Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

I know you pretend to ignore what i write, but then i see you ripping off what i've written wholesale, so i know you're a liar.

The system is not being attacked, nothing and no one intends the destruction of the system. You still have your head stuck in the notion of a purposive system, because your imagination is too limited to comprehend the effect of random events. The Chicxulub event was not an attack, it was just a random occurrence. There was no magic sky daddy involved.

The 5 big extinction event and the hundreds of more minor ones that affected lesser numbers of species seem to fit the bill. How can you make an argument for "intelligent response" to an "EMPTY NICHE" when it can be seen from the fossil record that nature usually OVERPRODUCES species to accommodate and , as another strategy, nature produces totlly different TOP PREDATOR species for lndmasses separated from each other.

For example, from the K/T boundary, mammals had taken an evolutionary track wherein as many as 7 different mammalian orders evolved in response to the "missing top predators and large species of
dinosaur". Through time these seven ere "weeded out" into only 3 orders, one of which only appears in small select rannges.

Thi is esily demo'd in the fossil record if you don't agree.

In geographic isolation conditions (such as North nd South America). after Chixclub , the TOP PREDATORS for each portion of these now isolated landmasses took two totally different tracks. In S AMerica the top predators were an evolving dinosaur like family of birds (called 'terror birds" by popular writers) and by Ursid and canid species in the North.

Again, easily seen in key stratigraphic beds (rocks of the "right age") in the fossil record. It appears to the scientists studying all this that the evolution of these orders and families were in "response" to the KT "event"

It hard to see intelligence in this since almot 60% o known species were wipe out by the KT event in a fashion that hardly seemed "Intelligent"

Extinction is a good tool as I said befpre. If you domt agree, youre welcome to verbalize your alternative.
Please give essential dates and locations , as ell as some decent "appeals to authority" that you guys are fond of doing. (If you hve problems feeling good about yourself, see Quahog he appears to be a master at self delusion)

That's all very well fm, despite being irrelevant. If you write off intelligent design what else do you have to write off as a logical consequence?

Wouldn't everything you declare to be unscientific become a heresy and, if dangerous, a target for persecution? Stalin may have closed churches but he held back from demolishing them.

Bearing in mind that what you declare to be unscientific is merely a form of sophistry and a dogma designed to keep your world view consistent and intact.

A grand example of marking your own exam papers. MYOEP in other words which is only accidentally a reminder of myopia. (Marking your own exam papers in academia---the subjectivity problem.)

It is the questions you fail to answer that gives you away. You don't actually do peer-review at all. You simply declare some peer-reviewers not peers and with a bound Jack was free.

You are trying to get us all in the same reinforced box you are in. Impact events 60 million years ago are neither here nor there. Such things are trollery on a thread like this.

No, I am not asking about the 'five big extinction eventS' - I am asking about s.th. from the present day evidences. Have you observed anywhere 1 MN computers being attacked by a botnet and one of them having a bug, which resulted in better operation system - for this is exactly what the theory of evolution is claiming. If the evolution is operating on auto-pilot and is valid for the whole universe, and if it is nothing but pure chemistry as you say, it should be applicable to our computers and to our OSs as well (as the processes of the living matter are nothing but simple polymers, as you claim). Why it is not applicable?


O.K., why don't you tell us, the simple mortal, how has Nature (as you call it) produced the Varan de Komodo - with six complementary delay death bite poisons ... and out of what?
Can you give an example of a lizard of s.th. with 5 or 4 or 3 poisons ... that have been elaborated later on into six. Do you have the example, FM, or you don't have it?

weve already discussed the Varan of Komodo. It seems you Creationists don't have anything new do you.?

Go look up gungasnake on this and youll see how we treated his assertion about "ID" and the dragon.

Next

Only because youre not able to handle data from the fossil record. Plus Ive already exhausted the example of Anadromous fish that have evolved at a species level .
I have a feeling you don't read ANYTHING??

He might be able to read, but lacks comprehension skills.

FM, you are great. If you present some ad hominem at something you think it is 'game over'. The bad news is that you didn't present anything sensible on the Varan de Komodo case, and the ugly news is that you don't even understand what you are supposed to present there.
If you don't present anything that makes sense (on the topic, not just anything from the fossils' history records) I am going to answer your questions just in the very same way.
How did you feel when I copied and pasted the ad hominem nonse of Set, ah, FM? Did you feel good ... or maybe you felt great?

This may beat out your personal complexes, but it is not a valid answer ... to anything that has been asked.

Does it not amuse you H that ci. thinks it was a valid answer? And that he will have one like that for every occasion.

This is not true. Varan de Komodo does not originate from Anadromous fish ... and its fishmongers.
FM, you are misusing with our poor knowledge in paleontology and think that anything goes.


... and I have the feeling that you can't explain anything.
Varan de Komodo is species 3.8 Mya and has always have 6 poisons; is a cousin of the Dinosaurs; and you don't have the vaguest idea of how the combination of the 6 poisons 'has evolved with the time eventually'?! ... by what reason, and out of what (unless your favorite fish hadn't have 5.5 poisons ... by reason unknown).
I you curious to know where does this 'by reason unknown' come from - it is pure math extrapolation. Everything with your explanations in your theory of the things happens 'by reason unknown' - just so, on autopilot ... and out of nowhere.

Mr Ci is missing the point, as usual.
He does not have any valid idea whether drinking a glass of red wine does not dilute the blood a little bit, and thus improving the blood circulation and stimulating the thinking. The Ancient Greek philosophers, for example, have performed high flight logical inferences over a glass of wine and a tray with fruits.
But as far as I can see from the pictograms of the comment above, I am drinking seriously and in a company ... obviously this is a teamwork training on the theme 'Misuse with the validation and the end of the classical answers', and Mr Ci is our favorite lecturer ... eventually, if he 'goes to class'.

Herald, You're just showing how ignorant you are by talking about wine and blood rather than the subject at hand. Diversions are for kids. How old are you? Ten? But that would be an insult to 10 year olds.

your "Komodo dragon" bullshit has ben easily debunked several times in the recent past on A2k. Im tired of your ignorance and inability to ven stay on topic. Youre doing what we call "shuckin the point" . Our past discussions were bsed on a FACT of paleogeogrphy where the strain of varian lizards could be followed in the fossil record to their points of origin in SE Asia. Asia and Australia collided during the Miocene and the dispersion of these lizards (which include the Goa nd other monitor species) followed.

The evolution of its "venom" isn't settled at all. What kills its prey, the proto venom (many of its relatives have types of venom glands), or the bacteria laden saliva?
Our arguments before revolved around the point that theres nothing "miraculous" involved in the evolution of these guys other than "island gigantism" perhaps, but definitely island isolation.(read David Quammens excellent popular book which was his own speculation about island evolution and species isolation)
.

If what you write is not coherent, it is not a personal attack to point that out. It is also not an argumentum ad hominem, a logical fallacy which you, along with most people online, do not seem to understand.

As I said to Quahog when he accused me of Adhominems. I called him an idiot or a moron and a complete dullard, those were NOT adhominems. What do you say?

I accused him of not understanding the meaning of adhominem .
I suppose Quahog would be one because it goes to his feeding habits of "Sucking up" organic sediments laden with crap.

There are clowns around here who, if you see them posting bullshit and you call bullshit, consider that an "adhom."

It appears that most of em come from UK no? Izzy was responding to me about how the conditions we've had with the ID morons in the last 15 years or so would NEVER be duplicated in the UK.

From this recent gaggle of morons Im not so sure

there are clowns here allright, Setanta.

Now, define 'bullshit' Thanks in advance.