Religion/Spirituality The Intelligent Design/God/Theism Thread

[blackzeus]

Exactly what "statistical" conclusion are you talking about? We've done this dance before, and I know you're M.O already; stop trying to inject your shallow, grab bag of psuedo-science equivocations in order to distract and pivot from a very simple argument: In order to show that something isn't universally true you only need one instance to negate it. I'm simply denying the idea of intelligent design by showing that evolution was clearly at play. Watch the video and argue the facts.

yes breh, the ineffectiveness of random walk, functional proteins, and intergalactical dark energy constants are pseudo-science equivocations

 

[Mission249]

Let me guess your counter-argument to that video: You're going to move the goal posts of what is "intelligent"? It's a shame you use your intelligence to rationalize your beliefs rather than deduce the truth in the world. It's such an arrogant way to live...

I watched the video, and refer you to post #34 in regards to the "bad design" argument. You're basing it off the fact that ID presumes the Designer was an omnipotent perfect being. In reality, ID is only saying the designer was pretty f*cking smart

So predictable....
Anyway, if you're argument is for "Intelligent Design where 'Intelligence' is some arbitrary, ill-defined definition of intelligence that may be so bad that it looks completely unintelligent and exactly like evolution" then OK. No need to even argue about this anymore. It's just a semantic argument.

And, another part of your M.O. is to ignore parts of my argument, and only respond to parts where you think you can win. So, I'll re-ask my previous question: Exactly, where in the the previous video did the orator admit that ID is probable? Please prove your basic comprehension skills.

 

[blackzeus]

So predictable....
Anyway, if you're argument is for "Intelligent Design where 'Intelligence' is some arbitrary, ill-defined definition of intelligence that may be so bad that it looks completely unintelligent and exactly like evolution" then OK. No need to even argue about this anymore. It's just a semantic argument.

If you had read the thread you would have seen the argument for that in post #34. You don't know how that nerve behind the larynx came to be, you assume it's completely unnecessary, but for the sake of argument, let's say you're right, let's say the additional nerve is useless and detrimental to the life of the referenced animal. Please explain to me how an additional nerve behind the larynx disproves intelligent design? You're attributing God like qualities to the Designer that even ID doesn't. That's not semantics, that's misconstruing a statement and slightly illogical. Again, I provided you with a counterexample. Are we going to assume a recalled Toyota Camry was a product of evolution?

And, another part of your M.O. is to ignore parts of my argument, and only respond to parts where you think you can win. So, I'll re-ask my previous question: Exactly, where in the the previous video did the orator admit that ID is probable? Please prove your basic comprehension skills.

I don't have an M.O., I am stating the empirical results of collection of data and their statistical implications. In regards to the Sam Harris video, after carefully listening to the video again, to be fair, he said "assuming" and "even if it were true", but then goes on to rant about why must the Designer be God? So yes, Sam Harris is not a proponent of ID, if that's what you want me to say

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

Can someone explain to me why evolution cant be a part of the intelligent design?

 

[blackzeus]

Can someone explain to me why evolution cant be a part of the intelligent design?

Natural selection and adaptation yes, evolution and ID are incompatible because evolution states that you are not a singular occurrence, you came from a common ancestor with the chimpanzee () ID is saying that you and all species are singular occurrences as the result of intelligent design, nothing less, nothing more. Again, the irony is that proponents of the evolutionary theory are purporting something as fact that has less than 1% statistical probability

 

[blackzeus]

10,000 years from now some evolutionary scientist is gonna find the skull of Jason Kidd's son and conclude he is the missing link between homo erectus and homo sapien

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

Natural selection and adaptation yes, evolution and ID are incompatible because evolution states that you are not a singular occurrence, you came from a common ancestor with the chimpanzee () ID is saying that you and all species are singular occurrences as the result of intelligent design, nothing less, nothing more. Again, the irony is that proponents of the evolutionary theory are purporting something as fact that has less than 1% statistical probability

Thank you. Thats good enough for me

 

[Mission249]

Can someone explain to me why evolution cant be a part of the intelligent design?

That's actually a really good question. In the absence of a precise definition of "intelligent" in "intelligent design", all I can assume is that it means "not evolution" and/or "I perceive this to be more complex than evolution". I can't scientifically argue against someone's arbitrary perceptions of "complexity." So, all I'm left to argue with is that evolution exists therefore intelligent design is wrong. I.e. intelligent design is the antithesis of evolution - evolution being something that is precisely and scientifically defined.

Basically, it's impossible to argue for or against "intelligent design" because the intelligence is ill-defined. That makes it easy for people arguing for it to pivot, equivocate and move goal posts when they think they're losing internet arguments. But, since it's an irrefutable and unscientific claim, it's pointless to argue about it.

ID is saying that you and all species are singular occurrences as the result of intelligent design

"Intelligent design is saying that you are a singular occurrence of intelligent design"
I'm going to take the kid gloves off and be blunt: That's an idiotic, nonsensical definition

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

10,000 years from now some evolutionary scientist is gonna find the skull of Jason Kidd's son and conclude he is the missing link between homo erectus and homo sapien

"These pictures and videos of a being named 'Sam Cassell' proves that homo-sapiens co-existed with extra-terrestrial life and mated with them"

 

[gho3st]

I've seen some weird unexplainable shyt that i doubt was extra terrestrial in nature. That shyt should not have been possible yet it happened. Which leads me to believe in supernatural shyt

 

[blackzeus]

"These pictures and videos of a being named 'Sam Cassell' proves that homo-sapiens co-existed with extra-terrestrial life and mated with them"

The image of this being named "Tyrone Hill" proves that Batman was not a fictional character and that chiroptera and homo sapiens have a common ancestor

 

[blackzeus]

I've seen some weird unexplainable shyt that i doubt was extra terrestrial in nature. That shyt should not have been possible yet it happened. Which leads me to believe in supernatural shyt

Respect your belief, but we really gon' claim some sh*t we don't understand to be supernatural now? This is 2014 breh, get with the scientific principle, you ain't never watch Scooby-Doo? There's no ghost, it was just the villain tryna scare everybody away from the gold

 

[blackzeus]

That's actually a really good question. In the absence of a precise definition of "intelligent" in "intelligent design", all I can assume is that it means "not evolution" and/or "I perceive this to be more complex than evolution". I can't scientifically argue against someone's arbitrary perceptions of "complexity." So, all I'm left to argue with is that evolution exists therefore intelligent design is wrong. I.e. intelligent design is the antithesis of evolution - evolution being something that is precisely and scientifically defined.

Basically, it's impossible to argue for or against "intelligent design" because the intelligence is ill-defined. That makes it easy for people arguing for it to pivot, equivocate and move goal posts when they think they're losing internet arguments. But, since it's an irrefutable and unscientific claim, it's pointless to argue about it.

You guys aren't scientists, you're lawyers You present facts and statistical probabilities, and nikkaz are saying you're moving goal posts bunch a Reggie White "let me have this sack" azz nikkaz

"Intelligent design is saying that you are a singular occurrence of intelligent design"
I'm going to take the kid gloves off and be blunt: That's an idiotic, nonsensical definition

Hmmm, ok, let me try again, seems we are in an AP English course and not in a scientific discussion. Intelligent design says that you are the designed by an entity, that we will call an "intelligent designer", that you are not the occurrence of chance, or the result of evolution, but that some being/entity/group designed your species specifically.

 

[blackzeus]

That's actually a really good question. In the absence of a precise definition of "intelligent" in "intelligent design", all I can assume is that it means "not evolution" and/or "I perceive this to be more complex than evolution". I can't scientifically argue against someone's arbitrary perceptions of "complexity." So, all I'm left to argue with is that evolution exists therefore intelligent design is wrong. I.e. intelligent design is the antithesis of evolution - evolution being something that is precisely and scientifically defined.

Yes, noting that the cosmic rate of expansion is a 1:1055 ratio is an arbitrary perception of complexity Where you get your JD at breh? Your lawyer game is top notch

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

I can't even continue with you anymore breh let's just agree to disagree. You're talking about Bayesian statistics, nikka we're not making hypotheses:

- It really is true that the cosmic rate of expansion is fixed at a specific ratio

To our knowledge, which is limited to a small amount of information

Even if said ratio did exist at a consistent rate...so???

what reason (read: arrogance) do you have to assert that it should be some fluctuating number?

- It really is true that random walk can't even making a functional string out of 1 MB data, let alone complex molecular organisms

Why 1 MB? Why not 1 Kb? See why this argument is bullshyt?

Even if you don't believe in randomness taking preference in a unique corner of the universe, that it happened makes it possible.

You don't get to keep talking out of your ass about how "impossible" it is.

- It really is true that the cosmological constant in dark energy observed in our galaxy and observed in a galaxy 7 billion light years away are the same

So?

^^^^These are FACTS, not hypotheses, and I could go on and on. You are talking about Bayesian statistics in reference to hypotheses, yes, you're right, that sh*t ain't got nothing to do with the facts

None of this means theres a creator