32
   

Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

 
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Nov, 2013 10:43 am
@Herald,
Quote:
if the modern human originated from Africa only all these 'rocks at the right age', 'rocks of the right type' & 'rocks that are exposed to the surface' that are not situated in Africa are irrelevant to our origin as species.



        http://eatrio.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/8.-pangea_07sep2007.jpg




YOU NEVER HEARD OF PANGEA OR GONDWANALAND?
0 Replies
 
Herald
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Nov, 2013 10:51 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
Since you mentioned straw men in your post, Herald, I thought it appropriate to mention that you changed Intelligent Design to intelligent design when making that final comment...which was a straw man of sorts.

Intelligent design is intelligent design: 'a process beginning with intelligent agents (no matter whoever the agent might be) that produce complex and specified information (CSI). If an object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. The CSI is established by experimental tests . One of the tests for CSI is the presence of irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimental reverse-engineering to see if the objects require all of their parts to function properly. The presence of irreducible complexity leads to the conclusion that such structures were designed'.
If you take off the engine of an airplane it would not be able to blast off. You and me, for example cannot design the airplane for we don't have the CSI ... but there are avionics engineers that have the CSI.
BTW the very term of intelligent design for testing biological structures is derived from the things we have done as intelligent designers. I don't see what is the problem.
When you and FM claim that ID cannot exist ... this simply is not true ... for even in biology it exists (under the from of GMOs, grape varieties, stock breeding, etc.). Well, this ID may not be that ID, but it at least proves that ID in biology is possible ... unlike the evolutionist theories that cannot take out even one lab or non-lab example for evolutionary transformation ... of one species into another.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Nov, 2013 11:18 am
@Herald,
Herald wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Since you mentioned straw men in your post, Herald, I thought it appropriate to mention that you changed Intelligent Design to intelligent design when making that final comment...which was a straw man of sorts.

Intelligent design is intelligent design: 'a process beginning with intelligent agents (no matter whoever the agent might be) that produce complex and specified information (CSI). If an object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. The CSI is established by experimental tests . One of the tests for CSI is the presence of irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimental reverse-engineering to see if the objects require all of their parts to function properly. The presence of irreducible complexity leads to the conclusion that such structures were designed'.
If you take off the engine of an airplane it would not be able to blast off. You and me, for example cannot design the airplane for we don't have the CSI ... but there are avionics engineers that have the CSI.
BTW the very term of intelligent design for testing biological structures is derived from the things we have done as intelligent designers. I don't see what is the problem.
When you and FM claim that ID cannot exist ... this simply is not true ... for even in biology it exists (under the from of GMOs, grape varieties, stock breeding, etc.). Well, this ID may not be that ID, but it at least proves that ID in biology is possible ... unlike the evolutionist theories that cannot take out even one lab or non-lab example for evolutionary transformation ... of one species into another.


Sorry you are not able to see the difference between Intelligent Design (written with a capital "I" and "D") and intelligent design written with the capital letters, Herald. The difference is significant.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Nov, 2013 11:22 am
@Herald,
Quote:
When you and FM claim that ID cannot exist .


I have never...anywhere...ever claimed that ID, Intelligent Design, or intelligent design cannot exist.

Ever!

In fact, I have on several occasions argued that any of them could possibly exist...and that any statement that they CANNOT exist is a over-statement.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Nov, 2013 11:23 am
@Herald,
Herald wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
Our DNA most definitely contains sequences which are in common with fish and creatures far more primitive than fish.

This 'most definitely' is not confirmed by the backtrack of the DNA code from the computer analysis.

Yes, it is.
Herald wrote:
Besides, if the modern human originated from Africa only all these 'rocks at the right age', 'rocks of the right type' & 'rocks that are exposed to the surface' that are not situated in Africa are irrelevant to our origin as species.

I don't even know where you're getting all this off tangent speculation from, but if you are referring to the video, then it detailed the discovery of Tiktaalik and had nothing to do with the more recent homo sapiens discovered in Africa.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Nov, 2013 12:29 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
To acknowledge what you do not know, is a display of strength. To pretend you know what you truly don't, is a display of weakness.


When are you going to acknowledge that you do not know whether to acknowledge what you do not know is a display of strength and to pretend you know what you truly don't, is a display of weakness?

It looks like only what you acknowledge is acknowledgeable. aka MYOEP. In the service of asserting you are strong and opponents are weak.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Nov, 2013 12:35 pm
@spendius,
And if you don't answer the question the second time of asking we can take with a pinch of salt your assertion that you answer questions put to you.

Ignore simple means you are filtering questions. Which is really weak. It's a wrist that can't hold its own hand up.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Nov, 2013 02:50 pm
@rosborne979,
rosborne979 wrote:

Herald wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
Our DNA most definitely contains sequences which are in common with fish and creatures far more primitive than fish.

This 'most definitely' is not confirmed by the backtrack of the DNA code from the computer analysis.

Yes, it is.
Herald wrote:
Besides, if the modern human originated from Africa only all these 'rocks at the right age', 'rocks of the right type' & 'rocks that are exposed to the surface' that are not situated in Africa are irrelevant to our origin as species.

I don't even know where you're getting all this off tangent speculation from, but if you are referring to the video, then it detailed the discovery of Tiktaalik and had nothing to do with the more recent homo sapiens discovered in Africa.


Good post, Rosborne.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Nov, 2013 04:58 pm
@Herald,
Frank hd never asserted as to the "Impossibility " of Intelligent Design. He has other MOs that do not ascend to purely scientific discourse. His is more a language game .
So, once again you've been skewed in your own interpretations. Im beginning to worry about your comprehension skills
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Nov, 2013 05:04 pm
@Herald,
Quote:
for even in biology it exists (under the from of GMOs, grape varieties, stock breeding, etc.). Well, this ID may not be that ID, but it at least proves that ID in biology is possible


You really HAVE NOT read anything by Darwin have you. You should try some scholarly readings before you try to shoot down any theories.
DArwin was a master of "ARTIFICIAL SELECTION" which was, in his day, manifest by the ability of humans to HYBRIDIZE and select for vigor and "Desired" cross - progeny . Yes that's Design, but by its very process, Darwin was able to conclude on the mechanisms(and three LAWS) of NATURAL SELECTION. Seems you always step into traps of your own making. We don't hve to do anything more than let you prattle on.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Nov, 2013 06:09 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
Im beginning to worry about your comprehension skills


I wouldn't bother your little head over that fm.

You should worry about your own comprehension skills first. As a priority I mean. Any fool can comprehend what he already thinks.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Nov, 2013 06:20 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
Yes that's Design, but by its very process, Darwin was able to conclude on the mechanisms(and three LAWS) of NATURAL SELECTION.


But that he was able to conclude that does not mean his conclusions had any evolutionary value to the human species despite them being milk and honey to those seeking to throw off the traces, bits and bridles of Christian sexual teachings.

And an intelligent designer could easily have placed everything for his convenience to test the faith of mankind. Like in the Book of Job.

Darwin was very uneasy about publication. Why was that?
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Nov, 2013 06:37 pm
@spendius,
seems weve discussed Desmond and Moore's theory re: Darwins approach avoidance syndrome, and his desires to keep his wife happy and his mourning , and his "perfectionism".
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Nov, 2013 06:39 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:

But that he was able to conclude that does not mean his conclusions had any evolutionary value to the human species despite them being milk and honey to those seeking to throw off the traces, bits and bridles of Christian sexual teachings.
Science still wrks this way. Darwin had no data regarding humans until his third book. Ya think he wanted to **** up his sales?
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Nov, 2013 06:09 am
https://scontent-b-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/1185680_10152098858657518_728290063_n.jpg
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Nov, 2013 06:19 am
@edgarblythe,
That's amazing. I was unaware that a frozen carcass ,that old, could be sequenced.

This weekend, my wife was cleaning the basement freezer and came across a frozen codfish we caught several years ago. I was gonna ask a buddie whos teaching a genetics prep lab this year,, to see how well it could be sequenced. Now I have my answer
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Nov, 2013 07:21 am
@farmerman,
I know how science works fm. Suck it and see. When seen write it up. Then interlard it with scientific jargon to bamboozle fund sources. Use funds to enhance status and pay. Use enhanced status and pay to get women. Breed scientists. Displace non scientists. Take over. Apply science to political decisions. Await **** up due to disconnect between instrument readings and human behaviour.

Have you any sources for Darwin's performance on the magistrate's bench? Everybody seems strangely silent on the matter despite the records that must exist.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Nov, 2013 07:27 am
@edgarblythe,
What does "sequenced" mean ed? Is it anything like an NFL coach sequencing plays on a blackboard in the absence of a defence?
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Nov, 2013 07:29 am
@spendius,
yeh you got it, next question.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Nov, 2013 07:35 am
@farmerman,
Isn't it the case that scientists are human too and subject to all the temptations which is our lot?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Intelligent Design - Question by giujohn
What is Intelligent Design? - Discussion by RexRed
Do *ANY* creationists understand evolution? - Discussion by rosborne979
The Bed Bug/Parasite Plant Theory - Question by TeePee38
dna worlds - Discussion by Syamsu
DD VERSUS EVOLUTION - Discussion by Setanta
The Evil of god - Discussion by giujohn
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 01/09/2025 at 06:05:04