Religion/Spirituality The Intelligent Design/God/Theism Thread

[tmonster]

@Napoleon , @Mission249 , @Hollywood Hogan let's flip the script, I will be the student, y'all can be the teachers, please answer the above quoted questions 3-5 for me, so we can get down to the root of the "fallacies", and expose the "erroneous" arguments of ID for what they are

3) Is there no relation between complexity and randomness? Meaning can it be A) possible that an object be complex and be random? B) Can it be statistically probable that an object be complex and random? I separated into two parts because I didn't want you to accuse me of asking a loaded question.

4) What are the implications of order in relation to randomness? E.g. if something is done in an orderly fashion, if there is an orderly relation between separate entities, what does that imply about the randomness of said orderly relation between said separate entities. E.g. what do the orbits of the planets imply about the randomness of our galaxy. Of course you are also free to use your own examples, that's just one off the top of my head

5) Why is it logical to believe in statistical impossibility like creation from randomness (not a loaded question), and illogical to believe in the statistical possibility of ID (again, not a loaded question, stating what is actually the case)?

3. Empirically, yes, DNA does this all the time
4. There are none! Teleologically, order implicitly has to have no implications for randomness, it is the complete divorce from randomness
5. Yes loaded x 2 and stating facts not into evidence

generally your questions are also filled with non-sequiturs, I feel like I am being dragged though a muddy load of bullshyt

 

[blackzeus]

Again you're just moving the goalposts now.

No breh, you're redefining ID. ID only claims that the universe as we know it is created by intelligent design, nothing more, nothing less, you guys are moving the goalposts, not me. read post #32 sir

 

[tmonster]

I'm not going to waste my time

amen

 

[tmonster]

ID only claims

and that's all it does, that's the problem

 

[blackzeus]

THAT'S NOT THE TRUTH, BROTHER! "INTELLIGENT DESIGN" WAS DESIGNED (NOT TOO INTELLIGENTLY) BY CREATIONISTS WHO DESIRE TO FORCE THEIR BELIEFS ONTO AS MANY AMERICAN PUBLIC SCHOOL STUDENTS AS THEY CAN, IN A VERY DISHONEST WAY, AS HAS BEEN SHOWN TO THE PUBLIC, AND I'M TIRED OF THE SOPHISTRY INVOLVED IN THIS ISSUE, BROTHER, DUDE, MEAN GENE, JACK, TOUGH GUY, CHAMP!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

I'll watch your videos a little later on to respond intelligently, but if you've read Plato's Demiurge, you'll note that ID has existed since ancient times, whether or not Creationists gave rebirth to the idea in the USA is another topic which I'll claim ignorance on for now, give me a few to watch these videos, but ID is a very old idea in and of itself.

 

[tmonster]

THAT'S NOT THE TRUTH, BROTHER! "INTELLIGENT DESIGN" WAS DESIGNED (NOT TOO INTELLIGENTLY) BY CREATIONISTS WHO DESIRE TO FORCE THEIR BELIEFS ONTO AS MANY AMERICAN PUBLIC SCHOOL STUDENTS AS THEY CAN, IN A VERY DISHONEST WAY, AS HAS BEEN SHOWN TO THE PUBLIC, AND I'M TIRED OF THE SOPHISTRY INVOLVED IN THIS ISSUE, BROTHER, DUDE, MEAN GENE, JACK, TOUGH GUY, CHAMP!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

rep for your patience
gattdamnit you really do try

 

[blackzeus]

3. Empirically, yes, DNA does this all the time
4. There are none! Teleologically, order implicitly has to have no implications for randomness, it is the complete divorce from randomness
5. Yes loaded x 2 and stating facts not into evidence

generally your questions are also filled with non-sequiturs, I feel like I am being dragged though a muddy load of bullshyt

3. But what about irreducible complexity, functional proteins, and junk DNA? How do we answer those questions?

4. So something can be ordered and be random at the same time? Not trying to be facetious here, so could I logically conclude that my laptop is a product of evolution since order and randomness are completely divorced? As an aside, what does the purpose of an object have to do with the fact of if it was intelligently designed or not?

5. So are you stating that evolution is statistically more probable than ID?

 

[blackzeus]

and that's all it does, that's the problem

How is that a problem? Who gets the right to dictate what it claims? ID makes claims based on empirical data, and somehow that's wrong?

 

[tmonster]

How is that a problem? Who gets the right to dictate what it claims? ID makes claims based on empirical data, and somehow that's wrong?

ok

 

[blackzeus]

ok

Why breh? I'm asking you poignant questions. It seems you're annoyed that I even dare to question the position of the evolutionary theory, that I should take it on faith

 

[tmonster]

3. But what about irreducible complexity, functional proteins, and junk DNA? How do we answer those questions?

4. So something can be ordered and be random at the same time? Not trying to be facetious here, so could I logically conclude that my laptop is a product of evolution since order and randomness are completely divorced? As an aside, what does the purpose of an object have to do with the fact of if it was intelligently designed or not?

5. So are you stating that evolution is statistically more probable than ID?

3. been answered (youtube google the internet and stuff)
4. a) go ahead and conclude that b) what does the purpose of evolution have to do with the fact of if it was Narnia?
5. read post

 

[tmonster]

Why breh? I'm asking you poignant questions. It seems you're annoyed that I even dare to question the position of the evolutionary theory, that I should take it on faith

because your questions are so poignant and I base my life and identity on the groundless, puffery and global hoax that is evolution theory, so I feel the need to generate a bunch of bullshyt to defend evolution and my sense of identity, my reason for living, but you see through it and because of that, I am mad

 

[blackzeus]

3. been answered (youtube google the internet and stuff)
4. a) go ahead and conclude that b) what does the purpose of evolution have to do with the fact of if it was Narnia?
5. read post

3. did that, thus this thread, but will google the arguments for and against irreducible complexity and junk DNA in terms of the ID vs evolution debate later this evening

4. a1) ok so you're saying I should take randomness and complexity being divorced on faith? a2) you didn't answer the question about the laptop, is it logical to assume then that my laptop could possibly be a product of evolution since order and randomness are completely divorced? b) You used the word teleogically, not me, so I have the right to ask you what you are trying to infer by that. Purpose deals with the intent of the designer, not the fact of it was designed or not. Yes, in regards to purpose, yes, order and randomness are divorced, but not in terms of design. Cause and effect are two separate things. Feel free to correct me as to why I'm wrong if you feel I am wrong in this aspect

5. I read your post, you said, that the stated facts were not evidence, so I am trying to wrap my head around the idea of how complexity is irrelevant to the fact of the existence of a designer or not breh. If I understand you correctly, you are saying it's equally if not more logical to assume my cell phone is a product of evolution rather than intelligent design, because the complexity of the cell phone is irrelevant to the idea that the cellphone was intelligently designed. Is this correct?

 

[tmonster]

None of this matters. Your beliefs are not substantiated with any evidence besides sheer faith.

best thing I have read today, thanks breh

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

No breh, you're redefining ID. ID only claims that the universe as we know it is created by intelligent design, nothing more, nothing less, you guys are moving the goalposts, not me. read post #32 sir

Too bad.

I could claim the universe was created by fat women on LSD...doesn't make it true