is an argument against abiogenesis, not an argument in favor of anything.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:

Diogenes wrote:

Mike the Lab Rat wrote: And that's why Judge Jones ruled -correctly- that ID isn't science.

So you are in favor of omitting talk of abiogenesis and speciation from the public science curriculum.

Good to know.

What does speciation have to do with abiogenesis?

Oh, wait...that's right.

Nothing. You've conflated the issues again.

I haven't conflated anything. Mearly pointed out that neither of them is science.

Basically, the sum of ID's argument is:

"I don't understand all that hard science stuff...GOD MUSTA DONE IT!"

"What's that? We can't cite "God" in public school science class as a source?"

"Ummmmm..."

"I got it...an 'INTELLIGENT DESIGNER' musta done it! Quick - Lulubell, change the text in "Of Pandas and People!"

"Proof?...I don't need no proof! All you got to know is that them atheistic scientists can't explain it all yet, so the answer has just GOT to be Go...I mean the 'intelligent designer!'"

The fact that anyone would honestly try to shovel this horseshit as science is laughable. Trying to claim that some intelligence MUST have designed stuff " 'cuz it sure do LOOK fancy'" is a freaking childish way to understand the universe. By that logic, the designer MUST have put the stars in the exact position in the sky...'cuz we can see the pretty Big Dipper and Orion. It couldn't possibly be our simplistic perception.

And not particularly useful. Natural selection has at least helped us understand microbiology, antibiotics, ecology. The horseshit called ID is only "useful" in that it makes a bunch of primitive, scientifically-illiterate folks keep their tenuous grip on some overinflated, self-created role for our species in the universe. These people never got over Copernicus.

Tell you what, numbnuts - next flu pandemic, forget the meds and vaccines. Pray. I'll laugh over your festering corpses.

Diogenes wrote:I haven't conflated anything. Mearly pointed out that neither of them is science.

Your judgement might actually mean something if you actually had the slightest inkling of what science is or how it actually works.

But you go ahead and keep read Dembski's website for your "science info." That's been workin' out REALLY well for you so far.

So after misrepresenting what I was saying in three seperate posts, you back your lies up with...

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:

Color me shocked. Not really.

for anybody that cares....three of my favorite websites.....

http://www.talkorigins.org/

http://www.icr.org/

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/
(great site-stop by..take a quiz)

And as for the outrageous lie that abiogenesis is "not science" and "not falsifiable," check out:

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/200 ... igins.html

If you want to check out the guy's lab:

Here's Jack Szostak's lab website

Yeah, Dio, I pretty much did accuse you of not knowing shit about science...because you don't.

For example, speciation IS science. It's pretty much ALL that Darwin discussed in "Origins." You remember Darwin, don't you? The guy you claimed that you didn't have a problem with?

All anyone has to do to dispel the lies and misrepresentations of the ID crowd is freaking READ.

Do you HONESTLY think that scientists and science educators have some sort of financial stock in some company (called "Darwin, Inc." or "Abiogenesis Solutions," e.g.) that causes us to all buy into a theory that we ALL know to be seriously flawed and that we're ALL in on some conspiracy to keep evolutionary theory's flaws hushed up? Do you think that vaccines, antibiotics, and ecology decisions were made by pulling stuff out of our asses, since - according to ID folks- Darwin and natural selection are a sham? That we planted fossils, lied about genome research, lied about proteomics, lied about stickleback evolution, lied about transitional forms (that we keep finding, btw...), all to keep some sort of power? Are you REALLY that deluded/nuts/stupid?

Scientists "buy" natural selection and Darwin because it WORKS.

It is the best explanation for what we have seen and has enabled us to make useful predictions. It is supported by genetics, molecular biology, developmental biology, physiology, biochemistry, geology, and physics. Period.

ID is supported by...nothing. As has been pointed out before, claiming that another explanation doesn't work for you does not, in itself, constitute support for ID. Saying that you find abiogenesis "unlikely" is in no way, shape, or form a scientific argument FOR ID. To claim otherwise is a fallacy of "either/or." Show us an intelligent designer, and the science world will gladly put them to the test (and then ask what made IT).

Time to grade more labs.

Oh, and I'm teaching evolution next week...

:D

[edit: fixed a couple of left parentheses symbols that got left as "9's" thanks to my not hitting the shift key...]

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:And as for the outrageous lie that abiogenesis is "not science" and "not falsifiable," check out:

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/200 ... igins.html

If you want to check out the guy's lab:

Here's Jack Szostak's lab website

...and a bunch of other crap.

From the first link...

Whitesides outlined the considerable challenges to be overcome if questions about the origins of life are to be answered. While he said that he believes the field is on the verge of a major breakthrough, he said the pieces known today don't add up to a coherent picture. There are far too many variables, Whitesides said, to be able to apply research like Szostak's to the early Earth and to extend that to other planets, both in our own solar system and those being found orbiting other stars.
Still, he said, now is a good time for such an initiative to begin work. Analytic methods have been greatly sped up by modern technology, and knowledge has advanced in related subjects such as metabolism and understanding the conditions on the early Earth.

Despite the knowledge accumulating as chemists work from the molecule up and as biologists work from the organism down, the central question of how life first arose is not going to yield its secrets easily, Whitesides said.

The way of the universe is to go from order to chaos, he said, but on the occasion when life was created, that was reversed and the universe went from chaos to order. Finding the answer will take input from a wide variety of fields.

In other words: they haven't demonstrated shit yet, and the entire theory defies entropy

From the second...

Application of the

principles of in vitro selection and directed evolution

to peptides and proteins is a powerful tool for investigating protein function and structure and for obtaining insight into the pathways by which enzymes evolve in nature.

...directed evolution?

Not quite the gospel you have been preaching.

Another swing and miss.

Just keep spinning and lying, though. It's rather comical.

mvscal wrote:

Diogenes wrote: The unlikelyhood of abiogenesis occuring is an argument in favor of ID.

ID is impossible without abiogenesis.

I have been pretty much ignoring your idiocy but...

Possibly the stupidest thing you have posted to date.

And that's saying a lot.

88 wrote:Your argument is very stupid. Just because something is complex does not mean that had to have been assembled by a "divine" supernatural force. If you had never heard of a computer chip, and I brought you one and said it had millions of active devices intricately arrayed in multiple interconnected layers in a package that was about the size of a quarter, you'd say something that complex could only have been created by God.

No, I wouldn't. And neither would the average ID supporter.

But We would say that it is likely that someone actually designed the thing. Whereas you would of course say that it came together on it's own by a random chance of various molecules bumping into each other. And if said chip contained software that allowed it to function, just another simultaneous coincidence.

Thanks for the analogy. Feel free to remove your boot from your ass anytime.

88 wrote:

Diogenes wrote:

88 wrote:Your argument is very stupid. Just because something is complex does not mean that had to have been assembled by a "divine" supernatural force. If you had never heard of a computer chip, and I brought you one and said it had millions of active devices intricately arrayed in multiple interconnected layers in a package that was about the size of a quarter, you'd say something that complex could only have been created by God.

No, I wouldn't. And neither would the average ID supporter.

But We would say that it is likely that someone actually designed the thing. Whereas you would of course say that it came together on it's own by a random chance of various molecules bumping into each other. And if said chip contained software that allowed it to function, just another simultaneous coincidence.

Thanks for the analogy. Feel free to remove your boot from your ass anytime.

No I wouldn't. I'd know that a life form evolved enough and learned enough to master a portion of its environment sufficient to create that complicated tool.

That's pretty much ID in a nutshell. Welcome aboard.


As far as the rest, ID doesn't speak to that since it only deals with observable phenomena. The rest would be more in the realm of philosophy or theology. Kind of like the dogma about spontaneous biogenesis and random mutations causing speciation.

88 wrote:

Diogenes wrote:

88 wrote: No I wouldn't. I'd know that a life form evolved enough and learned enough to master a portion of its environment sufficient to create that complicated tool.

That's pretty much ID in a nutshell. Welcome aboard.

I see a nut, but I can't find a nutshell.

Unless, of course, you're saying that Intelligent Design means you are permitted to spew any bullshit response that begins with the untestable proposition that man and all of the species that inhabit the planet were "designed" by some supernatural thing and then ends with "and every scientific observation observed by man is proof of ID."

Of course it is you who keeps babbling about 'supernatural beings' (show me any ID site that says that) and I never said anything like the last statement.

Spin on, little top.

88 wrote:I wrote "supernatural thing", not "supernatural being". But what you call it is not important to me.

Proponents of ID theorize that all of the species living on this Earth were designed by some intelligent, "supernatural" thing ...

Link? I am not aware of ID proponents insisting that the design is 'supernatural'. Maybe you could point out where this is the case (aside from anti-ID smear sites).

TIA.

BTW, I don't know who moved this thread here (or why, since ID has nothing to do with religion) but since they did, I split off the "how big of a nutjob is TVO" section into a seperate thread.

http://www.theoneboard.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=26323