How does Intelligent Design work?

[g_bambino]

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..

How many times have you tried this copout? I've been following the threads. You didn't answer the question in the way that was requested; you instead, and as usual, directed us to websites to read other people's words.

[kimmy]

Whatever, Kimmy. Whatever.

Typical from you.

You're not capable of identifying what actual science is done by the "intelligent design" movement to support their theories.

You're not capable of recognizing how badly informed the author of your "Things evolutionists hate" list is.

And you're not capable of answering the question that has been posed to you.

You're a propagandist.

-k

[Canuckistani]

If you believe something, you should be able to explain the gist of it in straight forward language. Or as Einstein said, "if you can't explain it to a five year-old, you don't understand it yourself." Betsy doesn't seem to be able to explain her beliefs, needs to use others' words for them. Being a ventriloquist's dummy is no way to grow through life.

I started this topic because I came across the idea in rational wiki - you want to stump and ID person, ask them to explain how it works. I repeat my question, how do new species appear on this earth? When the eye was designed, how did all the new species with eyes get here? Come on Besty, surely you have an answer here. If you have to cheat, just take somebody elses writing and put it in your own words.

[DogOnPorch]

The early Universe reveled in detail. Apparently celestial south is cooler than north

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/03/21/science/space/0321-universe.html?_r=0

[betsy]

betsy

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

Kimmy

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

No, you specifically cited Betsy's 100 Things.

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

Of course you're bold to say that here, instead of going to the thread where that 100 list was posted. Shouldn't you post something specific to the appropriate thread? If you think you've got a legitimate argument on that specific matter (100 things evolutionists hate), wouldn't you rebutt it there? That's what a rational person would normally do.

Had you posted your comment in the other thread, you know you'll be challenged to support your assertion.

And you know eventually, links and videos will be used to expose your bs.

Even without the links and videos, some of your bs had already been exposed above! What more with links and videos! Just think what back-up sources will do to your babbles.

Nah. You're playing it safe. Like a wimpy bully would stick out his tongue from a safe place where the other kid couldn't get a hold of him!

And since you made sure you're safely out of reach, here's all I can do back at ya.

Edited March 25, 2013 by betsy

[GostHacked]

No one who replies with an answer 'God did it', is using logic by any means.

Nah. You're playing it safe. Like a wimpy bully would stick out his tongue from a safe place where the other kid couldn't get a hold of him!

Your tongue must be quite dry since it spends most time out of your mouth. Edited March 25, 2013 by GostHacked

[Canuckistani]

Betsy - how do new species appear on the earth? How does that work? That is the topic of this thread, and you've posted a lot of words here without once adressing the topic.

[GostHacked]

Creationism and creationists makes Neil Degrasse Tyson cry.

[guyser]

Anyone catch the NG show 'Evolve' over the weekend? Pretty damn intersting.

Never heard of a mimic octupus before, simply amazing. No one behind ID could have been that good.

[Canuckistani]

God is omniscient and omnipotent. Of course he could just create something like that without breaking a sweat. Thing is if there's a God like that, there's no point in science, since he can change any of the rules of scienc in an instant. So you can't use science to try to validate the bible, say. Or invalidate it of course. He could come down at any time, tell us fool on us, the earth is only 6000 years old, but he tricked us into thinking we had evidence it was so much older. He could come down and tell us that really we're lilke the people in the Matrix, just living a dream, or that we don't physically exist at all.

But a God like that has to take responisblity for everything that happens in the universe. Evil for instance. Mishaps where people thank God for saving them - why didn't he save all the people that do suffer terrrible mishaps? Babies born with terrible diseases who only suffer and die - why does he do that? Why create beings who have sufficient consciousness to suffer, but not enough to alleviate the suffering? We might as well give up on science in that case. Just flop around in the mud until we die to go to our just reward and be with Him. As long ase we beleive in Jeebus anyway. Even if we've never heard of Him. If God is omnipotent and omnisicient, he's one wild and crazy guy.

Edited March 25, 2013 by Canuckistani

[Mighty AC]

Betsy, yet again I am defending myself from your inability to read and comprehend. It feels like trying to reason with an obnoxious drunk at a sporting event. Anyway, here is a little more information you will likely not understand:

Yes, I did say that microbes are less likely to fossilize; which, is not the same as saying they do not fossilize. Based on your comments it appears that you do not understand the fact that not every organism that dies is fossilized. The vast majority leave no trace. There are many types of fossilization but in general the conditions have to be right and soft tissues are fossilized way less frequently than hard tissues.

Just to be clear as well, fossils, for the most part, do not preserve animal tissues and cells. Instead they replace the original material with mineral based replicas. Thus we can't simply analyze the genetic material of ancient fossilized creatures.

Resources:
How Fossils and Fossilization Works
A bit about transitional fossils and species

[kimmy]

Of course you're bold to say that here, instead of going to the thread where that 100 list was posted. Shouldn't you post something specific to the appropriate thread? If you think you've got a legitimate argument on that specific matter (100 things evolutionists hate), wouldn't you rebutt it there? That's what a rational person would normally do.

Had you posted your comment in the other thread, you know you'll be challenged to support your assertion.

And you know eventually, links and videos will be used to expose your bs.

Very well. Here you go.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/22477-15-questions-for-evolutionists/?p=890634

Even without the links and videos, some of your bs had already been exposed above! What more with links and videos! Just think what back-up sources will do to your babbles.

Nah. You're playing it safe. Like a wimpy bully would stick out his tongue from a safe place where the other kid couldn't get a hold of him!

And since you made sure you're safely out of reach, here's all I can do back at ya.

All that has been exposed here is your inability to recognize that the "sources" you like to refer to are a bunch of garbage.

Anybody who completed Grade 12 biology ought to be able to recognize that the guy you're citing doesn't know what he's talking about, and yet you're trumpeting his web page like it's the biggest thing to hit biology since Watson and Crick.

-k

Edited March 26, 2013 by kimmy

[betsy]

Betsy, yet again I am defending myself from your inability to read and comprehend.

Please Mighty AC, know enough when to stop! You are embarrassing youself before everyone. It is you who posts incriminating messages that expose you, not me.

Take that statement for example,"your inability to read and comprehend,".....well, on that same post you've conveniently shown us that it is you who has that problem. What does the OP say? What's the stipulations by the author?

Canuckstani,

Please no links, no freaking videos.

Just explain how it works in your own words.

Obviously you've been reading my posts here otherwise you wouldn't be coming back trying to "defend" yourself. What do my posts mostly whine about on this topic? That, we are not allowed to use any links or any freaking videos - in other words, nothing that could expose all the evolutionists' bs!

Yes, I did say that microbes are less likely to fossilize; which, is not the same as saying they do not fossilize. Based on your comments it appears that you do not understand the fact that not every organism that dies is fossilized. The vast majority leave no trace. There are many types of fossilization but in general the conditions have to be right and soft tissues are fossilized way less frequently than hard tissues.

Just to be clear as well, fossils, for the most part, do not preserve animal tissues and cells. Instead they replace the original material with mineral based replicas. Thus we can't simply analyze the genetic material of ancient fossilized creatures.

Resources:

How Fossils and Fossilization Works

A bit about transitional fossils and species

And what did you do???

YOU POSTED LINKS!

My "inability to read and comprehend" my foot! If I have that inability you wouldn't be in this pickle!

Your supporters who don't know enough to zip it have the inability to read and comprehend as well! Using the sinking evolution boat analogy - your compadres scramble blindly to follow you as you all head for the boat - while along the way, big signs warn,

"LEAKY BOAT! DO NOT BOARD!"

"WATCH OUT FOR MIGHTY AC!"

"WANTED: MIGHTY AC. For defaming the theory of evolution!"

Tell me, which part of "Please no links," is too hard for you to understand?

Edited March 26, 2013 by betsy

[betsy]

Betsy, yet again I am defending myself from your inability to read and comprehend. It feels like trying to reason with an obnoxious drunk at a sporting event. Anyway, here is a little more information you will likely not understand:

Oh stop blaming others for your own mistakes! You - yourself - gave me the giant hammer to whack you with! You even gift-wrapped it....and behold, the gifts keep coming!

How do you expect me to react in this heated debate? With you throwing accusations of my ignorance? Am I supposed to turn a blind eye to the obvious? Am I supposed to face you with blindfold and my hands tied?

I've said I have respect for you as a debator. That's for your courage at trying to discuss - and at least you were the only one who tried to tackle the 15 Questions- headlong. I respect that (although your tone remarkably changed at a certain point in the discussion).

However, you should also know when to admit that you've been caught with your pants down.

Your situation here is turning out to be a spectacle. This is like trying to reason with a three-year old having a melt-down in the mall. And I'm beginning to feel like the hapless parent.

Edited March 26, 2013 by betsy

[betsy]

Betsy, yet again I am defending myself from your inability to read and comprehend. It feels like trying to reason with an obnoxious drunk at a sporting event. Anyway, here is a little more information you will likely not understand:

Yes, I did say that microbes are less likely to fossilize; which, is not the same as saying they do not fossilize. Based on your comments it appears that you do not understand the fact that not every organism that dies is fossilized. The vast majority leave no trace. There are many types of fossilization but in general the conditions have to be right and soft tissues are fossilized way less frequently than hard tissues.

Just to be clear as well, fossils, for the most part, do not preserve animal tissues and cells. Instead they replace the original material with mineral based replicas. Thus we can't simply analyze the genetic material of ancient fossilized creatures.

Resources:

How Fossils and Fossilization Works

A bit about transitional fossils and species

It's too late now to try to backtrack. Showing links to back you up is also too late, and of course you've done your reading now about microbes and fossils to try your best at salvaging your credibility.

The flow of our discussion from pages 10 to 13 in that topic clearly provide evidence of your ignorance regarding microbes and fossils. If there's any question, please go back and re-read. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/22477-15-questions-for-evolutionists/page-10

[betsy]

Very well. Here you go.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/22477-15-questions-for-evolutionists/?p=890634All that has been exposed here is your inability to recognize that the "sources" you like to refer to are a bunch of garbage.

Anybody who completed Grade 12 biology ought to be able to recognize that the guy you're citing doesn't know what he's talking about, and yet you're trumpeting his web page like it's the biggest thing to hit biology since Watson and Crick.

-k

I'll read and get back to you when I get the chance. Dealing with AC gave me a migraine!

[GostHacked]

I'll read and get back to you when I get the chance. Dealing with AC gave me a migraine!

That's what usually happens when you try to debate something with someone who knows what they are talking about.

[kimmy]

I'll read and get back to you when I get the chance. Dealing with AC gave me a migraine!

Translation: you're searching through Creation.com and AnswersInGenesis and Living Waters Ministries for pages that say "stasis disproves evolution". You'll probably find some, and it won't matter at all because those guys are just as wrong as the first guy. Just because a stupid idea is popular with other stupid people doesn't mean it isn't stupid.

-k

[Canuckistani]

Funny how a thread about how ID works gets hijacked (by both sides) into more nattering about evolution. We've had the evolution debate ad nauseum. It won't convince Betsy, she's certainly not going to convince us. How about we leave this thread for discussion about ID. Execept there seems to be no one who has anything intelligent to say about it. We had some stupid comments at the beginning, then Betsy telling us she can't tell us how ID works in her own words, and then the usual evolution back and forth.

Betsy (or anybody else who understands ID) how do new species appear on earth under ID theory? You are great for challenging evolution theory, but won't put out what you actually believe so it can be challenged. I guess it's because you realize you don't have a leg to stand on.

[g_bambino]

Please Mighty AC, know enough when to stop! You are embarrassing youself before everyone. It is you who posts incriminating messages that expose you, not me.

Take that statement for example,"your inability to read and comprehend,".....well, on that same post you've conveniently shown us that it is you who has that problem. What does the OP say? What's the stipulations by the author?

Obviously you've been reading my posts here otherwise you wouldn't be coming back trying to "defend" yourself. What do my posts mostly whine about on this topic? That, we are not allowed to use any links or any freaking videos - in other words, nothing that could expose all the evolutionists' bs!

And what did you do???

YOU POSTED LINKS!

I knew as soon as I read AC's post yesterday that this would be betsy's reaction: Ignore the meat of the concepts and questions put before her by deflecting, honing in with laser-point focus on the mild comment on her character. The attempt to fully discredit AC because he posted two links is just bonus lameness.

But, here's a true sign of a person bereft of an intelligent response:

Edited March 26, 2013 by g_bambino

[August1991]

After a quick read through this thread, let me choose you Kimmy for opprobrium:

What scientific support is being provided for creationism?

Well, what scientific support is there for evolution?

Thomas Nagel, like Einstein, rightly questions it.

-----

For some questions, we now know the answer. For some other questions, it is better to admit that we simply don't know. For example, I am certain that 5+3 = 8. I am certain that the sky is blue. For the existence of "black holes" or evolution, I leave some room for doubt.

(BTW, I doubt that the sky is blue everywhere in the Universe. But I am reassured that 5+3 = 8 is always true, everywhere in the Universe, for all time. Indeed, mathematics is one of the most reassuring facts of the universe, and I guess, consciousness.)

Edited March 27, 2013 by August1991

[Bonam]

After a quick read through this thread, let me choose you Kimmy for opprobrium:

Well, what scientific support is there for evolution?

Thomas Nagel, like Einstein, rightly questions it.

-----

For some questions, we now know the answer. For some other questions, it is better to admit that we simply don't know. For example, I am certain that 5+3 = 8. I am certain that the sky is blue. For the existence of "black holes" or evolution, I leave some room for doubt.

(BTW, I doubt that the sky is blue everywhere in the Universe. But I am reassured that 5+3 = 8 is always true, everywhere in the Universe, for all time. Indeed, mathematics is one of the most reassuring facts of the universe, and I guess, consciousness.)

Black holes have been detected in space, quite a number of them. There is no reason to doubt their existence. The sky is indeed not blue "everywhere in the universe". Most of the universe, being empty space, doesn't have anything that could be called "sky" to begin with.

[DogOnPorch]

Black holes have been detected in space, quite a number of them. There is no reason to doubt their existence. The sky is indeed not blue "everywhere in the universe". Most of the universe, being empty space, doesn't have anything that could be called "sky" to begin with.

Indeed. The stars at the center of the galactic core have been plotted orbiting the massive one located there.

[The_Squid]

After a quick read through this thread, let me choose you Kimmy for opprobrium:

Well, what scientific support is there for evolution?Thomas Nagel, like Einstein, rightly questions it.

Questioning evolution is not an issue. It stands up to scrutiny. But come to the table with something..... "He acknowledges he is a scientific “layman,” however well read, but his point is not a scientific one. It is a philosophical one...". He is arguing against a scientific theory with.... Philosophy? You may as well argue against science with belief, faith and religion!

[August1991]

Black holes have been detected in space, quite a number of them.

Huh?

Indeed. The stars at the center of the galactic core have been plotted orbiting the massive one located there.

Huh?

Questioning evolution is not an issue. It stands up to scrutiny.

And once upon a time, it was thought that light travelled as a train. It moved faster toward us than when it moved away from us.

---

Bonam, DogonPorch and TheSquid, it would be better to admit that in some cases, we simply don't know. That's the true scientific method. There's always doubt which, btw, is not faith.

-----

I haven't read Thomas Nagel's book but I too have wondered about consciousness. But for me, that's only a bare starting point.

IMHO, the mathematics of cosmology pose the true questions, and have made me wonder the most.

Edited March 27, 2013 by August1991