How does Intelligent Design work?

[betsy]

Take note, Mighty AC and Sleipnier:

Betsy:

You shouldn't be swayed by what I or anybody believe about it - read the whole thing for yourself - and make your own decision by being well-informed.

If you have the horse available - wouldn't take the whole information from the horse's mouth? Or would you just rely on the explanations of others?

Take for example Mighty AC - should you rely on his explanations and rebuttals about DNA, RNA and all the stuffs he's been lecturing us about scientific process - and then it turns out, he doesn't even understand how matter and microbes are proven? Heck, he didn't even know that matter and microbes have already been proven LONG, LONG TIME AGO - and he even asked, how are they proven?

When he got caught, he tried to squirm his way out of it! The flow of the discussion on the topic 15 Questions was straightforward:

betsy: Matter was proven. Microorganisms are proven.

Mighty AC: Life is proven. However, we don't know the origins for either matter or life.

betsy: You said, "the theory of gravity doesn't have to explain the creation of matter and the germ theory doesn't have to explain the creation of microbes. Other theories do that."

Thus I replied to you in that context. Matter and microbes are both proven.

Mighty AC:

How are matter and microbes proven? Please expand.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/22477-15-questions-for-evolutionists/page-8

Take note his first reply: He said life is proven. Did he mention microbes are proven??? He doesn't know where matter came from - and yet science has an explanation. But since the topic prohibits links and sources, you'll just have to take my word for it

He knew he got caught!

Mighty AC's is the kind of second-hand information Canuckstani should run away from! Don't follow Sleipnir who believed on AC's explanation - thus he made gooblydegook remarks about apples!

Edited March 22, 2013 by betsy

[betsy]

Oh, and because Sleipnir supported the reasoning of Mighty AC he therefore relied on Mighty AC's argument - which means of course that Sleipnir most likely didn't know much about microbes and matter!

Thus the eyebrow-raising apple-comment!

So, that strikes them out, scientifically-wise. Philisophically? Don't even try to bring up logic into their statements. You guys review how you reasoned in that other topic. And there's also the question of the capability to understand the explanation/rebutteals/arguments of their opponent(s)- which unfortunately the author of this topic has great problems with. The creation of this topic - along with his insistent redundant questions - is proof enough for that.

Edited March 22, 2013 by betsy

[Mighty AC]

Take for example Mighty AC - should you rely on his explanations and rebuttals about DNA, RNA and all the stuffs he's been lecturing us about scientific process - and then it turns out, he doesn't even understand how matter and microbes are proven? Heck, he didn't even know that matter and microbes have already been proven LONG, LONG TIME AGO - and he even asked, how are they proven?

Betsy, it can be mildly embarrassing to be the last one to get a joke or a concept. However, when you fail to understand something so basic after explanations are given it becomes an uncomfortable, pitying experience for everyone else in the room. I'm not sure if you are intentionally playing clueless or have just honestly missed the point so drastically.

Fortunately, I think very few people have stuck with the 15 questions thread long enough to witness your bewilderment. Unfortunately, you are now advertising it in an additional thread. Anyway, I think we should both lay off the personal jabs for awhile. If you have some actual evidence for ID you want to share, or points about abiogenesis and evolution that you feel I or others haven't adequately addressed feel free to post them.

[GostHacked]

Mighty AC, you should be working with the Bible as your ultimate science text. Without that and using your biblical glasses you are simply not going to be able to converse on the level that Betsy is in. Face it, the likes of you and me and several others here are simply out of our league.

I did manage to watch a few of the videos from Betsy's link and I had a good laugh at the child-like arguments being put forth. Had to clean some Heineken off my monitor once too. The delivery is geared towards children as well. That has been my impression of most of the videos explaining creationism or intelligent design. The croco-duck transitional entity Kirk Cameron and the Banana Man like to put forth is embarrassing for the creationism/ID camp. Saw one bit where he pulled that out and the facilitator and the debaters on the other side all had to hold back their chuckles. Like really? Croco-duck? Can't come up with anything better? Perhaps a banana that fits perfectly in the hand proves that it was designed by god, when the banana has been manipulated by man to the banana we all recognize today.

Not one of the videos touting ID/creationism had had any delivery remotely resembling a conversation between adults. We simply cannot win against that kind of mentality no matter how much logic one throws at it.

[The_Squid]

and then it turns out, he doesn't even understand how matter and

microbes are proven? Heck, he didn't even know that matter and microbes

have already been proven LONG, LONG TIME AGO - and he even asked, how

are they proven?

You are embarrassing yourself with this line of "reasoning" ... stop already... good god!! It was funny at first how bad your comprehension of AC's posts were, but now it's just sad...

[Mighty AC]

Mighty AC, you should be working with the Bible as your ultimate science text. Without that and using your biblical glasses you are simply not going to be able to converse on the level that Betsy is in. Face it, the likes of you and me and several others here are simply out of our league.

I did manage to watch a few of the videos from Betsy's link and I had a good laugh at the child-like arguments being put forth. Had to clean some Heineken off my monitor once too. The delivery is geared towards children as well. That has been my impression of most of the videos explaining creationism or intelligent design.

Ha ha...you're probably right. Maybe getting science information from science sources has been my mistake all along.

Those videos are hilarious but perfect for their audience. The fallacies and half truths they peddle sound very convincing to their scientifically unaware, believers. I do understand why people that don't understand evolution or the scientific process fall for it. It's confusing to them and they trust what religious leaders say.

The part I can't comprehend is why more followers haven't started to question the blatant, very basic falsehoods. How can anyone repeat ludicrous statements like "not a single transitional fossil has been found."? It takes just two minutes to check and falsify claims like that. Why aren't the followers questioning their leaders when they are so frequently and publicly refuted?

[Bonam]

The part I can't comprehend is why more followers haven't started to question the blatant, very basic falsehoods. How can anyone repeat ludicrous statements like "not a single transitional fossil has been found."? It takes just two minutes to check and falsify claims like that. Why aren't the followers questioning their leaders when they are so frequently and publicly refuted?

Many are. That's why religiosity is declining most advanced countries.

[Black Dog]

An inside look at ID in action.

[betsy]

The doo-wap choir in full force! Signs of desperation.....

[BubberMiley]

The doo-wap choir in full force! Signs of desperation.....

What's a doo-wap choir? Is it a choir that sings doo-wop? I think I would like that.

Edited March 23, 2013 by BubberMiley

[betsy]

It has to be tough being a good soldier performing a questionable task. In every single topic the opinions of her heroes are falling and she is forced to dodge more and more questions. I feel some sympathy...it can't be easy to harbour this kind of doubt in her community.

How can you tell?

The microbes exposed you!

I would've just left your revelation stay in that other topic, 15 Questions, but you pursued that line of attack here....so now you've done it!

Edited March 23, 2013 by betsy

[betsy]

You are embarrassing yourself with this line of "reasoning" ... stop already... good god!! It was funny at first how bad your comprehension of AC's posts were, but now it's just sad...

If there's anyone who should be embarrassed, it should be you. Looks like you're the next "revelation!"

If you think I'm trying to be philosophical with what you call, this "line of reasoning," then you ought to think again! I'm just stating what I see and understand from Might AC's statement(s). I'm giving the evidence.

Simple straight forward fact. Evidence. EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. Being an evolutionists you should know about evidence, shouldn't you?

For crying out loud, no wonder you guys are so duped by the evolution propaganda. You can't even recognize an evidence when you actually see one!

Anyway, Mighty AC is trying to squirm out of that, but lo and behold....he really put his foot in his mouth, because here is another evidence about microbes.

Mighty AC

Microbes are far less likely to become fossilized.

Science says these microbe fossils date back billions of years ago, and being the oldest form of life on earth then I'd assume they could also be the oldest fossils. But of course you'll just have to take my words for it - though unfortunately I cannot do the same for you. Or go to the other topic.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/22477-15-questions-for-evolutionists/page-12

Anyway, it just occurred to me....something else doesn't compute to what AC was spouting about in that other topic. So gotta go there.

Edited March 23, 2013 by betsy

[betsy]

See what I mean about getting swayed by other's beliefs, Canuckstani? You're lucky you've been given an actual example right here in your topic....and as if on cue, along came Mighty AC - and his silly statement - offering himself as my visual aid to show you, right after I gave you that advice. Imagine that! Good of him to have reminded me about those blasted microbes.

If we follow logic.....all those who defended and supported Mighty AC's arguments are either in the same boat as Mighty AC - having no clue about microbes or fossils or probably a lot of other science-related stuff - or they opted to sacrifice their credibility by being openly biased and thus getting in the same boat with Mighty AC, or they do not comprehend the arguments/rebuttals being presented.

Having credibility is very important when you engage in a serious discussion or debate. So....I urge you to go to the ID's official website and understand it. You can't knock down or criticize something you don't understand.

Edited March 23, 2013 by betsy

[Canuckistani]

How does Intelligent Design work, Betsy? How do new species appear on earth?

[GostHacked]

Every post is empirical evidence that shows Betsy has no idea what she is talking about.

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2013/03/23/the-tower-that-changed-the-world/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+KenHam+%28Around+the+World+with+Ken+Ham%29

The secular world’s
religion of evolution and millions of years is used by anti-Christians
to suppress the history of ancient times of the Old Testament in an
attempt to “rewrite it.” Sadly, this generation is being taught that
this evolutionary make-believe history (often called “revisionist
history”) is true. This unique book makes sense of the world around us
by utilizing historical research that brings the Bible’s account to
vivid life.

Pre-teens and older will find this new resource to be extremely
helpful for Bible classes, ancient history courses, and apologetics
training. Tower of Babel is an excellent way to connect your ancestry to the Bible

Betsy, you taking pages from the book for apologetics?

[The_Squid]

I'm just stating what I see and understand from Might AC's statement(s).

I know... That's what is so sad. It's amazing that you can so totally miss the meaning of the rather straightforward argument in his posts.

[g_bambino]

It's amazing that you can so totally miss the meaning of the rather straightforward argument in his posts.

Yup. No amount of "doo-wop" mockery and emoticons can cover up that fact. They only highlight it, really.

[ed.: +]

Edited March 24, 2013 by g_bambino

[kimmy]

There's no debate on this issue in the scientific community. The creationists aren't even trying. They have nothing to offer in that arena. They instead target their message to people who simply don't have adequate information to know any better. Children, Joe Six-Pack, grade-school teachers, politicians. They focus on two main themes: falsely claiming that there's a controversy in the first place, and misrepresenting evolution to invent misleading reasons why it doesn't make sense.

Betsy's "top 100 list" is a typical example. Either through malice or ignorance, the author continually misrepresents evolution, natural selection, and makes arguments that might appeal to somebody who doesn't understand the topic but have no actual bearing on the issue.

The good news is that the creationists have overwhelmingly lost this fight.

-k

[betsy]

There's no debate on this issue in the scientific community. The creationists aren't even trying. They have nothing to offer in that arena. They instead target their message to people who simply don't have adequate information to know any better. Children, Joe Six-Pack, grade-school teachers, politicians. They focus on two main themes: falsely claiming that there's a controversy in the first place, and misrepresenting evolution to invent misleading reasons why it doesn't make sense.

Betsy's "top 100 list" is a typical example. Either through malice or ignorance, the author continually misrepresents evolution, natural selection, and makes arguments that might appeal to somebody who doesn't understand the topic but have no actual bearing on the issue.

The good news is that the creationists have overwhelmingly lost this fight.

-k

Canuckstani will take your word for it - since he specifically prohibits anything to validate opinion with reliable sources.

[kimmy]

What qualifies as a reliable source to you? You just cut and pasted a long list of stuff from a guy whose main qualification appears to be that he has a website. Is he a "reliable source"? Are Ken Ham and Kent Hovind "reliable sources"? Is the Discovery Institute a "reliable source"?

-k

[betsy]

What qualifies as a reliable source to you? You just cut and pasted a long list of stuff from a guy whose main qualification appears to be that he has a website. Is he a "reliable source"? Are Ken Ham and Kent Hovind "reliable sources"? Is the Discovery Institute a "reliable source"?

-k

Are we discussing "Things Evolutionists Hate" in this topic? I was referring to his OP. You said:

There's no debate on this issue in the scientific community.

Then I say, too bad you're mis-informed.

The creationists aren't even trying.

Too bad you're mis-informed.

They have nothing to offer in that arena.

Too bad you're mis-informed.

They instead target their message to people who simply don't have adequate information to know any better. Children, Joe Six-Pack, grade-school teachers, politicians.

More like you're describing the evolutionists! Teachers teach evolution in schools. Politicians go along with it, too.

See? You're terribly mis-informed!

They focus on two main themes: falsely claiming that there's a controversy in the first place, and misrepresenting evolution to invent misleading reasons why it doesn't make sense.

Too bad you're mis-informed.

Bingo! That's why Canuckstani - an ardent evolutionist - created this topic and strictly prohibits links and videos, so nobody can shoot down mis-informed evolutionists when they spout their nonsense! Nobody can give links and videos to expose their bs!

I wondered why you'd address "Things Evolutionists Hate" in this topic. Now I know. It's a safe place for an evolutionist to be.

Edited March 24, 2013 by betsy

[g_bambino]

That's why Canuckstani - an ardent evolutionist - created this topic and strictly prohibits links and videos so nobody can shoot down mis-informed evolutionists when they spout their nonsense!

He asked you to explain what you believe regarding the creation, diversification, and evolution of life, without you deflecting to other people's websites and videos, letting them maybe or maybe not explain anything. You've proven you're incabable of doing so; you can't formulate a thought of your own.

[betsy]

He asked you to explain what you believe regarding the creation, diversification, and evolution of life, without you deflecting to other people's websites and videos, letting them maybe or maybe not explain anything. You've proven you're incabable of doing so; you can't formulate a thought of your own.

And all that had been addressed in the other topic he created for me, A Question To betsy. I've given my own opinion too on those in the topic 15 Questions - during my discussion with Mighty AC.

If he - or anyone else who keep being redundant - cannot find the answer on their own from the flow of discussion, and cannot deduce between the lines ....then I can't do anything about it.

DEDUCE - Arrive at (a fact or a conclusion) by reasoning; draw as a logical conclusion; Synonym: gather, infer, derive

I'm not going to babysit him or anyone, and painstakingly explain repeatedly.

This is supposed to be a forum for adults, for crying out loud! If you have problems following the discusssion....then do your homework. Go back and review. Read SLOWLY. Don't skip. Chew on the comments. Analyze it.

bye-bye. Happy re-reading.

Edited March 24, 2013 by betsy

[kimmy]

Are we discussing "Things Evolutionists Hate" in this topic? I was referring to his OP.

And I was referring to your very odd notions of what qualifies as a "reliable source".

Then I say, too bad you're mis-informed.

Too bad you're mis-informed.

Too bad you're mis-informed.

What scientific support is being provided for creationism? What credible scientists are doing work in this field? What makes you think that there's a controversy in the scientific field at all?

More like you're describing the evolutionists! Teachers teach evolution in schools. Politicians go along with it, too.

Evolution is part of the science curriculum because it has scientific value.

But now we have creationists lobbying politicians that the curriculum should "teach the controversy!" as if there were any controversy.

Too bad you're mis-informed.

nuh-uh. I'm rubber and you're glue, it bounces off me and sticks to you.

See? That's why Canuckstani - an ardent evolutionist - created this topic and strictly prohibits links and videos so nobody can shoot down mis-informed evolutionists when they spout their nonsense! Nobody can give links and videos to expose their bs!

I wondered why you'd address "Things Evolutionists Hate" in this topic. Now I know. It's a safe place for an evolutionist to be.

The kind of links you provide expose your own BS. You're willing to believe literally anything as long as it agrees with your beliefs. That you can't even recognize how bad the guy's list is is a damning indictment of how badly informed you are.

-k

[betsy]

And I was referring to your very odd notions of what qualifies as a "reliable source".What scientific support is being provided for creationism? What credible scientists are doing work in this field? What makes you think that there's a controversy in the scientific field at all?Evolution is part of the science curriculum because it has scientific value.

But now we have creationists lobbying politicians that the curriculum should "teach the controversy!" as if there were any controversy.nuh-uh. I'm rubber and you're glue, it bounces off me and sticks to you. :PThe kind of links you provide expose your own BS. You're willing to believe literally anything as long as it agrees with your beliefs. That you can't even recognize how bad the guy's list is is a damning indictment of how badly informed you are.

-k

Whatever, Kimmy. Whatever.

Edited March 24, 2013 by betsy