In fact, if there is an intelligent designer...that probably is the way the intelligent designer would have designed things.
The fact that there is no evidence of an intelligent designer...is not sufficient reason to suggest there is no intelligent designer...something any decent scientist would take into consideration before being fool enough to suggest there is no intelligent design.
Yeah...I think I guessed correctly. You are an immature individual...probably a kid pretending to be an adult. Does Mommy know you are using her computer to post stuff like this?
Now you had asked if it were immature...I'd have said: YUP!
Quote:In fact, if there is an intelligent designer...that probably is the way the intelligent designer would have designed things.
That does not seem probable. If an intelligent designer was involved then he was probably drinking on the job. The design flaws and inefficiencies of biological creatures is enough to embarrass any real intelligent designer. If, as has been documented elsewhere, one were to dissect a giraffe's neck and inspect the recurrent laryngeal nerve, one would trace the nerve from the brain to larynx. If a designer made this nerve, one would also expect that the designer would have made it go straight from the brain to the larynx. After all, many nerves do have direct routes. However, for the giraffe, the nerve comes within an inch of the larynx, but goes straight passed it, down into the chest cavity, and then back up. In a human that would be a detour of about a foot or so. In the giraffe it is a detour of 15 feet or so. No designer in his senses would have ever done that, yet it makes perfect sense when you think back to the giraffe's ancestors and where the nerve attached to the ancestor animal's organs.
Genetic code is universal (i.e., all creatures have the same "machine code"), whereby triplets of DNA are rendered into amino acids. You can directly compare the same gene in one animal to the same gene in another animal; the letters of the protein chains carrying high degrees of replication. When looking at the differences of the same gene on different species you see that they compare beautifully on a hierarchical tree; a family tree. The alternative explanation is that an intelligent designer deliberately set out to deceive us; to make it look as though evolution had happened when it didn't. Why would that be? The trite reply is that the intelligent designer works in mysterious ways. For those with more than a handful of synapses firing that explanation will not suffice.
Quote:The fact that there is no evidence of an intelligent designer...is not sufficient reason to suggest there is no intelligent designer...something any decent scientist would take into consideration before being fool enough to suggest there is no intelligent design.
Failure to reject the null hypothesis is an incredibly weak argument on which to try and hang one's hat.
Quote:Yeah...I think I guessed correctly. You are an immature individual...probably a kid pretending to be an adult. Does Mommy know you are using her computer to post stuff like this?
No...and I'll kindly thank you to keep this "on the down low" as I like to say to my peeps.
Quote:Now you had asked if it were immature...I'd have said: YUP!
Well you wear dresses, stroke your nipples, and pick fights with children. You must be proud.
ha ha. Good one. Im sorry that Frank is too sure of himself to understand sarcasm .
Please dont leave. Frank enjoys annoying valuable members until the members give up and quit A2K entirely. Hes a mean and quite ignorant old fart who probably flunked every course in science , math or logic that he ever took . Still he tries to preach to scientists about "what's wrong" with their thinking and how they SHOULD start their research days.
If anyone has ever left A2K because of arguments with me...the problem was not arguing with me...the problem was that the person could not stand the heat.
If there is the possibility of a god...there is the possibility of intelligent design.
But...just as some people will insist there is a GOD...some will also insist there are none.
Quote:You flatter yourself you little douche bag.If anyone has ever left A2K because of arguments with me...the problem was not arguing with me...the problem was that the person could not stand the heat.
"If we had eggs we could have bacon and eggs, if we had bacon"
Quote:If there is the possibility of a god...there is the possibility of intelligent design.
Are you assuming the possibility of a god based on faith or based on evidence?
Quote:But...just as some people will insist there is a GOD...some will also insist there are none.
I insisted on neither. I have asserted that I have no evidence for God so I will therefore not make the assumption that one exists. Going the next step to say that anything is possible, to me, is a lazy way of evaluating what is available to us.
Ive addressed Frank on his "issue" for several YEARS. Hes trying to embody the concept of
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".
1. So far as I see it, no evidence exists that even suggests the existence of an intelligent designer. All evidence , instead seems to support a world in which lifes basic information banks respond to ,often, cataclysmic shifts in the planets environment. Life also responds to environmental shifts that are wrought by humans
The process of natural selection, which is the mechanism for all these above responses, has never been shown , by the ID folks,( who are those who actually give a **** about inserting gods into their scince) to even suggest the validity of ID.
Ive let ID research be the sole focus of several national (heavily funded) ID organizations.These organizations, like the Discovery Institute or The Institute for Creation Research have spent HUUUGE amounts of time and money studying and trying to impose "scientific rules" about the presence of a SUpremely Intelligent Designer in the Universe over the last 15 or 20 years ( ever sincePhillip Johnston changed the title of "Scientific Creationism" to "Intelligent Design"), and Ive even cheered them on by suggesting areas of research that they may look into (like convergent evolution or to pursue the fossil record of such organisms as bats).
SO far, all these organizations have not produced anything scientifically compelling as promised (except for very slick ads and sound bites and equally slick blogs all funded by the Ahmanson family in the US).
"Methodological Naturalism" is an assumed baseline by which Ive pursued all my geological research over the years. I would have no idea in hell how we would even go about inserting some sub task by which we "hunt for gods or god-like tracks". Even if we tried, this would violate everything that the scientific method imposes upon us. (Besides, how do we do Poppers review on something like that??-Its so unfalsifiable that wed have to change the very rules of logic to even squeeze in a simple research proposal on ID)
The scientific pursuit of knowledge about the rise of life is quite clear and is all falsifiable (this fact is demonstrated so nicely every time we come in from the field and start hacking away at our samples)
Most recently, in SOuth Africa weve seen the discovery of two new hominid fossil groups. One, a new species of Australopithecus, and another, a new species of Homo. Each fits in a narrow band of cave stratigraphy and each demonstrates the growing fact that the ancestry of humans dont follow a strait line "tree pf life" but seems to follow a "Bush of life" in which any specific branch of the two genera dont seem to follow anything "intelligently based" beyond a physiologico- structural response that can be seen to follow a climate that had become increasingly arid allowed the formation of vast Savannahs beyond a shrinking core of a previous continental sized rain forest that had begun shrinking as a geological response to the breakup of a supercontinent that had begun maybe 200 million years before.
The geology of the pile-ups and breakups of supercontinental masses had gone on in the present "Atlantic basin" for at least 3 separate events that geologists had interpreted in the 1990s . Thee events are still going on today and Ill be damned if I can see any intervention of some god-like creature messin with tectonics
As Will Durant once said
"Everything thats happened on earth has been at the exclusive pleasure of geology"
Theres really no place for any real science to get done if we insert some god into the mix. Once someone does that, his or her research comes to a screeching halt . Really, Franks demand that we search for something that shows that "THIS IS THE WAY AN INTELLIGENCE WOULD DESIGN HIS WORLD" is something that science has no time for because we work under imposed budgets , organizational research strictures, common sense, and only finally -- PEER REVIEW.
Frank has stated about what he feels science should be about and how scientists should proceed. He has no idea of anything hes talking about in that realm. Hes out of his fairway and he has no concept in hell of what he speaks. This has, as far as Ive observed, never been an issue of concern to him, since he is worth an opinion on any subject even though he may know nothing about that .
Frank is infused with New Jersey Machismo instead of scientific competence. He is, at least highly predictable (he even used to be entertaining when he didnt tie his entire A2K existence on his "Possible existence of gods defining the possibility of ID"
"If we had eggs we could have bacon and eggs, if we had bacon"
Agree with that...if you are not making any assumptions about the existence or non-existence of a god.
It would be more accurate to say that decent, competent scientists do not consider intelligent design at all.
Quote:Agree with that...if you are not making any assumptions about the existence or non-existence of a god.
I agree to follow the data (wherever they take me) . if I was to use the hypothetico-deductive model and assert that God exists, then the null hypothesis of that would be that God does not exist and some valid test would need to be devised. I, however, prefer to take an inductive approach and develop a theory from the evidence. We might, to some extent, actually be having a bit of argument based on scientific method. The hypothetico-deductive approach is the one most commonly taught in US schools. I don't know about elsewhere.
I would say, Frank, that you do make assumptions whenever you say, "no decent, competent scientist.....blah, blah, blah." It would be more accurate to say that decent, competent scientists do not consider intelligent design at all.