Intelligent design. Not the poster.

Personally I don't think that there is very much difference between either Lynn.

They both seem to want to incite friction amongst more enlightened population whenever they can IMHO without wanting to back their side of the argument up with provable evidence/facts. :-(

Cheers.

Thanks Wiggo!

---

Intelligent design. Not the poster.

Personally I don't think that there is very much difference between either Lynn.

They both seem to want to incite friction amongst more enlightened population whenever they can IMHO without wanting to back their side of the argument up with provable evidence/facts. :-(

Cheers.

Intelligent design. Not the poster.

---

Intelligent design does not provide any information on the "intelligent" force driving ID theory. We can reconcile ID and evolution by simply proposing that the "intelligent" forces driving ID are, in fact evolutionary forces...

or that evolution is actually inteligently designed itself.

The one thing I've noticed is that Creationism has done a great deal of evolving in the last 30 years or so. Seems their theory evolves more and faster than most bacteria they claim are irreducible

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

Intelligent design does not provide any information on the "intelligent" force driving ID theory. We can reconcile ID and evolution by simply proposing that the "intelligent" forces driving ID are, in fact evolutionary forces...

---

Barrel scraping tonight?

ID, you are successfully demonstrating that your argument is circular by using the same flawed sources in an attempt to "prove" two ideas that need to be handled in very different ways.

Others might say you are "spamming" these boards by repeating the same links in such a short period of time, so be aware of this please.

Not might. I do. He put the very same links in his thread and them spammed mine.

Barrel scraping tonight?

ID, you are successfully demonstrating that your argument is circular by using the same flawed sources in an attempt to "prove" two ideas that need to be handled in very different ways.

Others might say you are "spamming" these boards by repeating the same links in such a short period of time, so be aware of this please.

---

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

Pssst. THAT is over <=== here.

Pssst. and is over <=== here.

Pssst. and is over <=== here.

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

Frankly it is...

in error? Your previous post? Thank you for your admission and good day. :)

circular reasoning....

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

Frankly it is...

in error? Your previous post? Thank you for your admission and good day. :)

My logic is sound. The arguments against it are circular. And each and every argument used is a fallacy. Repeatedly I have asked for such fallacies to be put aside.

Your hate for me personally is the only thing showing here.

I take issue with one part of Darwinism that cannot be proven. No one here can prove the point of one species changing into another. This point is the underpinning of Neo-Darwinism! This is indeed taught in our schools. You cannot prove it yet it is taught in our schools!

If anything is circular reasoning that would be the people who have a faith in Darwinism! You have a faith, it's called Neo-Darwinism, you believe it is true but you cannot prove it. This is a faith as defined in Webster!

My post stands as your circular reasoning. Frankly it is...

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

The previous post is in error.

1) The poster does not provide his own logic, but the arguments of others.
2) It shows a deep misunderstanding of what circular reasoning is.
3) The poster is now on a campaign of "you hate ME, so you ruin my threads". I'm so glad you posted this, because I was strongly thinking of posting the following.

It is you, sir, that have ostracized yourself. You (and Guy) were (both) offered friendship (such as it can be online only) by me, publicly and in private messages. Because I, and others, do not agree with you 100% ... well, maybe a lower percent, because clearly your other ally, with a new name each month or so, does not believe in everything you do ... you insult us and call us enemies. (See Guy's posts regarding Salinsky's rules. He uses the term enemy.

4) This thread is not about evolution. If you wish to discuss evolution and your dislike of it, put it one of your threads.
5) Therefore, your point about people having "faith" in evolution similarly cannot be discussed here.
6) Think hard about what circular reasoning is. Realize that the term "irreducible complexity" assumes the conclusion, and thus, I.D. (as it currently stands) cannot be employing the scientific method.
7) If you cannot discuss #6, "stand silent" until you can.

My logic is sound. The arguments against it are circular. And each and every argument used is a fallacy. Repeatedly I have asked for such fallacies to be put aside.

Your hate for me personally is the only thing showing here.

I take issue with one part of Darwinism that cannot be proven. No one here can prove the point of one species changing into another. This point is the underpinning of Neo-Darwinism! This is indeed taught in our schools. You cannot prove it yet it is taught in our schools!

If anything is circular reasoning that would be the people who have a faith in Darwinism! You have a faith, it's called Neo-Darwinism, you believe it is true but you cannot prove it. This is a faith as defined in Webster!

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

I'm still waiting to see 13 threads (including this 1, 12 otherwise) to be moved to a more appropriate forum category. ;-)

Cheers.

This thread is about science. The opening post, and Skil's just before yours, verify this.

I'm sorry, but I'll have to disagree with you there on this point, as this is more a debate on what the definition of science is, not science itself.

But please do notice my remark in brackets as I'm your side as well. ;-)

Cheers.

I do realize you are. However, there is nothing political about what science is.
If the "history of math" was not math, it would be taught in history or political science departments. So, why is taught in a math department? Because it is about math.

I'm still waiting to see 13 threads (including this 1, 12 otherwise) to be moved to a more appropriate forum category. ;-)

Cheers.

This thread is about science. The opening post, and Skil's just before yours, verify this.

I'm sorry, but I'll have to disagree with you there on this point, as this is more a debate on what the definition of science is, not science itself.

But please do notice my remark in brackets as I'm your side as well. ;-)

Cheers.

I'm still waiting to see 13 threads (including this 1, 12 otherwise) to be moved to a more appropriate forum category. ;-)

Cheers.

This thread is about science. The opening post, and Skil's just before yours, verify this.

I'm still waiting to see 13 threads (including this 1, 12 otherwise) to be moved to a more appropriate forum category. ;-)

Cheers.

here's my biggest problem

iii. Experiment:
We can examine biological structures to test if high CSI exists. When we look at natural objects in biology, we find many machine-like structures which are specified, because they have a particular arrangement of parts which is necessary for them to function, and complex because they have an unlikely arrangement of many interacting parts. These biological machines are "irreducibly complex," for any change in the nature or arrangement of these parts would destroy their function. Irreducibly complex structures cannot be built up through an alternative theory, such as Darwinian evolution, because Darwinian evolution requires that a biological structure be functional along every small-step of its evolution. "Reverse engineering" of these structures shows that they cease to function if changed even slightly.

This statement makes assumptions about biology that are basically flawed and erroneous.

If one take a segment out of a functioning biological process you get a non functioning cell or organ or life.
IE cancer. defects(partial or full removal or change in a gene) in genetic code are known to occur for a multitude of human diseases. How do we know? The human genome project and actual research.

The author states that a particular biological component becomes non functional without giving an example. Would a Factor VIII deficient person qualify under this premise? Hardly, we know very well what genetic marker is missing and how this disease is passed from generation to generation. Though the person has a defective gene does not incapacitate the individual completely and they don't just stop functioning. Clearly, people are born everyday with one genetic disorder or another.

I recall reading, a long time ago, that everyone is born with at least 10 changed in their code that will most likely never show. Again, that's a lot of change with very few of us actually not functioning as intended

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

Evolution is not the topic here.

Now you're using Saul Alinsky's, Rules for Radicals, Of means and ends, rule #4 against me.

Your very last line is a flame. You are trying to suggest I am a radical.

Looks like you're starting to get it. I was pointing out the Saul Alinsky rule I'm using against you. I'm the radical in this case, not you.

And now you're beginning to see that we're both radicals. Right?

The question remains, which one of us was the radical FIRST?

(Possible responses: Saul Alinsky's Rules For Radicals, On Tactics, Rules #2, #3, #5, #12 and #13. If it were anybody except you in here, I would expect rule #5. From you I'm expecting rule #12. Are you going to take the high road or the low road?)

I am not going to follow any of your perceived rules.
Evolution was not, is not and will not be the topic in here.
Neither will faith be the topic here.

This subject goes round and round and ends up nowhere. I guess it does make a nice space filler. I.D. doesn't want to face up to the fact that science and religion don't mix and the rest of us will never convince him.

It does not go round-and-round. Science is well-defined. It is shown in the very first post how ID is not science.

I was not referring to the science. I am referring to the debate, which is endless and doesn't get anywhere. ID makes a post and then a certain few respond pointing out his flawed logic and then it just goes round and round and round. Nothing new is brought to the table and until the thread is locked the same arguments prevail.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.