Total Posts:49|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Does anyone want to debate ID?

Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2015 5:01:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Seems no one here wants to investigate the observations or inferences that lead to the conclusion, Life was intelligently designed.

The rebuttals all appear on questioning who this designer is, totally misrepresenting the argument from design, ect..

I spend days talking about the encoding of digital information, Which is just one point, one observation that leads to ID conclusion.

And this single point has gotten replied with

Snowflakes - again and NOTHING like the encoding of digital information strawman
Evolution made it - evolution is change over time after the initial life is made. Evolution can not account for the emergence of life. This is backwards causality.
It causes Atheist to ask questions they don't want to answer.
I get told if I think life is ID why not the whole universe. Has nothing to do with the single premise being put forward. Unless I have stated I see the encoding of digital information as the WHOLE universe than I don;t see it's relevance.

I think this is just a subject too advanced for the posters of this forum to understand and coherently respond to.

Just keep drinking the cool-aid, the parsimonious puree of bull crap, and shout till your face turns blue that you are reasoning and thinking for yourself. That atheist are questioning everything.

Ridiculous. A rational atheist is an oxymoron.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2015 5:25:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/28/2015 5:01:05 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Seems no one here wants to investigate the observations or inferences that lead to the conclusion, Life was intelligently designed.

The rebuttals all appear on questioning who this designer is, totally misrepresenting the argument from design, ect..

I spend days talking about the encoding of digital information, Which is just one point, one observation that leads to ID conclusion.

And this single point has gotten replied with

Snowflakes - again and NOTHING like the encoding of digital information strawman
Evolution made it - evolution is change over time after the initial life is made. Evolution can not account for the emergence of life. This is backwards causality.
It causes Atheist to ask questions they don't want to answer.
I get told if I think life is ID why not the whole universe. Has nothing to do with the single premise being put forward. Unless I have stated I see the encoding of digital information as the WHOLE universe than I don;t see it's relevance.

I think this is just a subject too advanced for the posters of this forum to understand and coherently respond to.

Just keep drinking the cool-aid, the parsimonious puree of bull crap, and shout till your face turns blue that you are reasoning and thinking for yourself. That atheist are questioning everything.

Ridiculous. A rational atheist is an oxymoron.

Cool story bro.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2015 5:38:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/28/2015 5:25:51 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 2/28/2015 5:01:05 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Seems no one here wants to investigate the observations or inferences that lead to the conclusion, Life was intelligently designed.

The rebuttals all appear on questioning who this designer is, totally misrepresenting the argument from design, ect..

I spend days talking about the encoding of digital information, Which is just one point, one observation that leads to ID conclusion.

And this single point has gotten replied with

Snowflakes - again and NOTHING like the encoding of digital information strawman
Evolution made it - evolution is change over time after the initial life is made. Evolution can not account for the emergence of life. This is backwards causality.
It causes Atheist to ask questions they don't want to answer.
I get told if I think life is ID why not the whole universe. Has nothing to do with the single premise being put forward. Unless I have stated I see the encoding of digital information as the WHOLE universe than I don;t see it's relevance.

I think this is just a subject too advanced for the posters of this forum to understand and coherently respond to.

Just keep drinking the cool-aid, the parsimonious puree of bull crap, and shout till your face turns blue that you are reasoning and thinking for yourself. That atheist are questioning everything.

Ridiculous. A rational atheist is an oxymoron.

Cool story bro.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2015 6:53:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/28/2015 5:38:38 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/28/2015 5:25:51 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 2/28/2015 5:01:05 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Seems no one here wants to investigate the observations or inferences that lead to the conclusion, Life was intelligently designed.

The rebuttals all appear on questioning who this designer is, totally misrepresenting the argument from design, ect..

I spend days talking about the encoding of digital information, Which is just one point, one observation that leads to ID conclusion.

And this single point has gotten replied with

Snowflakes - again and NOTHING like the encoding of digital information strawman
Evolution made it - evolution is change over time after the initial life is made. Evolution can not account for the emergence of life. This is backwards causality.
It causes Atheist to ask questions they don't want to answer.
I get told if I think life is ID why not the whole universe. Has nothing to do with the single premise being put forward. Unless I have stated I see the encoding of digital information as the WHOLE universe than I don;t see it's relevance.

I think this is just a subject too advanced for the posters of this forum to understand and coherently respond to.

Just keep drinking the cool-aid, the parsimonious puree of bull crap, and shout till your face turns blue that you are reasoning and thinking for yourself. That atheist are questioning everything.

Ridiculous. A rational atheist is an oxymoron.

Cool story bro.

So no. I count 2 so far who would rather argue around the Premises of ID than to debate it.

nothing ever in the history of reason or logic is anything ever confirmed, affirmed, or determined by doubt.

But Atheist think they are just so damn smart and logical. See the error yet?
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2015 6:56:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/28/2015 6:53:19 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/28/2015 5:38:38 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/28/2015 5:25:51 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 2/28/2015 5:01:05 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Seems no one here wants to investigate the observations or inferences that lead to the conclusion, Life was intelligently designed.

The rebuttals all appear on questioning who this designer is, totally misrepresenting the argument from design, ect..

I spend days talking about the encoding of digital information, Which is just one point, one observation that leads to ID conclusion.

And this single point has gotten replied with

Snowflakes - again and NOTHING like the encoding of digital information strawman
Evolution made it - evolution is change over time after the initial life is made. Evolution can not account for the emergence of life. This is backwards causality.
It causes Atheist to ask questions they don't want to answer.
I get told if I think life is ID why not the whole universe. Has nothing to do with the single premise being put forward. Unless I have stated I see the encoding of digital information as the WHOLE universe than I don;t see it's relevance.

I think this is just a subject too advanced for the posters of this forum to understand and coherently respond to.

Just keep drinking the cool-aid, the parsimonious puree of bull crap, and shout till your face turns blue that you are reasoning and thinking for yourself. That atheist are questioning everything.

Ridiculous. A rational atheist is an oxymoron.

Cool story bro.

So no. I count 2 so far who would rather argue around the Premises of ID than to debate it.

nothing ever in the history of reason or logic is anything ever confirmed, affirmed, or determined by doubt.

But Atheist think they are just so damn smart and logical. See the error yet?

This whole thread is the moral equivalent of an attack thread. I think ID has some valid arguments but you weren't looking for intelligent discussion on this, were you?

If you want to discuss various aspects of ID than start a thread on one of those aspects, this thread was doomed from the start.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2015 7:03:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/28/2015 6:56:10 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/28/2015 6:53:19 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/28/2015 5:38:38 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/28/2015 5:25:51 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 2/28/2015 5:01:05 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Seems no one here wants to investigate the observations or inferences that lead to the conclusion, Life was intelligently designed.

The rebuttals all appear on questioning who this designer is, totally misrepresenting the argument from design, ect..

I spend days talking about the encoding of digital information, Which is just one point, one observation that leads to ID conclusion.

And this single point has gotten replied with

Snowflakes - again and NOTHING like the encoding of digital information strawman
Evolution made it - evolution is change over time after the initial life is made. Evolution can not account for the emergence of life. This is backwards causality.
It causes Atheist to ask questions they don't want to answer.
I get told if I think life is ID why not the whole universe. Has nothing to do with the single premise being put forward. Unless I have stated I see the encoding of digital information as the WHOLE universe than I don;t see it's relevance.

I think this is just a subject too advanced for the posters of this forum to understand and coherently respond to.

Just keep drinking the cool-aid, the parsimonious puree of bull crap, and shout till your face turns blue that you are reasoning and thinking for yourself. That atheist are questioning everything.

Ridiculous. A rational atheist is an oxymoron.

Cool story bro.

So no. I count 2 so far who would rather argue around the Premises of ID than to debate it.

nothing ever in the history of reason or logic is anything ever confirmed, affirmed, or determined by doubt.

But Atheist think they are just so damn smart and logical. See the error yet?

This whole thread is the moral equivalent of an attack thread. I think ID has some valid arguments but you weren't looking for intelligent discussion on this, were you?

If you want to discuss various aspects of ID than start a thread on one of those aspects, this thread was doomed from the start.

the threads are already out there. and in answering replies none addressed: Why digital information stored in a symbolic manner is NOT evidence of intelligent design?
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2015 7:11:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
@Mykhiel, I don't know the answer to that question. That is one of the things I find a little intriguing about the ID argument. Maybe you should start a thread in the science section on that and ask. I'd advise avoiding the strawman arguments and the ad hominem a like you did at the start of this thread, otherwise that thread will also also get similar results as this one.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2015 7:29:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/28/2015 7:11:00 PM, Wylted wrote:
@Mykhiel, I don't know the answer to that question. That is one of the things I find a little intriguing about the ID argument. Maybe you should start a thread in the science section on that and ask. I'd advise avoiding the strawman arguments and the ad hominem a like you did at the start of this thread, otherwise that thread will also also get similar results as this one.

They are not strawman arguments. They recall exactly the responses I ran into.

No one replying to the posts on Intelligent Design are addressing any of the premises or observations.

And when point for point shown how DNA/RNA is digital information and how thw codon table is encoding of peptides into symbolic representations (codon strings) transcribed in a medium of molecules (DNA/RNA) they retort back with oh that's just like a snowflake.

STFU

There's no attempt to investigate or discuss ID. Just the same Atheist tactics seen over and over again. Semantics to confuse the structure of words composed of letters, as in reality water is a code in ice.

But we all know social and personal reasons for this circus of responses from ID-opponents. Has nothing to do with it's validity and that is intellectually dishonest.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2015 7:39:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/28/2015 7:29:52 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/28/2015 7:11:00 PM, Wylted wrote:
@Mykhiel, I don't know the answer to that question. That is one of the things I find a little intriguing about the ID argument. Maybe you should start a thread in the science section on that and ask. I'd advise avoiding the strawman arguments and the ad hominem a like you did at the start of this thread, otherwise that thread will also also get similar results as this one.

They are not strawman arguments. They recall exactly the responses I ran into.

No one replying to the posts on Intelligent Design are addressing any of the premises or observations.

And when point for point shown how DNA/RNA is digital information and how thw codon table is encoding of peptides into symbolic representations (codon strings) transcribed in a medium of molecules (DNA/RNA) they retort back with oh that's just like a snowflake.

STFU

There's no attempt to investigate or discuss ID. Just the same Atheist tactics seen over and over again. Semantics to confuse the structure of words composed of letters, as in reality water is a code in ice.

But we all know social and personal reasons for this circus of responses from ID-opponents. Has nothing to do with it's validity and that is intellectually dishonest.

This is still an attempt at attacking "the opposition". Remove the "Us vs them" mentality and you can engage in more productive discourse. I'm not saying nothing of value was said but that value can't be seen because the attacks are distracting.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2015 10:36:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Okey let's talk about honesty. Let's for the sake of argument agree that the natural world is the product of intelligent design.
.

So my question is, operating on the premise that the natural world is a product of ID are you willing to follow it's implications based on reason and evidence OR is your goal to make the intelligent designer conform to a prior religious belief.

Cause you know what makes me sick, people with hand on heart profess, no no no, we really are pursuing science here, we have no religious agenda, we just think ID (in some form) is as scientific as say evolution by natural selection, but when confronted with evidence that suggests the intelligent derringer does not fit with a prior God belief they are wiling to make any excuse necessary to make it fit.

Are you willing to accept the IDer is not God ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2015 10:51:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/28/2015 10:36:37 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
Okey let's talk about honesty. Let's for the sake of argument agree that the natural world is the product of intelligent design.
.

So my question is, operating on the premise that the natural world is a product of ID are you willing to follow it's implications based on reason and evidence OR is your goal to make the intelligent designer conform to a prior religious belief.

Cause you know what makes me sick, people with hand on heart profess, no no no, we really are pursuing science here, we have no religious agenda, we just think ID (in some form) is as scientific as say evolution by natural selection, but when confronted with evidence that suggests the intelligent derringer does not fit with a prior God belief they are wiling to make any excuse necessary to make it fit.

Are you willing to accept the IDer is not God ?

Gods can also consist of entities vastly beyond our comprehension, reach, and control. If the Simulation Hypothesis is true, and we're the product of posthuman ancestors (or some unknown entity), we simply have no choice but to recognize them as gods. They're running the show, and our collective (or even individual) behavior may be monitored " or even controlled " by them. These hacker gods would be akin the gnostic gods of yesteryear " powerful entities doing their own thing, and without our best interests in mind.

I accept that as a possibility as-well. Even though it is not how I would define my God, I would find Simulation Gods intellectually and reasonably defensible.

ID can be one fact another uses to propose Aliens as seeders of life on earth. But I have certainly said that ID does not answer the whom of the designer. And merely infers design from attributes.

If this designer is discovered to be something other than God, no I would not withdraw my support for ID.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2015 11:00:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/28/2015 10:51:51 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/28/2015 10:36:37 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
Okey let's talk about honesty. Let's for the sake of argument agree that the natural world is the product of intelligent design.
.

So my question is, operating on the premise that the natural world is a product of ID are you willing to follow it's implications based on reason and evidence OR is your goal to make the intelligent designer conform to a prior religious belief.

Cause you know what makes me sick, people with hand on heart profess, no no no, we really are pursuing science here, we have no religious agenda, we just think ID (in some form) is as scientific as say evolution by natural selection, but when confronted with evidence that suggests the intelligent derringer does not fit with a prior God belief they are wiling to make any excuse necessary to make it fit.

Are you willing to accept the IDer is not God ?

Gods can also consist of entities vastly beyond our comprehension, reach, and control. If the Simulation Hypothesis is true, and we're the product of posthuman ancestors (or some unknown entity), we simply have no choice but to recognize them as gods. They're running the show, and our collective (or even individual) behavior may be monitored " or even controlled " by them. These hacker gods would be akin the gnostic gods of yesteryear " powerful entities doing their own thing, and without our best interests in mind.

I accept that as a possibility as-well. Even though it is not how I would define my God, I would find Simulation Gods intellectually and reasonably defensible.

ID can be one fact another uses to propose Aliens as seeders of life on earth. But I have certainly said that ID does not answer the whom of the designer. And merely infers design from attributes.

If this designer is discovered to be something other than God, no I would not withdraw my support for ID.

What if we don't find the ider (again operating on the premise the natural world is a product of ID, what conclusions would you draw?

For example some one might draw the conclusion the ider is a bit sadistic and cruel.

Some one might draw the conclusion the Ider is subject to limitations based on optimal design. Ergo not all powerful, all knowing, all capable, etc etc

Some one might infer the Ider is not concerned with happens on this particular planet
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2015 11:05:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/28/2015 11:00:42 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/28/2015 10:51:51 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/28/2015 10:36:37 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
Okey let's talk about honesty. Let's for the sake of argument agree that the natural world is the product of intelligent design.
.

So my question is, operating on the premise that the natural world is a product of ID are you willing to follow it's implications based on reason and evidence OR is your goal to make the intelligent designer conform to a prior religious belief.

Cause you know what makes me sick, people with hand on heart profess, no no no, we really are pursuing science here, we have no religious agenda, we just think ID (in some form) is as scientific as say evolution by natural selection, but when confronted with evidence that suggests the intelligent derringer does not fit with a prior God belief they are wiling to make any excuse necessary to make it fit.

Are you willing to accept the IDer is not God ?

Gods can also consist of entities vastly beyond our comprehension, reach, and control. If the Simulation Hypothesis is true, and we're the product of posthuman ancestors (or some unknown entity), we simply have no choice but to recognize them as gods. They're running the show, and our collective (or even individual) behavior may be monitored " or even controlled " by them. These hacker gods would be akin the gnostic gods of yesteryear " powerful entities doing their own thing, and without our best interests in mind.

I accept that as a possibility as-well. Even though it is not how I would define my God, I would find Simulation Gods intellectually and reasonably defensible.

ID can be one fact another uses to propose Aliens as seeders of life on earth. But I have certainly said that ID does not answer the whom of the designer. And merely infers design from attributes.

If this designer is discovered to be something other than God, no I would not withdraw my support for ID.

What if we don't find the ider (again operating on the premise the natural world is a product of ID, what conclusions would you draw?

For example some one might draw the conclusion the ider is a bit sadistic and cruel.

Some one might draw the conclusion the Ider is subject to limitations based on (sub) optimal design. Ergo not all powerful, all knowing, all capable, etc etc

Some one might infer the Ider is not concerned with happens on this particular planet
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2015 11:08:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/28/2015 11:00:42 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/28/2015 10:51:51 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/28/2015 10:36:37 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
Okey let's talk about honesty. Let's for the sake of argument agree that the natural world is the product of intelligent design.
.

So my question is, operating on the premise that the natural world is a product of ID are you willing to follow it's implications based on reason and evidence OR is your goal to make the intelligent designer conform to a prior religious belief.

Cause you know what makes me sick, people with hand on heart profess, no no no, we really are pursuing science here, we have no religious agenda, we just think ID (in some form) is as scientific as say evolution by natural selection, but when confronted with evidence that suggests the intelligent derringer does not fit with a prior God belief they are wiling to make any excuse necessary to make it fit.

Are you willing to accept the IDer is not God ?

Gods can also consist of entities vastly beyond our comprehension, reach, and control. If the Simulation Hypothesis is true, and we're the product of posthuman ancestors (or some unknown entity), we simply have no choice but to recognize them as gods. They're running the show, and our collective (or even individual) behavior may be monitored " or even controlled " by them. These hacker gods would be akin the gnostic gods of yesteryear " powerful entities doing their own thing, and without our best interests in mind.

I accept that as a possibility as-well. Even though it is not how I would define my God, I would find Simulation Gods intellectually and reasonably defensible.

ID can be one fact another uses to propose Aliens as seeders of life on earth. But I have certainly said that ID does not answer the whom of the designer. And merely infers design from attributes.

If this designer is discovered to be something other than God, no I would not withdraw my support for ID.

What if we don't find the ider (again operating on the premise the natural world is a product of ID, what conclusions would you draw?

For example some one might draw the conclusion the ider is a bit sadistic and cruel.

Some one might draw the conclusion the Ider is subject to limitations based on optimal design. Ergo not all powerful, all knowing, all capable, etc etc

Some one might infer the Ider is not concerned with happens on this particular planet

I would be fine with any of those being presented. I would debate some of them. But as I said it's a fallacy to through out ID just because you don't want to identify a designer or because you can't.

And thank you. Because just like my post is about, YOU don't want to discuss the reasoning, the science, the logic, the inferences of Intelligent Design.

You want to skirt around it because if life was Intelligently designed it would be one more door open for the rational intellectual belief in a god.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2015 11:21:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/28/2015 5:01:05 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Seems no one here wants to investigate the observations or inferences that lead to the conclusion, Life was intelligently designed.

The rebuttals all appear on questioning who this designer is, totally misrepresenting the argument from design, ect..

I spend days talking about the encoding of digital information, Which is just one point, one observation that leads to ID conclusion.

And this single point has gotten replied with

Snowflakes - again and NOTHING like the encoding of digital information strawman
Evolution made it - evolution is change over time after the initial life is made. Evolution can not account for the emergence of life. This is backwards causality.
It causes Atheist to ask questions they don't want to answer.
I get told if I think life is ID why not the whole universe. Has nothing to do with the single premise being put forward. Unless I have stated I see the encoding of digital information as the WHOLE universe than I don;t see it's relevance.

I think this is just a subject too advanced for the posters of this forum to understand and coherently respond to.

lol.

If you're going to argue "life was intelligently designed," it is your BOP to prove a plausible intelligent designer. It can't be an alien species because that's question begging: who intelligently designed this alien species? So you're arguing for a supernatural being. If you can't prove a plausible supernatural being, then you can't establish intelligent design.

When you say "ID," from what I've seen, you're trying to argue that abiogensis is flawed and therefore an intelligent designer created life, and then stepped back and let it evolve using natural processes. This is really just another "God of the gaps" argument: you've targeted the area where there is some of the least scientific knowledge about what happened and posit that this lack of knowledge proves a need for an intelligent designer. Presumably you would concede that irreducible complexity and arguing against evolution are stupid. But it's still an unscientific approach to say: you can't prove to me with 100% certainty that your origin theory is correct, therefore God. ID attempts to mask the "God" part of that behind one layer of bullsht, and attempts to mask its unscientific nature behind another. But it's not a very clever ruse, as courts have noted that have rejected it as a valid scientific theory (and therefore as something that can validly be taught in public schools).
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2015 11:36:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/28/2015 11:08:58 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/28/2015 11:00:42 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/28/2015 10:51:51 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/28/2015 10:36:37 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
Okey let's talk about honesty. Let's for the sake of argument agree that the natural world is the product of intelligent design.
.

So my question is, operating on the premise that the natural world is a product of ID are you willing to follow it's implications based on reason and evidence OR is your goal to make the intelligent designer conform to a prior religious belief.

Cause you know what makes me sick, people with hand on heart profess, no no no, we really are pursuing science here, we have no religious agenda, we just think ID (in some form) is as scientific as say evolution by natural selection, but when confronted with evidence that suggests the intelligent derringer does not fit with a prior God belief they are wiling to make any excuse necessary to make it fit.

Are you willing to accept the IDer is not God ?

Gods can also consist of entities vastly beyond our comprehension, reach, and control. If the Simulation Hypothesis is true, and we're the product of posthuman ancestors (or some unknown entity), we simply have no choice but to recognize them as gods. They're running the show, and our collective (or even individual) behavior may be monitored " or even controlled " by them. These hacker gods would be akin the gnostic gods of yesteryear " powerful entities doing their own thing, and without our best interests in mind.

I accept that as a possibility as-well. Even though it is not how I would define my God, I would find Simulation Gods intellectually and reasonably defensible.

ID can be one fact another uses to propose Aliens as seeders of life on earth. But I have certainly said that ID does not answer the whom of the designer. And merely infers design from attributes.

If this designer is discovered to be something other than God, no I would not withdraw my support for ID.

What if we don't find the ider (again operating on the premise the natural world is a product of ID, what conclusions would you draw?

For example some one might draw the conclusion the ider is a bit sadistic and cruel.

Some one might draw the conclusion the Ider is subject to limitations based on optimal design. Ergo not all powerful, all knowing, all capable, etc etc

Some one might infer the Ider is not concerned with happens on this particular planet

I would be fine with any of those being presented. I would debate some of them. But as I said it's a fallacy to through out ID just because you don't want to identify a designer or because you can't.

And thank you. Because just like my post is about, YOU don't want to discuss the reasoning, the science, the logic, the inferences of Intelligent Design.

You want to skirt around it because if life was Intelligently designed it would be one more door open for the rational intellectual belief in a god.

That's the joke it doesn't. Id of the natural world doesn't get you to the God that people profess belief in.

If the world is the product of ID absent prior religious motivations your not going to infer the all powerful, all knowing, just, loving, blah blah blah......

And when I pushed you on this point what did I get ? the claim about Id being one more door open for the rational belief in the existence of God. (not to mention a bit of a personal attack)

At this point a self defense mechanism is probably kicking in your options are....

1) Deny
2) Distract
3) Attack me personally
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2015 12:05:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/28/2015 11:21:01 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 2/28/2015 5:01:05 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Seems no one here wants to investigate the observations or inferences that lead to the conclusion, Life was intelligently designed.

The rebuttals all appear on questioning who this designer is, totally misrepresenting the argument from design, ect..

I spend days talking about the encoding of digital information, Which is just one point, one observation that leads to ID conclusion.

And this single point has gotten replied with

Snowflakes - again and NOTHING like the encoding of digital information strawman
Evolution made it - evolution is change over time after the initial life is made. Evolution can not account for the emergence of life. This is backwards causality.
It causes Atheist to ask questions they don't want to answer.
I get told if I think life is ID why not the whole universe. Has nothing to do with the single premise being put forward. Unless I have stated I see the encoding of digital information as the WHOLE universe than I don;t see it's relevance.

I think this is just a subject too advanced for the posters of this forum to understand and coherently respond to.

lol.

If you're going to argue "life was intelligently designed," it is your BOP to prove a plausible intelligent designer. It can't be an alien species because that's question begging: who intelligently designed this alien species? So you're arguing for a supernatural being. If you can't prove a plausible supernatural being, then you can't establish intelligent design.

When you say "ID," from what I've seen, you're trying to argue that abiogensis is flawed and therefore an intelligent designer created life, and then stepped back and let it evolve using natural processes. This is really just another "God of the gaps" argument: you've targeted the area where there is some of the least scientific knowledge about what happened and posit that this lack of knowledge proves a need for an intelligent designer. Presumably you would concede that irreducible complexity and arguing against evolution are stupid. But it's still an unscientific approach to say: you can't prove to me with 100% certainty that your origin theory is correct, therefore God. ID attempts to mask the "God" part of that behind one layer of bullsht, and attempts to mask its unscientific nature behind another. But it's not a very clever ruse, as courts have noted that have rejected it as a valid scientific theory (and therefore as something that can validly be taught in public schools).

No I don't have to identify an Intelligent Designer responsible for life. The theory says Life is the result of intelligent agency.

Just like finding an arrow head I do not have to identify the tribe to account for the arrow head being an arrow head and not a rock.

Just like Big Bang doesn't answer the cause of space expanding, just explains the observations of the galaxies spreading apart.

just like germ theory doesn't explain where new germs come from, just that they explain what causes some diseases.

Just like theory of relativity doesn't have to explain why matter bends space and time, just that it does.

ID explains what the emergence of life is contingent on. Intelligent Agency is sufficient and proper to define one element needed for life to emerge from non-living material.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2015 12:20:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/1/2015 12:05:21 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/28/2015 11:21:01 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 2/28/2015 5:01:05 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Seems no one here wants to investigate the observations or inferences that lead to the conclusion, Life was intelligently designed.

The rebuttals all appear on questioning who this designer is, totally misrepresenting the argument from design, ect..

I spend days talking about the encoding of digital information, Which is just one point, one observation that leads to ID conclusion.

And this single point has gotten replied with

Snowflakes - again and NOTHING like the encoding of digital information strawman
Evolution made it - evolution is change over time after the initial life is made. Evolution can not account for the emergence of life. This is backwards causality.
It causes Atheist to ask questions they don't want to answer.
I get told if I think life is ID why not the whole universe. Has nothing to do with the single premise being put forward. Unless I have stated I see the encoding of digital information as the WHOLE universe than I don;t see it's relevance.

I think this is just a subject too advanced for the posters of this forum to understand and coherently respond to.

lol.

If you're going to argue "life was intelligently designed," it is your BOP to prove a plausible intelligent designer. It can't be an alien species because that's question begging: who intelligently designed this alien species? So you're arguing for a supernatural being. If you can't prove a plausible supernatural being, then you can't establish intelligent design.

When you say "ID," from what I've seen, you're trying to argue that abiogensis is flawed and therefore an intelligent designer created life, and then stepped back and let it evolve using natural processes. This is really just another "God of the gaps" argument: you've targeted the area where there is some of the least scientific knowledge about what happened and posit that this lack of knowledge proves a need for an intelligent designer. Presumably you would concede that irreducible complexity and arguing against evolution are stupid. But it's still an unscientific approach to say: you can't prove to me with 100% certainty that your origin theory is correct, therefore God. ID attempts to mask the "God" part of that behind one layer of bullsht, and attempts to mask its unscientific nature behind another. But it's not a very clever ruse, as courts have noted that have rejected it as a valid scientific theory (and therefore as something that can validly be taught in public schools).

No I don't have to identify an Intelligent Designer responsible for life. The theory says Life is the result of intelligent agency.

Just like finding an arrow head I do not have to identify the tribe to account for the arrow head being an arrow head and not a rock.

No one contests the existence of tribes or of humans.


just like germ theory doesn't explain where new germs come from, just that they explain what causes some diseases.

No one questions the existence of bacteria or viruses.


Just like theory of relativity doesn't have to explain why matter bends space and time, just that it does.

No one questions the existence of matter...


ID explains what the emergence of life is contingent on. Intelligent Agency is sufficient and proper to define one element needed for life to emerge from non-living material.

Presumably a debate would focus on how plausible ID is compared to the alternative in explaining how life on Earth emerged. It's not a plausible theory if an intelligent designer isn't plausible. It really is no more complicated than that. The other theories you mentioned do not rest on an uncertain implied premise such as "an intelligent designer exists."

You can keep disagreeing with me. I have no interest in debating you, although I know it is a debate I would most certainly win, particularly if you refused to provide evidence that a supernatural intelligent designer exists.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2015 12:36:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/28/2015 11:36:50 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/28/2015 11:08:58 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/28/2015 11:00:42 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/28/2015 10:51:51 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/28/2015 10:36:37 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
Okey let's talk about honesty. Let's for the sake of argument agree that the natural world is the product of intelligent design.
.

So my question is, operating on the premise that the natural world is a product of ID are you willing to follow it's implications based on reason and evidence OR is your goal to make the intelligent designer conform to a prior religious belief.

Cause you know what makes me sick, people with hand on heart profess, no no no, we really are pursuing science here, we have no religious agenda, we just think ID (in some form) is as scientific as say evolution by natural selection, but when confronted with evidence that suggests the intelligent derringer does not fit with a prior God belief they are wiling to make any excuse necessary to make it fit.

Are you willing to accept the IDer is not God ?

Gods can also consist of entities vastly beyond our comprehension, reach, and control. If the Simulation Hypothesis is true, and we're the product of posthuman ancestors (or some unknown entity), we simply have no choice but to recognize them as gods. They're running the show, and our collective (or even individual) behavior may be monitored " or even controlled " by them. These hacker gods would be akin the gnostic gods of yesteryear " powerful entities doing their own thing, and without our best interests in mind.

I accept that as a possibility as-well. Even though it is not how I would define my God, I would find Simulation Gods intellectually and reasonably defensible.

ID can be one fact another uses to propose Aliens as seeders of life on earth. But I have certainly said that ID does not answer the whom of the designer. And merely infers design from attributes.

If this designer is discovered to be something other than God, no I would not withdraw my support for ID.

What if we don't find the ider (again operating on the premise the natural world is a product of ID, what conclusions would you draw?

For example some one might draw the conclusion the ider is a bit sadistic and cruel.

Some one might draw the conclusion the Ider is subject to limitations based on optimal design. Ergo not all powerful, all knowing, all capable, etc etc

Some one might infer the Ider is not concerned with happens on this particular planet

I would be fine with any of those being presented. I would debate some of them. But as I said it's a fallacy to through out ID just because you don't want to identify a designer or because you can't.

And thank you. Because just like my post is about, YOU don't want to discuss the reasoning, the science, the logic, the inferences of Intelligent Design.

You want to skirt around it because if life was Intelligently designed it would be one more door open for the rational intellectual belief in a god.

That's the joke it doesn't. Id of the natural world doesn't get you to the God that people profess belief in.

If the world is the product of ID absent prior religious motivations your not going to infer the all powerful, all knowing, just, loving, blah blah blah......

And when I pushed you on this point what did I get ? the claim about Id being one more door open for the rational belief in the existence of God. (not to mention a bit of a personal attack)

At this point a self defense mechanism is probably kicking in your options are....

1) Deny

That's what you are doing. Denying ID on a personal bias to avoid anything and everything that posits any non-human intelligence.

2) Distract

That's what you are doing by railroading the discussion into "who" this intelligent agency is instead of the argument ID is presenting. Which is life emerges from chemical physical processes being directed by an intelligent agency.

3) Attack me personally

Where?

No I clearly stated that ID does not answer whom the Intelligent Agent is. And certainly agreed with you that it could be of any kind of imaginable intelligent being. I offered it could even be extra dimensional powerful entities that run this universe like a computer simulation. And agreed it could be an alien.

NO you reject it because it offers an avenue that some people could use ID as supportive of their particular God.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2015 12:47:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/1/2015 12:20:43 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 3/1/2015 12:05:21 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/28/2015 11:21:01 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 2/28/2015 5:01:05 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Seems no one here wants to investigate the observations or inferences that lead to the conclusion, Life was intelligently designed.

The rebuttals all appear on questioning who this designer is, totally misrepresenting the argument from design, ect..

I spend days talking about the encoding of digital information, Which is just one point, one observation that leads to ID conclusion.

And this single point has gotten replied with

Snowflakes - again and NOTHING like the encoding of digital information strawman
Evolution made it - evolution is change over time after the initial life is made. Evolution can not account for the emergence of life. This is backwards causality.
It causes Atheist to ask questions they don't want to answer.
I get told if I think life is ID why not the whole universe. Has nothing to do with the single premise being put forward. Unless I have stated I see the encoding of digital information as the WHOLE universe than I don;t see it's relevance.

I think this is just a subject too advanced for the posters of this forum to understand and coherently respond to.

lol.

If you're going to argue "life was intelligently designed," it is your BOP to prove a plausible intelligent designer. It can't be an alien species because that's question begging: who intelligently designed this alien species? So you're arguing for a supernatural being. If you can't prove a plausible supernatural being, then you can't establish intelligent design.

When you say "ID," from what I've seen, you're trying to argue that abiogensis is flawed and therefore an intelligent designer created life, and then stepped back and let it evolve using natural processes. This is really just another "God of the gaps" argument: you've targeted the area where there is some of the least scientific knowledge about what happened and posit that this lack of knowledge proves a need for an intelligent designer. Presumably you would concede that irreducible complexity and arguing against evolution are stupid. But it's still an unscientific approach to say: you can't prove to me with 100% certainty that your origin theory is correct, therefore God. ID attempts to mask the "God" part of that behind one layer of bullsht, and attempts to mask its unscientific nature behind another. But it's not a very clever ruse, as courts have noted that have rejected it as a valid scientific theory (and therefore as something that can validly be taught in public schools).

No I don't have to identify an Intelligent Designer responsible for life. The theory says Life is the result of intelligent agency.

Just like finding an arrow head I do not have to identify the tribe to account for the arrow head being an arrow head and not a rock.

No one contests the existence of tribes or of humans.


just like germ theory doesn't explain where new germs come from, just that they explain what causes some diseases.

No one questions the existence of bacteria or viruses.


Just like theory of relativity doesn't have to explain why matter bends space and time, just that it does.

No one questions the existence of matter...


ID explains what the emergence of life is contingent on. Intelligent Agency is sufficient and proper to define one element needed for life to emerge from non-living material.

Presumably a debate would focus on how plausible ID is compared to the alternative in explaining how life on Earth emerged. It's not a plausible theory if an intelligent designer isn't plausible. It really is no more complicated than that. The other theories you mentioned do not rest on an uncertain implied premise such as "an intelligent designer exists."

You can keep disagreeing with me. I have no interest in debating you, although I know it is a debate I would most certainly win, particularly if you refused to provide evidence that a supernatural intelligent designer exists.

I have no interest in debating becuase asking me to argue for the existence of a supernatural intelligent designer is what you WANT the debate to be about. And that would not be the debate on ID.

Intelligent Design argues that living systems have attributes that infer they were originally made through the direction of an intelligent agency.

Honestly identifying and specifying any entity in more detail than 1. intelligent; would be leaps of speculation.

And speculating about imaginary kind of intelligent agencies is not what ID is about.

So you are wrong and only trying to derail an investigation in ID over a red herring or a slippery slope about who this designer is.

Oh better reject ID on the drawing board because if it actually makes reasonable since and has facts in real observations, well then you might have to ask who this creator is. And You have to stay away from anything scientific that asks any kind of question like that.

Who is the creator? oh blasphemy to the atheist thinking.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2015 1:07:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/1/2015 12:36:25 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/28/2015 11:36:50 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/28/2015 11:08:58 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/28/2015 11:00:42 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/28/2015 10:51:51 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/28/2015 10:36:37 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
Okey let's talk about honesty. Let's for the sake of argument agree that the natural world is the product of intelligent design.
.

So my question is, operating on the premise that the natural world is a product of ID are you willing to follow it's implications based on reason and evidence OR is your goal to make the intelligent designer conform to a prior religious belief.

Cause you know what makes me sick, people with hand on heart profess, no no no, we really are pursuing science here, we have no religious agenda, we just think ID (in some form) is as scientific as say evolution by natural selection, but when confronted with evidence that suggests the intelligent derringer does not fit with a prior God belief they are wiling to make any excuse necessary to make it fit.

Are you willing to accept the IDer is not God ?

Gods can also consist of entities vastly beyond our comprehension, reach, and control. If the Simulation Hypothesis is true, and we're the product of posthuman ancestors (or some unknown entity), we simply have no choice but to recognize them as gods. They're running the show, and our collective (or even individual) behavior may be monitored " or even controlled " by them. These hacker gods would be akin the gnostic gods of yesteryear " powerful entities doing their own thing, and without our best interests in mind.

I accept that as a possibility as-well. Even though it is not how I would define my God, I would find Simulation Gods intellectually and reasonably defensible.

ID can be one fact another uses to propose Aliens as seeders of life on earth. But I have certainly said that ID does not answer the whom of the designer. And merely infers design from attributes.

If this designer is discovered to be something other than God, no I would not withdraw my support for ID.

What if we don't find the ider (again operating on the premise the natural world is a product of ID, what conclusions would you draw?

For example some one might draw the conclusion the ider is a bit sadistic and cruel.

Some one might draw the conclusion the Ider is subject to limitations based on optimal design. Ergo not all powerful, all knowing, all capable, etc etc

Some one might infer the Ider is not concerned with happens on this particular planet

I would be fine with any of those being presented. I would debate some of them. But as I said it's a fallacy to through out ID just because you don't want to identify a designer or because you can't.

And thank you. Because just like my post is about, YOU don't want to discuss the reasoning, the science, the logic, the inferences of Intelligent Design.

You want to skirt around it because if life was Intelligently designed it would be one more door open for the rational intellectual belief in a god.

That's the joke it doesn't. Id of the natural world doesn't get you to the God that people profess belief in.

If the world is the product of ID absent prior religious motivations your not going to infer the all powerful, all knowing, just, loving, blah blah blah......

And when I pushed you on this point what did I get ? the claim about Id being one more door open for the rational belief in the existence of God. (not to mention a bit of a personal attack)

At this point a self defense mechanism is probably kicking in your options are....

1) Deny

That's what you are doing. Denying ID on a personal bias to avoid anything and everything that posits any non-human intelligence.

2) Distract

That's what you are doing by railroading the discussion into "who" this intelligent agency is instead of the argument ID is presenting. Which is life emerges from chemical physical processes being directed by an intelligent agency.

3) Attack me personally

Where?

No I clearly stated that ID does not answer whom the Intelligent Agent is. And certainly agreed with you that it could be of any kind of imaginable intelligent being. I offered it could even be extra dimensional powerful entities that run this universe like a computer simulation. And agreed it could be an alien.

NO you reject it because it offers an avenue that some people could use ID as supportive of their particular God.

Your such a tool.

Even when I gave you Id of the natural world as a given I am claimed to be denying.

When I pointed out where operating on this premise gets you, you accuse me of derailing.

I will say it again...........

If we operate on the premise that the natural world is ID, based on EVIDENCE the last thing you are going to conclude is the IDer is the God that people claim is the Ider.

You call this side tracking, what we can't questions things based on the PREMISE you want us to accept not only as true but as scientific ?

Hey Guys accept ID, but if by accepting Id it takes you away from God.............well shut up. Your just being an evil atheist.

Your the one who wants ID accepted as true and scientific, so you can go kindly go f*ck yourself when we start drawing inferences based on the natural world being ID.

I look forward to your peer reviewed work on intelligent design.

I also look forward to your model of ID that makes testable predictions, cause you want it as a scientific theory right ?

That way I can say hey I knew that guy way back when, when they give you your nobel prize.

Remember me in your speech..........
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2015 2:27:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/28/2015 6:53:19 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/28/2015 5:38:38 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/28/2015 5:25:51 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 2/28/2015 5:01:05 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Seems no one here wants to investigate the observations or inferences that lead to the conclusion, Life was intelligently designed.

The rebuttals all appear on questioning who this designer is, totally misrepresenting the argument from design, ect..

I spend days talking about the encoding of digital information, Which is just one point, one observation that leads to ID conclusion.

And this single point has gotten replied with

Snowflakes - again and NOTHING like the encoding of digital information strawman
Evolution made it - evolution is change over time after the initial life is made. Evolution can not account for the emergence of life. This is backwards causality.
It causes Atheist to ask questions they don't want to answer.
I get told if I think life is ID why not the whole universe. Has nothing to do with the single premise being put forward. Unless I have stated I see the encoding of digital information as the WHOLE universe than I don;t see it's relevance.

I think this is just a subject too advanced for the posters of this forum to understand and coherently respond to.

Just keep drinking the cool-aid, the parsimonious puree of bull crap, and shout till your face turns blue that you are reasoning and thinking for yourself. That atheist are questioning everything.

Ridiculous. A rational atheist is an oxymoron.

Cool story bro.

So no. I count 2 so far who would rather argue around the Premises of ID than to debate it.

nothing ever in the history of reason or logic is anything ever confirmed, affirmed, or determined by doubt.

But Atheist think they are just so damn smart and logical. See the error yet?

I have no interest in talking with someone acting like an obtuse arse, thus my response to the OP. Try to stop lumping atheists into a category and applying blanket statements to them and perhaps you will get some decent responses.

Personally I have yet to see a coherent argument from beginning to end from you, your arguments seem to suffer from the same lack of logical progressing as they did in our old debate. So I could refute everything you said, it still wouldn't address the argument as you have it in your mind. I have done loads of debates on this subject, so it's not much effort to me to do one more, but you're going to need to tidy up your attitude up first because it's borderline bigoted.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2015 2:31:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/1/2015 1:07:20 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 3/1/2015 12:36:25 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/28/2015 11:36:50 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/28/2015 11:08:58 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/28/2015 11:00:42 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/28/2015 10:51:51 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/28/2015 10:36:37 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
Okey let's talk about honesty. Let's for the sake of argument agree that the natural world is the product of intelligent design.
.

So my question is, operating on the premise that the natural world is a product of ID are you willing to follow it's implications based on reason and evidence OR is your goal to make the intelligent designer conform to a prior religious belief.

Cause you know what makes me sick, people with hand on heart profess, no no no, we really are pursuing science here, we have no religious agenda, we just think ID (in some form) is as scientific as say evolution by natural selection, but when confronted with evidence that suggests the intelligent derringer does not fit with a prior God belief they are wiling to make any excuse necessary to make it fit.

Are you willing to accept the IDer is not God ?

Gods can also consist of entities vastly beyond our comprehension, reach, and control. If the Simulation Hypothesis is true, and we're the product of posthuman ancestors (or some unknown entity), we simply have no choice but to recognize them as gods. They're running the show, and our collective (or even individual) behavior may be monitored " or even controlled " by them. These hacker gods would be akin the gnostic gods of yesteryear " powerful entities doing their own thing, and without our best interests in mind.

I accept that as a possibility as-well. Even though it is not how I would define my God, I would find Simulation Gods intellectually and reasonably defensible.

ID can be one fact another uses to propose Aliens as seeders of life on earth. But I have certainly said that ID does not answer the whom of the designer. And merely infers design from attributes.

If this designer is discovered to be something other than God, no I would not withdraw my support for ID.

What if we don't find the ider (again operating on the premise the natural world is a product of ID, what conclusions would you draw?

For example some one might draw the conclusion the ider is a bit sadistic and cruel.

Some one might draw the conclusion the Ider is subject to limitations based on optimal design. Ergo not all powerful, all knowing, all capable, etc etc

Some one might infer the Ider is not concerned with happens on this particular planet

I would be fine with any of those being presented. I would debate some of them. But as I said it's a fallacy to through out ID just because you don't want to identify a designer or because you can't.

And thank you. Because just like my post is about, YOU don't want to discuss the reasoning, the science, the logic, the inferences of Intelligent Design.

You want to skirt around it because if life was Intelligently designed it would be one more door open for the rational intellectual belief in a god.

That's the joke it doesn't. Id of the natural world doesn't get you to the God that people profess belief in.

If the world is the product of ID absent prior religious motivations your not going to infer the all powerful, all knowing, just, loving, blah blah blah......

And when I pushed you on this point what did I get ? the claim about Id being one more door open for the rational belief in the existence of God. (not to mention a bit of a personal attack)

At this point a self defense mechanism is probably kicking in your options are....

1) Deny

That's what you are doing. Denying ID on a personal bias to avoid anything and everything that posits any non-human intelligence.

2) Distract

That's what you are doing by railroading the discussion into "who" this intelligent agency is instead of the argument ID is presenting. Which is life emerges from chemical physical processes being directed by an intelligent agency.

3) Attack me personally

Where?

No I clearly stated that ID does not answer whom the Intelligent Agent is. And certainly agreed with you that it could be of any kind of imaginable intelligent being. I offered it could even be extra dimensional powerful entities that run this universe like a computer simulation. And agreed it could be an alien.

NO you reject it because it offers an avenue that some people could use ID as supportive of their particular God.

Your such a tool.

Even when I gave you Id of the natural world as a given I am claimed to be denying.

When I pointed out where operating on this premise gets you, you accuse me of derailing.

I will say it again...........

If we operate on the premise that the natural world is ID, based on EVIDENCE the last thing you are going to conclude is the IDer is the God that people claim is the Ider.

You call this side tracking, what we can't questions things based on the PREMISE you want us to accept not only as true but as scientific ?

Hey Guys accept ID, but if by accepting Id it takes you away from God.............well shut up. Your just being an evil atheist.

Your the one who wants ID accepted as true and scientific, so you can go kindly go f*ck yourself when we start drawing inferences based on the natural world being ID.

I look forward to your peer reviewed work on intelligent design.

I also look forward to your model of ID that makes testable predictions, cause you want it as a scientific theory right ?

That way I can say hey I knew that guy way back when, when they give you your nobel prize.

Remember me in your speech..........

People can assign many different kinds of beings to being the Intelligent Designer. When you look at a painting it's very hard to discern the person making it is human. You might imagine the painter as a person with fine bristle hair and oily pigment exuding from it's skin.

ID theory just makes no speculation to the form or shape that the intelligent designer takes.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2015 2:33:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/1/2015 2:27:29 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 2/28/2015 6:53:19 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/28/2015 5:38:38 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/28/2015 5:25:51 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 2/28/2015 5:01:05 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Seems no one here wants to investigate the observations or inferences that lead to the conclusion, Life was intelligently designed.

The rebuttals all appear on questioning who this designer is, totally misrepresenting the argument from design, ect..

I spend days talking about the encoding of digital information, Which is just one point, one observation that leads to ID conclusion.

And this single point has gotten replied with

Snowflakes - again and NOTHING like the encoding of digital information strawman
Evolution made it - evolution is change over time after the initial life is made. Evolution can not account for the emergence of life. This is backwards causality.
It causes Atheist to ask questions they don't want to answer.
I get told if I think life is ID why not the whole universe. Has nothing to do with the single premise being put forward. Unless I have stated I see the encoding of digital information as the WHOLE universe than I don;t see it's relevance.

I think this is just a subject too advanced for the posters of this forum to understand and coherently respond to.

Just keep drinking the cool-aid, the parsimonious puree of bull crap, and shout till your face turns blue that you are reasoning and thinking for yourself. That atheist are questioning everything.

Ridiculous. A rational atheist is an oxymoron.

Cool story bro.

So no. I count 2 so far who would rather argue around the Premises of ID than to debate it.

nothing ever in the history of reason or logic is anything ever confirmed, affirmed, or determined by doubt.

But Atheist think they are just so damn smart and logical. See the error yet?

I have no interest in talking with someone acting like an obtuse arse, thus my response to the OP. Try to stop lumping atheists into a category and applying blanket statements to them and perhaps you will get some decent responses.

Personally I have yet to see a coherent argument from beginning to end from you, your arguments seem to suffer from the same lack of logical progressing as they did in our old debate. So I could refute everything you said, it still wouldn't address the argument as you have it in your mind. I have done loads of debates on this subject, so it's not much effort to me to do one more, but you're going to need to tidy up your attitude up first because it's borderline bigoted.

Like the responses I get none of your points in that debate addressed the points I was making.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2015 2:55:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/1/2015 2:33:07 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/1/2015 2:27:29 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 2/28/2015 6:53:19 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/28/2015 5:38:38 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/28/2015 5:25:51 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 2/28/2015 5:01:05 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Seems no one here wants to investigate the observations or inferences that lead to the conclusion, Life was intelligently designed.

The rebuttals all appear on questioning who this designer is, totally misrepresenting the argument from design, ect..

I spend days talking about the encoding of digital information, Which is just one point, one observation that leads to ID conclusion.

And this single point has gotten replied with

Snowflakes - again and NOTHING like the encoding of digital information strawman
Evolution made it - evolution is change over time after the initial life is made. Evolution can not account for the emergence of life. This is backwards causality.
It causes Atheist to ask questions they don't want to answer.
I get told if I think life is ID why not the whole universe. Has nothing to do with the single premise being put forward. Unless I have stated I see the encoding of digital information as the WHOLE universe than I don;t see it's relevance.

I think this is just a subject too advanced for the posters of this forum to understand and coherently respond to.

Just keep drinking the cool-aid, the parsimonious puree of bull crap, and shout till your face turns blue that you are reasoning and thinking for yourself. That atheist are questioning everything.

Ridiculous. A rational atheist is an oxymoron.

Cool story bro.

So no. I count 2 so far who would rather argue around the Premises of ID than to debate it.

nothing ever in the history of reason or logic is anything ever confirmed, affirmed, or determined by doubt.

But Atheist think they are just so damn smart and logical. See the error yet?

I have no interest in talking with someone acting like an obtuse arse, thus my response to the OP. Try to stop lumping atheists into a category and applying blanket statements to them and perhaps you will get some decent responses.

Personally I have yet to see a coherent argument from beginning to end from you, your arguments seem to suffer from the same lack of logical progressing as they did in our old debate. So I could refute everything you said, it still wouldn't address the argument as you have it in your mind. I have done loads of debates on this subject, so it's not much effort to me to do one more, but you're going to need to tidy up your attitude up first because it's borderline bigoted.

Like the responses I get none of your points in that debate addressed the points I was making.

You didn't make one argument in that debate. You know that right? How can I address points that are not made in the context of an argument to affirm the resolution?

Similarly, your points on these forums so far "DNA is a digital code" etc. I don't see as the remotest bit relevant to the question of whether to not life was intelligently designed. You need to actually provide an argument here.

I know you are capable of generating arguments since I have seen you do deduction before on the forums, so... what gives? All these implied conclusions and assumptions are making me nauseous.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2015 4:20:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
There's no point trying to debate ID as science, since nobody but Creation propagandists represent that it is.

I refer DDO members to the 'Wedge Document', prepared by creationists in 1998, outlining the 'Wedge Strategy' by which 'scientific materialism will be overturned' by a small number of propagandists, seeking not advancement of scientific truth, but renewal of their preferred cultural values.

This document is reproduced at: http://ncse.com...

Phases are:

Phase I.
Scientific Research, Writing & Publicity
Phase II.
Publicity & Opinion-making
Phase III.
Cultural Confrontation & Renewal

And what are the Wedge Strategy's goals? I quote directly:

* To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
* To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

Are these scientific goals? Certainly not. Scientific goals are not to lead the evidence with cultural prejudice, but explore nature on its own terms:

Science as a collective institution aims to produce more and more accurate natural explanations of how the natural world works, what its components are, and how the world got to be the way it is now.

-- http://undsci.berkeley.edu...

In short, ID's goals:
* are not based on respect for the scientific method, but rather reactionary horror at it
* are not the advancement of science, but rather its destruction as a means of inquiry
* do not support freedom of worship
* do not support evidence-based investigation, but rather seek to inject culutral prejudices to lead the evidence

As Judge Jones ruled in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005):
An Objective Observer Would Know that ID and Teaching About "Gaps" and "Problems" in Evolutionary Theory are Creationist, Religious Strategies that Evolved from Earlier Forms of Creationism

One significant difference is that the words "God," "creationism," and "Genesis" have been systematically purged from ID explanations, and replaced by an unnamed "designer."

Parallel arguments relating to the rejection of naturalism, evolution"s threat to culture and society, "abrupt appearance" implying divine creation, the exploitation of the same alleged gaps in the fossil record, the alleged inability of science to explain complex biological information like DNA, as well as the theme that proponents of each
version of creationism merely aim to teach a scientific alternative to evolution to
show its "strengths and weaknesses, " and to alert students to a supposed
"controversy" in the scientific community.

(A pseudocontroversy manufactured by the Wedge Document Strategy)

The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a
mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.

(Because it's not scientific controversy, but propaganda designed by the authors of the Wedge Document. :p)

So, let's not debate ID with disingenuous religious propagandists and their ignorant stooges. That's exactly what they want to manufacture a controversy that in fact, does not exist. :p
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2015 1:16:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/1/2015 4:20:30 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
There's no point trying to debate ID as science, since nobody but Creation propagandists represent that it is.

I refer DDO members to the 'Wedge Document', prepared by creationists in 1998, outlining the 'Wedge Strategy' by which 'scientific materialism will be overturned' by a small number of propagandists, seeking not advancement of scientific truth, but renewal of their preferred cultural values.

This document is reproduced at: http://ncse.com...

Phases are:

Phase I.
Scientific Research, Writing & Publicity
Phase II.
Publicity & Opinion-making
Phase III.
Cultural Confrontation & Renewal

And what are the Wedge Strategy's goals? I quote directly:

* To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
* To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

Are these scientific goals? Certainly not. Scientific goals are not to lead the evidence with cultural prejudice, but explore nature on its own terms:

Science as a collective institution aims to produce more and more accurate natural explanations of how the natural world works, what its components are, and how the world got to be the way it is now.

-- http://undsci.berkeley.edu...

In short, ID's goals:
* are not based on respect for the scientific method, but rather reactionary horror at it
* are not the advancement of science, but rather its destruction as a means of inquiry
* do not support freedom of worship
* do not support evidence-based investigation, but rather seek to inject culutral prejudices to lead the evidence

As Judge Jones ruled in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005):
An Objective Observer Would Know that ID and Teaching About "Gaps" and "Problems" in Evolutionary Theory are Creationist, Religious Strategies that Evolved from Earlier Forms of Creationism

One significant difference is that the words "God," "creationism," and "Genesis" have been systematically purged from ID explanations, and replaced by an unnamed "designer."

Parallel arguments relating to the rejection of naturalism, evolution"s threat to culture and society, "abrupt appearance" implying divine creation, the exploitation of the same alleged gaps in the fossil record, the alleged inability of science to explain complex biological information like DNA, as well as the theme that proponents of each
version of creationism merely aim to teach a scientific alternative to evolution to
show its "strengths and weaknesses, " and to alert students to a supposed
"controversy" in the scientific community.

(A pseudocontroversy manufactured by the Wedge Document Strategy)

The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a
mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.

(Because it's not scientific controversy, but propaganda designed by the authors of the Wedge Document. :p)

So, let's not debate ID with disingenuous religious propagandists and their ignorant stooges. That's exactly what they want to manufacture a controversy that in fact, does not exist. :p

Theories don't have agendas. My point of this post exactly. Instead of debating the observations and inference made by ID claim you want to resort to ad hominum attacks where you attack the origination of the claim instead of the claim itself.

This also does not account for the athiest that have ID like views of the origin of life.

In another thread I linked an athiest and nobel laureate who thinks life from energy interactions formed in the early universe and evolved to point where they used matter to create biological life.

Such energy composed living life forms would not be the supernatural angels and gods of religion but natural intelligent agencies responsible for life.

The Wedge document is irrelevant to the discussion of IDs validity. Just like documents by racist using dawin evolution to forward thier ideology is not an attact on the valudity of evolution.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2015 5:18:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/2/2015 1:16:41 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
The Wedge document is irrelevant to the discussion of IDs validity.

It renders ID's demand for scientific debates irrelevant, since it confirms that ID proponents are not discussing scientific validity sincerely, genuinely, or in good faith. It also makes liars and stooges of those who pursue ID debates.

In your case, I think the critical difference between disingenuous rhetoric and a desire for genuine scientific debate would be that:

* You believe some intelligent agency literally created life on earth for some purpose, and are willing to explain and defend in scientific detail how this life was created, and what purpose that strategy fulfills.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2015 1:09:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I won't debate the validity of ID but I will debate that the arguments about ID not being are science are bad.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2015 6:41:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/2/2015 5:18:57 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 3/2/2015 1:16:41 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
The Wedge document is irrelevant to the discussion of IDs validity.

It renders ID's demand for scientific debates irrelevant, since it confirms that ID proponents are not discussing scientific validity sincerely, genuinely, or in good faith. It also makes liars and stooges of those who pursue ID debates.

In your case, I think the critical difference between disingenuous rhetoric and a desire for genuine scientific debate would be that:

* You believe some intelligent agency literally created life on earth for some purpose, and are willing to explain and defend in scientific detail how this life was created, and what purpose that strategy fulfills.

Theories don't have agendas. Instead of debating the observations and inference made by ID claims, you want to resort to ad hominum attacks where you attack the origination of the claim instead of the claim itself.