Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

DAYUM, I accidentally responded to Frankie.

what I meant to respond to your post was

I totally missed that point. Beautiful.
"By their fruits (and vegetables) will you know them"

Sure!

I think Lardhead gets so carried away with his holy roller agenda that he's not really paying attention. That's a shame, given that he's about the sharpest knife in the theist drawer here since the disappearance of "real life." Not that Lardhead rises to the standard of "real life"--but he's way ahead of the run of the mill bible thumpers we get around here.

Even the Special Olympics has its winners.

Hehehehehehehe . . .

In all honesty, i'd have to say that "real life" was a sharp dude. I often felt he was dishonest with us, but he had a brain, and he used it. I think we all got used to a higher standard, which has not been maintained since his disappearance.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not reversing anything I've said about my opinions about ID or God. Not flying any false flags either. I previously said my purpose here was to gather background information on people's thinking and beliefs about God. In your partial quote I was just correcting farmerman's inference that I am here to evangalize. It's clear from this and countless other threads & websites that 'changing minds' is not likely to happen.

One not so surprising finding so far is that more evangelizing is done by atheists than theists on forums such as this. I'm still working on motive. I don't think it's to actually gather converts but more likely an insecurity of some sort. That is the only explaination for the level of vitriol they often display. Sometimes they justify it by claiming to 'save' inocents from 'all the ills of religion' but that is belied by their insistence that theists are not able to change anyones mind (which is largely true).

Ah-hahahahahahahahahahaha . . . ya can't make up sh*t this funny . . .

None of the atheists i know of around here give a rat's ass what you believe. If you post bullsh*t, you're gonna get called on it. Deal with it.

he(Real Life) read things and absorbed em well. It was actually a pleasure to engage him because he tried to slither around and he had some really good facts.
Like, one time, he really was giving me some tough arguments wrt convergent evolution.

Remember medved? ( the bear?). He just flat out lied through every orifice of his being, but he did try to present evidence from Hovind's ministry.


I think leadfoot is the carpenter who sees everything as a nail. (His entire argument seems to be based upon similitude with computer code). That is just a poor understanding of the science behind the living state.

Your prejudices colour your perceptions badly on this point.

I'm not evangelising, and neither are the main pro-science contributors I've read - we are asking for evidence to back up your claims and it hasn't passed muster.

You are entitled to your opinions, but not your own facts.

And the 'reversing' thing wasn't about you changing your mind (which I didn't suspect for a minute), it was about your apparent notification that you were about to stop 'evangelising' for ID on this thread.

You must tell us more about this 'sociological study'.

PS you don't have to be an atheist to think ID is not science.

My comments about 'evangelizing atheists' were not aimed at you or Farmerman, you have mainly been fairly reasonable (up my own cognitive asshole comments notwithstanding). I suspect the ones it applied to know who they are.

But you and FM are far from 'colourless' in your perceptions and have not really engaged many of my points because you can't recognize them as such because of your own biases. Some of that is just human nature and you like anyone have your own opinions which is fine. But merely categorizing all I say as 'clueless creationist' stuff or saying I'm prejudiced is not an argument. You are welcome to point out 'incorrect facts' at any time. Last time someone did that I corroborated them from an independent source and they failed to support their charge with anything.

I'm not even sure what 'claims' you expect me to support. I've just noted areas where science has not yet answered some mysteries. I've heard many a 'yes it has' in reply but that is mere assertion and shows a lot of colored perception.

I already said I did not consider ID as science. Nor do I consider it a religion. I see it as an area of personal interest where science may overlap my own theism.
I take no responsibility for what others may say about ID.

If I ever get to the point of publishing I'll say more about the study. Right now it's just an interest.

Bingo. It's precisely at this point that the dodging, weaving and weasle words begin.

Let's see if you can back up your claim.

When my point of the mathematical improbability of a RNA/DNA sequence for a self reproducing organism arising by chance was challenged, I used the standard formula for calculating the probability of any given sequence of events happening:

P1 * P2 * P3 * ....... Pn = probability of sequence occurring.
Where P = the probability of each individual event happening.

The truely pathetic response from the challenger was that I was using erroneous "Creationist math".
Farmerman's response was something like 'he didn't accept my math'.

As Hinge said, we are entitled to our opinion but not our own facts.

After a prolonged discussion about the math, Not a single one of you came out in defense of 'the facts' which you claim to hold so dear.

Dodge & Weasel out of that FBM.

Why should I? That's what you've been doing all along. Looks to me like they've got you cornered right tight there. You're the one in denial, as far as I can tell.

Pro tip: Making the other side appear weaker doesn't make your side any stronger. Only positive evidence for your own hypothesis can do that.

Now, if you're ready to post some genuine, peer-reviewed, empirical evidence for your god hypothesis instead of dallying around with red herrings and ad ignorantiam fallacies...

Your memes are way better than your arguments.

My argument is solid: You haven't shown any evidence for your god hypothesis. Correct that anytime you feel like it.

You are being way too kind to FBM!

FBM, Farmerman, and some of the others...are not actually discussing intelligent design and evolution here...or at least, that is not their focus. They are using this topic to say, "There are no gods...it is not even possible for a god to exist."

If they were not saying that...none of what they ARE suggesting would have any meaning at all. It would all be illogical...and they seem to be intelligent enough to realize that.

If there is the possibility of a god...there is the possibility of intelligent design.

The fact that the "intelligent design" might take the form of "evolution"...is completely reasonable.

Why would a creator god not intelligently design things to work that way?

So they are NOT actually critically discussing intelligent design or evolution...

...they are asserting "The existence of a god is an impossibility."

And they are doing it in the cowardly, underhanded way Internet atheists often work...pretending not to be doing it.

I don't agree with some of the things you are saying, Leadfoot...but at least you are being out-front...and that I appreciate.

Its gotta be something dude.
Id like to see your expansion that determined the "non start of life" based simply on RNA/DNA "interacting"

How many nucleotides in a string did you assume it took to have "RNA' act as a ribozyme?
The work done at Rennselear clearly showed that, in a lab containing the components, many nucleotides would form and that various lengths of "RNA 's" can occur without any ribose sugars needed.
So they found that he ribozymal reactions can occur if an RNA strand of as few as 40 nucleotides can form and one in a (few thousand will act as a catalyst to continue the replecation)

Now the interesting thing is that some favored prebiotic places where thee prebiotic RNA's can occur is in salty pools in clay layrs (Montmorrilonite was the expansive clay that the Rennselear team was messing with)
Also, others found that the mix of nucleotides can autocatalyze in a freezing mass of salt water (like an arctic sea )

WHen you think about it, all the nucleotides in RNA are only 5 and most of these (AT) ,(GC) and U can only link with the other nucleotide in the bracket and itself. SO, the big deal is autocatalysis that becomes the ribozymal activity that defines RNA .
(RNA has a unique nucleotide)
As a forensic scientist would look at this, he would see the inevitability of autocatalysis of these nucleotides in specific environments.
SEE, the actual formation of these nucleotides is kinda bullshit. We already can see G and T in spectra from stars. (We also see other nucleotides that our planet doesnt have in its DNA RNA).
Im waiting more for the day when we discover a world with life where their "replcation "Bookkeeping" molecule isnt based upon our measly batch of 4 nucleotides (for DNA) and 5 nucleotides (For RNA).

What would your ID world look like if some day we discovered a series of ribonucleic acids in alien life that are totally different from those we seem to be obsessing about?
could it happen? not saying it is the case, becaue, maybe, in the case of a pangenetic universe, life coulda been "ferried" about in packets of "ready made" Ribozymes (probably RNA)

So your "improbability expansion" better have some subroutines for "functioning, autocatalyzing ) RNA, how many strands of nucleotides does it take to effect ribozymal activity

Not even a straight forward assertion.

Haven't done an exhaustive search but even their vaunted champion Dawkins couldn't bring himself to say it plainly, certainly not in the excerpt that farmerman quoted.

Your point?

Man, Dawkins gets the holy rollers' panties in a bunch. I can't see it myself, because he doesn't seem to be a very effective public speaker, and his view is very parochial. Most of the time, he is railing specifically against the religious establishment of England. I guess it just makes them crazy to think that a self-professed atheist would be successful writing books on the subject