Intelligent Design

@worldtraveler24,

I didn't miss anything; it's you who doesn't realize your own hypocrisy.

@cicerone imposter,

Ok, sorry to have offended you.

Sorry to be such a loser and a blind hypocrite: I believe I will just refrain from writing on this infallible forum.

I will leave it to you to enlighten our paths to greater discovery!

1 Reply

@worldtraveler24,

You didn't 'offend me.' I'm only sharing my observations about your posts that has no basis in reality. This is my 'writing style.' I challenge people's posts that has nothing to confirm it or I perceive it as plain bull shyt.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

OK, Cicerone-understood.

0 Replies

@worldtraveler24,

You are wrong - "SIN" is abstract - It doesn't exist beyond the imprisonment of subjective idealism - In this case 'christianity' - Anyone 'outside' your construct is bereft of your punitive irrational design.
Note this, then fuckoff (righteously) to a christian-based forum and preach to a weak-minded audience, who, potentially, give a ****.

One 'CANNOT" understand the 'rabbit-hole, nor be bonded to the parameters thereof, UNLESS they indulge in the realities thereof.

If you persist - I shall (shalt) annihilate your lack of understanding.
Live long and prosper....................... elsewhere.

1 Reply

@mark noble,

No problem my friend!

I understand that it is repulsive to you to hear from a closed minded Christian. I am not as irrational as you may suppose but you are indeed welcome to your opinion.

Furthermore, I have never used profanity on this forum nor will do so; therefore I would kindly ask you to rephrase your vehement belligerent off-color comments.

If you are such a rational intelligent being perhaps you can think of a more suitable word to describe your repressed feelings than your vulgar profanity. Thanks !

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
It is important because after 6,000 years man should have evolved into a much more intelligent and elevated being then he is with many more capabilities
Really, I wonder how we should know stuff like that?

From your personal example, FM. You have been 6000 years on able2know and unfortunately couldn't learn anything new and different from the traditional 'scientific' superstitions.

1 Reply

@Herald,

as evidence continus to mount am I the one who is "believing" in superstition?
I THINK NOT.

Look up Fleeming Jenkin, he may expose you to one of Darwin's actual blunders, (and also the power of continued evidence)

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Look up Fleeming Jenkin, he may expose you to one of Darwin's actual blunders, (and also the power of continued evidence)

I don't understand what you are talking about - if you have something to say, why don't you simply say it. Anyway.

1 Reply

@Herald,

He said,

Quote:

he may expose you to one of Darwin's actual blunders

farmerman did 'say something' that completely went over your head. LOL

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Darwin had a major blunder in his "theory" because he felt that natural selection and the inheritability of traits were "divided by generations" .

Herald just sits on his ass and never seeks to learn anything. He jut goes for quotes from his ID sources.
Ive handed him some good scientific arguments that we have trouble in coming up with good data (convergent evolution, the weaknesses in Darwin's own theory that needed to wit a hundred years before answering (yet most science bought the whole story without it);the effects of epigenetic transfer (ala Lamarkianism); "missing" fossil records of some specific clades (like insectivores and flowering plants or the common ancestor of humans and chimps)

He spends his time trying to argue things that have mountains of evidence in their favor and misses the points of those even.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

He jut goes for quotes from his ID sources.

FM, as you go from ID forum to ID forum some day you may become the greatest Intelligent Designer for any age.

farmerman wrote:

"missing" fossil records of some specific clades (like insectivores and flowering plants or the common ancestor of humans and chimps)

FM, I don't want to frighten you, but you are missing several volumes from the encyclopedia with the fossil records.

farmerman wrote:

He spends his time trying to argue things that have mountains of evidence in their favor and misses the points of those even.

So and so you have cached the point, why don't you tell us about those 'mountains of evidence' explaining how the persistent changes in the environment can construct a brand new DNA sequence.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Quote:

FM, I don't want to frighten you, but you are missing several volumes from the encyclopedia with the fossil records.

Then perhaps you can add something of value besides just mere assertions without any data. You may quote from your "volumes"
Why re you afraid of real data?

Quote:

why don't you tell us about those 'mountains of evidence' explaining how the persistent changes in the environment can construct a brand new DNA sequence.

From your vntage I think it good nough that you cannot claim that new DNA sequences are "Irreducible complexities". See how it works, you cant have one without shooting down the other.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Then perhaps you can add something of value besides just mere assertions without any data.

FM, can you tell us all the methods that one can use to verify a suspiciously valid theory, for example?

farmerman wrote:

Why re you afraid of real data?

I am not afraid of the data - no matter whether real or surreal - I am actually afraid of the richness of misinterpretations that can be done on that data - and this is very much different.

farmerman wrote:

From your vntage I think it good nough that you cannot claim that new DNA sequences are "Irreducible complexities". See how it works, you cant have one without shooting down the other.

Do you view this claim part of 'the mountains of evidence', on which you base your statements?

2 Replies

@Herald,

"The richness of interpretations....." Now, that's a rich one! LOL

0 Replies

@giujohn,

Quote:

What exactly is intelligent about man's design?

Response: Intelligent design refers to the fact that the universe and life itself originated from choice, rather than by chance.

0 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

FM, can you tell us all the methods that one can use to verify a suspiciously valid theory,

Well, for one, if no evidence has ever shown up that successfully challenges the theory.

Also, if aspects of the theory can be used to ppredict where
evidence may occur (For example, using the theory to predict where an "intermediate fossil" should exist I pretty convincing

Seeing the derived genetic relationships of most classes of organisms fits a "sequential change through time" .

Unique derived structures of similar species that are isolated from others of their clades (such as in caves or on islands) is hard to argue from any other position that evolution. (Unless some intelligent designer is always on call to "create" new species)

Analyses of derived features (such as teeth on the earliest bird fossils along with other "reptilian fetures)

Theres mny others but these are good enough for arguments sake.

BTW, do you have some really good evidence that support an ID view?

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Well, for one, if no evidence has ever shown up that successfully challenges the theory.

... and how has that 'theory' been constructed, in the first place ... without any evidences?

farmerman wrote:

Also, if aspects of the theory can be used to ppredict where evidence may occur (For example, using the theory to predict where an "intermediate fossil" should exist I pretty convincing

... pretty convincing for what? If your evolution is true you should observe "intermediate fossils" continuously, like with the virus strains - every year a new strain. Where do you see any 'intermediate fossils' with the Crocodiles, for example ... that will convert any moment into birds (if we follow the predictions of your theory).

farmerman wrote:

Unless some intelligent designer is always on call to "create" new species

You have great fun with that, but it is not impossible - for an ILF to send by quantum communication brand new biocode that is materialised into DNA sequences thus launching the existence of new species. The similarities in the DNA code may show for example that the Intelligent Designer is not too creative and is using 'old templates' in the creation of brand new species.

farmerman wrote:

Theres mny others but these are good enough for arguments sake.

All these are worthless as arguments. You don't have a single piece of verifiable evidence that the persistence in the weather deviations can create brand new DNA sequence to the extend of the emergence of a brand new species.

farmerman wrote:

BTW, do you have some really good evidence that support an ID view?

Yes, you cannot fight Candida, for example, with medications. The only way to be in peace with it is to put it asleep - there is no way for such complex behavior to appear out of nothing and by chance.

2 Replies

@Herald,

What do you consider "evidence?" Please provide examples of your 'evidence.'

Quote:

ev·i·dence
ˈevədəns/
noun
1.
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
"the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination"
synonyms: proof, confirmation, verification, substantiation, corroboration, affirmation, attestation
"they found evidence of his plotting"

1 Reply

@Herald,

Quote:

Yes, you cannot fight Candida, for example, with medications.

Candida what? Theres about 1300 species of yeast(isn't evolution maahvelous?). You don't need to use MEDICATIONS when a fungicide works quite well. (or else you can make a loaf of bread). We use specific yeqst species to degrde TNT left over from chain shots or deep shots of ANFO. (Mot yeasts are very very useful and for those that cause infections e develop immunities after BIT0

1 Reply

Intelligent Design

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know