Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

https://www.google.co.kr/#newwindow=1&safe=off&q=god+of+the+gaps+refuted

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_system



Join us in the current century! The water's fine!

Gotta admit, these guys do provide some cheap entertainment:

Yes, but why don't you explain the common misconceptions of Evolution:
     1. Evolution is a 'theory' about the origin of life - when it is actually designed as a trump in the hands of the republicans against the royalists.
     2. Evolutionary theory implies that life evolved (and continues to evolve) randomly, or by chance. - actually the Evolution has never been able to explain which part of it is random and which is deterministic ... and to what extend.
     3. Evolution results in progress; organisms are always getting better through evolution - can evolution as we know it result in pathology and 'negative' mutations (whatever 'positive mutation' might mean)?
     4. Evolution only occurs slowly and gradually - when some process is impossible, how exactly it becomes possible 'somehow ... gradually with the time'?
     5. Humans are not currently evolving - yes, we are obviously degrading, but nobody can tell for sure whether it is as a result of the various interpretations of the evolutionary theory or it is not due to the lack of morality and proper attitude to the world.

How does any of that relate to your god hypothesis? Except by being so profoundly misguided that it further destroys your credibility, that is.

1. No it isn't, you keep getting it all wrong.

2Natural selection is not rndom. Mutations and other changes in the genome probably are

3 Doesn't say that at all

4 rates may vary but not wildly. Saltation has been debunked

5 who says?

     If it is not about the origin of life, what exactly it is explaining?
     If it is not random it is deterministic, in other words product of ID.
     If the evolution does not result in progress and development of the species, what exactly it is doing?
     I am not asking that. I am asking how if something is impossible in principle it becomes 'somehow' possible with the time?
     It's a joke, but on the other side if you take a look, we are currently 7.3 BN and no new species have emerged - how does that happen, FM - 7.3 BN of individuals and zero 'positive mutations'. There must be something totally wrong with the whole that theory, don't you think.

Actually this video proves exactly the opposite of what you claim: It proves that no ID can appear out of nothing (without a previous ID) ... incl. the design/creation of the Universe? ... which automatically means that no Big Bang could have created anything without having 'the music score' to learn from before that.

1. Evolution is a theory about how life changes. Evolution only deals with after life exists. It says absolutely nothing about how life originated.
2. Parts of evolution are stochastic and parts may be deterministic. If you require the total be called something than it would be stochastic since some parts are random. The problem is you keep defining random outside the random parameters that evolution works under.
3. Progress as you define it is nothing to do with evolution. It doesn't create "better" species. It only creates species more suitably adapted to a certain environment. That doesn't make them "better" as you keep defining it.
4. How is it impossible in principle? Don't you agree that micro evolution exists? If you do then it is not impossible. If you don't agree that micro evolution exists then you are simply denying reality. Once you agree that micro evolution occurs then it is simply a matter of time for macro evolution.
5. Are you arguing there are no mutations at all? There certainly have been such and some of them could be seen as positive, skin color being one. Lighter skin to adapt to less sunlight in northern climes.

Good post.

No ID can appear without previous ID? So how did the first ID happen? Dood. Do you even logic?

Bless you, you naïve little twit. Natural Selection is not "deterministic" (you seem to be drawn to either or's)
Its
Opportunistic
Adaptive
or is populationally driven (as in 'ring , drift, allopatry, dichopatry,peripatry,parapatry,etc)

or is Hybrid driven (primarily in plants).
None of the above require "planning or an intelligence" (unless you now want the environment to be under its control.

we control our environment . Hoowever, by adaptation, we do show SNP's and "populational marker alleles". No new species, but the process of speciation IS occurring.

     In many ways. First the hypothesis that I have some mind-blowing hypothesis about God is purely yours, made on the basis of your assumptions (most of which comprising various straw-men, BTW) - this hypothesis is not mine. You are simply putting it on the table of the discussion because you have some taught system against it and you are trying to match the case in order to start publishing the taught references.
     Second, you cannot explain a lot of things by your Big Bang hypothesis, don't you think. Besides that the assumptions of 'my hypothesis' are also assumptions of your hypothesis, and my claim is that for now both are unknowable, and you claim that this is impossible, for you know everything about the origin of the Universe, the Evolution of the Stars, the Evolution of the Chemical Elements, the Origin of Life, the Evolution of Life on Earth, etc., without even having any piece of verifiable evidence that all these processes really are evolution, that they have emerged spontaneously on auto-pilot without any note scores, while all the evidences around our own intelligence, for example, show otherwise. Well, such inference by analogy may not be entirely correct, but honestly speaking much of your inferences are even worse.
     Let me ask you something: How many brand new cars can you make without any engineering drawings, how many masterpieces of art and music can you make without the skills of creation, and where is your evidence that the Big Bang (if has ever happened) has the potential and the abilities to design the Universe as we know it today ... not to mention that the Big Bang has been missing the Energy to do so. You may call it as you wish - Dark Energy, Dark Matter, Event Horizon of a Black Hole, but in essence all that is actually one and the same thing - Dark Knowledge, without the illumination of which some day the whole Cosmology may turn into the Dark Side of Science ... unless you convince the physicists that the law for conservation of energy sometimes may be valid but not always - depending of the physical 'theory'.

Oh! My bad! I had mistaken you for a theist. Since you're not a believer, then I don't see any other reason to engage you. You don't have enough knowledge about science to post anything interesting or even intelligible. Glad to know that you're a fellow non-believer, though. Sorry about the mixup.

Perhaps Herald could explain the nature of the putative "intelligent designer" in that case. (Hint: that's something he has never been willing to do.)

If he won't even openly proclaim what he believes, I don't know what the point in even discussing it with him would be. And since he obviously knows dick all about science and refuses to learn, I don't see what the point of discussing that with him is, either.

I agree completely. Herald has been peddling his snake oil here for years now, but he dodges the question of the nature of the putative designer every time. I suspect his online experience has made him chary of discussing that issue. He's probably been burned before over just that question.

Y'know, if someone were so passionately obsessed with something, but at the same time too ashamed to man up and tell anybody about it, that would seem to suggest that somewhere deep down, they know how ridiculous it really is. Just sayin'.