Religion/Spirituality The Intelligent Design/God/Theism Thread

[blackzeus]

Okay, so we agree we can't know. The problem I see is how you can suppose one option is more likely than the other when you have no idea how likely both occurrences are? Would you not agree that some observed order could come about without some guiding entity ... regardless of how rare or unlikely it is?



If the force keeping the pig on the ground was negated or removed, then for all intents and purposes the pig would fly. Again, under the right conditions.




I'm confused. You seem to be contradicting yourself by saying, in the earlier example, you would start by assuming laptops were created by chance ... but with the scientific method you start by assuming nothing. Maybe there was a typo there.

But if ID is saying what you seem to be saying, then it's not reaching a logical conclusion. It's jumping to a conclusion. You're saying that if one proposed answer is improbable, then the alternative must necessarily be true. That complexity implies design, therefore it was designed. What's scientific about that?

1) You are 100% right, we can't know for sure, we can only come to a logical conclusion via probability. In regards to both occurrences being likely, there is only randomness and order, similar as to a computer byte is either a 0 or a 1. It's either one or the other breh, either it's random or it's order. Varying degrees of order is still order, a one drop rule so to speak. And actually, we can calculate how likely randomness is to create a functional entity (random walk/probability via statistics). Yes, you're right, there's always the probability that order could come about without some guiding entity, however, the likelihood of that probability is so small it's not logical to consider that as a viable answer. Again, it takes more faith to believe against ID than to believe in it, but I am not here to tell you what you should believe, just pointing out the empirical facts.

2) Hmm lack of gravity is not self-propulsion breh, but yes, pigs would float in that case, not sure flying is the correct term

3) Maybe a misunderstanding, if I assume nothing, that means I assume it's by chance. I mean it's here, so obviously by SOME method it got here, so the correct assumption is to assume it's just there randomly, anything more would be a BELIEF. Then with frequentist statistics via observation and probability, we can deduce if it came from outer space, under the earth or from the ocean, or if it was designer to be the way it was and where it was. Chance = randomness = no assumption

4) Complexity implies design because complexity makes it highly improbable that randomness is true. The science is in the odds, in the probabilities breh. The math came to that conclusion, not me

 

[blackzeus]

See, this is false.

Light active compounds, reacting to sunlight from geothermal vents creating the building blocks of molecules including amino acids of different chirality might result in functional proteins over TRILLIONS of chances of trial and error

Even further, this is like saying the mutation between strains of viruses that jump between species is also "impossible"...until it fukking happens.

It's 2014, we can run time-lapse simulation breh, let me know the the last time we've shown herpes to morph into tuberculosis Just stop it man, these are assumptions, bacterial strains can become weaker or stronger, not change species/genus, show me the study of one type of virus evolving into a completely other type of virus (e.g. common cold into chickenpox) and you'll have proven evolution to be true at the molecular level Remember, I'm here to learn too

 

[tmonster]

Congress didn't make that change. The creationist activists, who were trying to use public schools to promote their religious beliefs, went through their creationist textbook and changed each instance of "creationist" to "intelligent design proponent." They only did this because the courts told them, in no uncertain terms, that creationism is not science, it's religion, and the public schools won't be used to violate the establishment clause.

Then they went to court again and lost because it was easy to see through their bullshyt, which you're simply regurgitating here.

but...but he used common man lingo like "crackin'" and fancy sciency terms like "induction" and "let N be the set"

Let's get it crackin'.
Simple induction proof:

Let N be the set of all

I find him to be trustworthy because he is common like me and an authority because uses terms I did not hear in high school

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

It's 2014, we can run time-lapse simulation breh, let me know the the last time we've shown herpes to morph into tuberculosis Just stop it man, these are assumptions, bacterial strains can become weaker or stronger, not change species/genus, show me the study of one type of virus evolving into a completely other type of virus (e.g. common cold into chickenpox) and you'll have proven evolution to be true at the molecular level Remember, I'm here to learn too

AIDS was shown to be only a monkey strain until it mutated to infect humans. That itself is speciation.

 

[tmonster]

You must spread reputation to at least 30 other user(s) before you can give reputation to Napoleon again.
keep putting in that work

 

[blackzeus]

but...but he used common man lingo like "crackin'" and fancy sciency terms like "induction" and "let N be the set"



I find him to be trustworthy because he is common like me and an authority because uses terms I did not hear in high school

Yes ad hominems, that's the way to debate

 

[blackzeus]

AIDS was shown to be only a monkey strain until it mutated to infect humans. That itself is speciation.

So because it adapted to a new host you are claiming it evolved into a completely different species? Is it not still AIDS? @Mission249 , please come help your man, he's really losing it

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

So because it adapted to a new host you are claiming it evolved into a completely different species? Is it not still AIDS? @Mission249 , please come help your man, he's really losing it

Why is it that professionals disagree with you?

 

[blackzeus]

Why is it that professionals disagree with you?

The same professionals who say chimps and I have a common ancestor?

 

[blackzeus]

Why is it that professionals disagree with you?

#appealtoauthority We should do a Where's Waldo version with the fallacies in this thread

 

[tmonster]

Yes ad hominems, that's the way to debate

 

[tmonster]

The same professionals who say chimps and I have a common ancestor?

 

[blackzeus]

Yes, I'm laughing because I'm mad

 

[tmonster]

Yes, I'm laughing because I'm mad

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

#appealtoauthority We should do a Where's Waldo version with the fallacies in this thread

No. I'm serious.

Why do people who seem to base all of their other assumptions in modern biology, disagree with you?

Where have you succeeded where the mainstream has failed?