laughable, you smartasses all think your pretty smart but your not, none of you, not just because your arguments are just stupid and boring anyway, it sounds like your all reading fucking books, none of you know the meaning of the word "spontaneous". stupid drones act smart when they just gobble up books and spew them out with your dumb acronyms. again your laughable.
That's very poor logic, actually. You're saying "everything designed has CSI so everything with CSI is designed." It would be like saying "everything we know of has a material cause so life must also have a material cause."
this is complete babble. It was proved in the Dover vs Kitzmiller case of 2007 that ID was EXACTLY a word processing substitution for creation. ID is NOT scientific in any way. NO real scientists entertain it as a possibility. It is thinly disguised religion. plain and simple, end of discussion
But it is a Super Natural being of an intelligent design. How can something of pure chance from chaos to order and complex patterns be intelligent and no being behind it all? This being must be super natural because nothing in the natural world could ever have done this otherwise we would have stupid design and not intelligent design.
@PostITnoteGUY Tell me the theory of where nigger parasites like you come from, since yer not in the evolutionary tree... and, then I'll teach you about I.D.
Until then, I'm not wasting my time on a lying sack of shit like yerself.
You're still confused, after all this time, about what a scientific theory is. A wild hypothesis is not a scientific theory.. Panspermia is a wild hypothesis that is difficult or impossible to test, at this time. There is no evidence which would make one think life on Earth was seeded. A scientific theory is a hypothesis (or set of hypotheses) that is well-tested, that explains all observations to date, makes testable predictions etc.
panspermia is NOT "ID with aliens". ID is anti-materialist.
@npage85 good job dodging the bulk of my post, lollll.
here's a tip for you: search google for site:discovery dawt org +materialism
One of the couple hundred results, which my eyes happened to first settle on, refers to the theory of evolution thusly: "Darwinian dogma of evolution by chance and natural selection ('materialism')."
There are many examples of this kind to be found, and if you read the history of ID, then you'll know that it was created as an attack on materialism.
Who cares what ID proponents think about other issues... or their proposed motives behind promoting ID?
It doesn't matter a bit to the theory itself.
So, let me get this right... if I claimed that the promotion of neo-Darwinism in our schools was primarily intended to demoralize our youth and turn our country eventually into a communistic state (and it were all true), would that make a bit of difference towards neo-Darwinism's truth or falsity?
@npage85 this isn't about other issues; this is about ID... its motivations and its claims. It was created by people with a beef against materialism, and it isn't compatible with materialism. From the Discovery Institute:
"ID holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an UNDIRECTED PROCESS such as natural selection."
Please explain how this is compatible with materialism.
@npage85 from "Ten Questions to Ask Your Biology Teacher about Design by William Dembski":
"Moreover, for the materialist biologist, no evidence whatsoever could confirm intelligent design."
Dawkins already showed he was open to there being an intelligent designer, but (again) he's not open to the wacky claims of ID'ers (that undirected processes cannot blah blah blah). ID is anti-materialist, as I said.
... you're saying that if there is an intelligent designer of life that it must be an immaterial one? I don't think that makes too much sense... and I think you're leaping at shadows.
The only reason Dembski says that intelligent design is not a "material process" is because there aren't little material gears grinding and pumping out electricity to make my hands move in an intelligent way...
@npage85 you've got this nebulous definition of what ID is, and that's the only reason you're able to convince yourself that ID is not anti-materialist. You haven't read enough propaganda!
ID is about the idea that somehow science can apply to the nonmaterial.
Ah... so when you say that ID is anti-materialist... you mean the *implications* of the theory... not they theory itself.
I see... I guess you have just illustrated why the materialists are trying so hard to straw-man ID to death... the implications of it being true go against their entire worldview
@npage85 not the theory itself, but its implications? What kind of a distinction is that, other than one made by someone who doesn't want to admit they were wrong? Hilarious.
Inasmuch as neo-Darwinism (true) implies that some god didn't create humans in their image, I would rightly say that neo-Darwinism is anti-(whatever religion says we were created in their image). Your distinction is meaningless.
If ID was true, that would mean that materialism doesn't cut it, which would make it anti-materialist. Which it of course is.
if those particle for CERTAIN they will interact. When we talk about the electron located in an the orbit of an atom, we talk about the PROBABILITY of 90% of the electron being located there. THe electron in the 10% might be located far across the universe.
I'm just debating the arguments and I'm only giving it merit for not sounding completely stupid and making a basic premise that is at least, argumentative
Actually, I can't :))))))))) What I know about ID is from the video of npage.
Personally, I don't believe ID is a science, and even it is, its flawed science, and that's what i'm trying to prove to npage.
The reality is this- you cannot calculate an universal probability whatever for one simple reason- Q U A N T U M M E C H A N I C H S!!!!!! The basic premise of this theory is that you can never be completely sure of anything when it comes to particles- so how can you calculate
Dembski claims his filter detects design, but it doesn't say anything about design. The filter defines design as the elimination of regularity and chance, not, as most people would define design, as purposeful, intelligent arrangement. The two definitions are not equivalent, Dembski himself noted that some intelligent design will be eliminated in the first two steps. What the filter actually detects is copying, not intelligence.
Besides, "specified" and "chance hypothesis" are poorly defined.
My qualifications aren't really an issue as I'm not the person who has put ID to bed. I'm sure you and FOX think it's a hot topic but the fact is, ID is discredited and fell at the first hurdle in terms of being an actual credible scientific theory.
You can hold onto it as tight as you like and hell, it's no different than reading your horoscope in the morning and thinking its true I suppose but you shouldn't be surprised when people tell you that you're espousing Creationism in a new dress.
His entire point is that he can manipulate the scientific method so that the semantics of his argument have the appearance of being correct.
Just because you've found a potential problem with the scientific method (with a greater likelihood simply being that one, or both of us don't understand it well enough), doesn't mean you've proven anything.
At BEST, you've proven that inside of a vacuum that doesn't represent reality, life needs a designer.
Wait... so now that you can't show that ID doesn't follow the scientific method, you are going to say that there is something wrong with the scientific method?
Would a sand dune be an example of CSI that isn't intelligently designed? Sand dunes are designed by the wind... How about trees growing in straight lines, and red woods growing in circles? What about fields of grass? What about smooth beaches? What about the way that rivers snake?
But isn't a sand dune a pattern of sand particles that isn't emergent from the particles of sand themselves? It is specified because it is determined by the wind.
yeah, Im having trouble understanding specified. o well.
Also, npage85 - you want to call standinstan a pseudo-intellectual? Either you're a VERY good straight faced comedian, or you're just a cretin.
Oh, goodness - you're right! No, GOD AT ALL! Just A creator... the fact the theory is pushed by right wing Christian think tanks is NOTHING to do with anything.
You're a big fan of aliens, I bet. I mean, you don't THINK it was some unknowable unprovable GOD, right?
And seriously, fuck you - go check some books, Hitler knew nothing of eugenics.
How about the fact that no one espousing it is ever really willing to stand up in a court of law and swear - under penalty of perjury - that what they say is the truth, the whole truth and NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH?
You're talking about something that is not really supported by people who want to teach it. I mean, you realise that ID is discredited and that neo-creationists have started to rush toward the "criticism of evolution" camp, right? I'd hate to think they didn't send you a memo.
A troll would denote a lack of substance to my argument... and if I say, irreducible complexity or transitional forms - will you strike me down with more specious claims?
You've little to defend, I suppose. I mean, you're shirking from the fact even the think tanks that built this theory won't swear under oath to defend it - because it's just creationism.
I guess if calling a creationist a creationist is trolling then, I'm guilty.
You do have a lack of substance. Calling ID creationism is the height of a strawman fallacy.
You can't even point to any part of the theory and say that it is creationsim. Not one part. You've tried, but at best you can only claim that the *implications* of the theory point to God.
The implications of a theory are not part of the theory, so you would fail.
I already explained (painfully, I might add) how your infinite regression criticism of ID does *not* demonstrate that there is anything unscientific with ID.
I explained that your infinite regression argument was an argument in its own right, and that since you have to provide that argument apart from ID, that means that ID itself does not posit a supernatural creator of life.
I'm not embarrassing myself at all. I actually am quite amused at the moment.
You haven't explained how your infinite regression doesn't make ID unscientific, you've simply STATED that it doesn't make it unscientific.
I assure you.
That DOES make it unscientific.
At least most religious garbage defies science, but there can be an underpinning of common sense applied to it.
This is such nonsense that I can't believe ANYone could believe it... at least without the presence of a god... but that isn't a problem for you, is it npage85... since you DO believe in god.
Umm... here's my explanation again... perhaps it went over your head the first five times I said it to you.
The reason the infinite regression argument you have made doesn't make ID unscientific is because it is a secondary argument to the theory, not the theory itself.
The only criteria that a scientific theory must meet is that it follows the Scientific Method. We go from a hypothesis that is testable, and keep testing it until it's been tested so much that it is highly supported.
The fact that you see insults where there are none seems to indicate that you aren't looking for a rational conversation... just an opportunity to lash out at someone who disagrees with your worldvew.
Again, in the Scientific Method, it says that the hypothesis is the theory... nothing else. You disagree then with the Scientific Method?
Step three in wikipedia's model for the scientific method: "3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow?"
Right... what consequences follow from the hypothesis being true?
If I find something with CSI, and I assume that the hypothesis is true, then the consequence would be the conclusion that it was intelligent designed.
Ah... I see... so you are saying that if you can create a deductively sound, logical argument that concludes with the hypothesis being false, then it's false?
I get ya... I do.
However, I have yet to see you provide an argument showing how my hypothesis can't possibly be true.
Again, ID isn't a theory - it's just pointing at evolution and going "Oh, as if science every proved ANYTHING - look at these parts!"
ID is the strawman, that has been literally torn apart more times than I imagine you'd care to mention - I suspect you're going to start throwing stones at those dirty "liberals" who think it isn't science and who keep winning court cases where none of your pals espousing ID turn up, right? Because they don't want to perjure themselves - that being a crime
So, I suppose when ID hinges around things like irreducible complexity of the eye and such... it's just a theory unto itself?
If it were a theory, it would not need to be in opposition to evolution... the thing is - it's NOT a theory and you're crying strawman because ID isn't a theory. It has no real scientific credentials, it isn't even backed by those that espouse it and you're just twisting in the win, crying for help because people are saying "ID doesn't make sense".
When people bring up irreducible complexity, it is only to figure out if something contains CSI.
It is not part of the theory of ID. The theory is only the hypothesis... in order to figure out if something contains CSI you would do certain calculations and such.
In essence, if irreducible complexity failed as a concept, then that wouldn't falsify ID... it would only show that you can't say that life has CSI.
I wonder if you read your post "The theory is only the hypothesis... " uhuh... that's either a big typo or proof you and Hovind graduated from the same university.
But yeah, sure irreducible complexity disproved - go to fall back position F... but ID is, as I said - widely abandoned and the people who loved it are just moving to criticising evolution position as ID is untenable intellectually and in most courts of law in the USA.
Last time I checked, ID was defined by pointing at parts of evolution that aren't entirely understood and shouting "LOOKEHERE MA!" at them... oh, wait - you admitted that with your "universal probability bounds" notion.
You really want ANYONE to take neo-Creationists conjuring numbers seriously? Even people shoving numbers into the Drake Equation has more credibility. As creationists like to point out - we don't UNDERSTAND abiogenesis, so how the hell can we assign probability to it?!
ID isn't about pointing to all the parts of evolution that aren't understood... it's about finding CSI and making a valid inference from it.
I don't see anywhere in the actual theory that makes reference to neo-Darwinism.
While we don't understand abiogenesis (and likely never will... heh heh :P ), that doesn't mean that we can't figure out what the probability of a single protein forming by chance is.
Okey doke... so, I guess if ID isn't just trying to pick apart evolution... it's a theory or hypothesis in its own right? Any peer reviewed papers you can show me that give us some insight into it? I'm just dying to see 'em.
And your idiocy is astounding, you clearly gleefully admit we may never understand abiogenesis, yet we can still apparently put odds on it.
I'm pretty sure you're just kidding. I mean, it's either that or you and Sarah Palin are IQ mates.
What? I have to give you a peer-reviewed paper to show you that it is a hypothesis in its own right?
Didn't I *show* you that it is a hypothesis in its own right when I told you what the hypothesis was in this video?
Oh, and hello... I never said we could put odds on abiogenesis... I said we can put odds on the formation of a function protein from its constituent amino acids.
I pretty sure you're just trolling. I mean, it's either that, or you really are that dense.
It's not a hypothesis, it's people who don't like evolution, who have been defeated REPEATEDLY in scientific and legal settings - but i guess you know better.
As abiogenesis is the point of the whole thing, further issues of additional arbitrary nature are in themselves POINTLESS.
Ah, just proving my own hypothesis on creationists - that they will resort to turning the insults used against them on their critics. Bravo. What a troll I am, with my facts and logic
I just supplied the hypothesis of ID in this video at 4:38.
Since you claim that it isn't a hypothesis, I challenge you to substantiate yourself. You seem to think that you can baldly assert that I am not substantiating myself, but only calling you a troll.
I *am* substantiating myself. The hypothesis of ID can be found at 4:38. Please, here's your chance at substantiating yourself and proving you are not a troll.
A car is made from metal - therefore ID is valid? You're making banana man credible by comparison, old chap.
That's not a hypothesis, it's a horrible analogy. The whole "painting need a painter" looks genius compared to your "induction"...
How would you like me to substantiate myself? Because on my side there are over 150 years of scientists, your side is a guy clutching bananas, a guy in jail and you saying cars prove ID.
Who should I trust... the scientists or the evangelists...
Ah, npage85 - you talked of strawmen... ha, I'd laugh so hard if thunderf00t kerb stomped you with SCIENCE... but in truth, you're just so far beneath the likes of him and I'm only toying with you because it amuses me.
Sure, you've pretended to be scientific and you like to say CSI a lot... I don't think you proved anything yet. To be honest, likening ID to your own idiotic car analogy (sorry if that's an insult, precious) just proves how shaky the ground you're standing on is.
"A pseudointellectual is someone who spews great amounts of garbage, interlaces it with huge words, and then expects to be accepted by the generally weak-minded sheep as a true intellectual..."
I have never seen a better description of the Intelligent Design cabal.
Take two decks of cards from different card manufacturers so you have 104 cards that are distinct. Shuffle the decks together in one big stack so they are random. The exact order of those cards are now CSI. Since the odds of getting that exact order are 104! (104 factorial) which is approximately 10^166 which is greater than 10^150. Therefore an intelligent agent had to have ordered the cards!
Do you realize you didn't address what I said in any way? If your next comment isn't to actually refute, or agree with what I said, you lose the debate, and Intelligent Design is garbage.
No. That's a bullshit argument, and you MUST realize that.
You're not allowed to posit a thing, unless the natural extension of that thing is also true, or at least possible.
You CAN NOT say "life is complex, hence it had a designer", without accepting the fact that the designer of the previous complexity must also have a designer.
Your entire theory is bullshit at that point.
What possible use could it be to anyone if its so easily proven bullshit?
I'm sorry that you can't distinguish between the implications of a theory, and the theory itself.
You seem so wrapped up in your dogma, that your only response to a rational, well-thought-out argument against you is to call it "bullshit."
ID says that life had a designer. That's all *ID* says. If you want to then create an argument from that with your *own* conclusions in it, then those conclusions are *not* a part of ID... but actually a part of *your* argument.
If I take neo-Darwinism, and look at its theological implications, I find that it implies that God didn't play an active part in the origin of species.
However, just because it has a theological implication, does that mean that it is unscientific? As you just said, there's no difference between the theory and its implications... therefore what neo-Darwinism says about God is part of the theory.
You're not addressing what I said. You're simply trying to turn the tables in a "well, your beliefs are stupider than mine!" attempt. That's not valid.
By the way, a rejection of a claim isn't an endorsement to the validity of the claim.
You wouldn't say "you're a skeptic, which means your beliefs express a stance on the existence of bigfoot."
Well. In that they plainly object to the claim of bigfoot... sure. You aren't saying anything meaningful by pointing that out though.
After about half a dozen posts of you failing to address what I've said, I'll now bow out of this discussion victorious.
Your only method of debate is name calling ("you are pretty dense"), and shifting the focus of the questions away from areas you find inconvenient, to entirely unrelated issues that don't actually answer any of the questions I've asked.
So. You win the prize for answering a million questions I didn't ask, while failing to answer even ONE that I did.
@npage85 What does "Neo Darvinism" say about god? And why do you insist of using the out-of date name "Neo Darvinism" in the first place and don't call it like the scientific community does?
That's why Intelligent Design DOES require a supernatural force, because if it isn't an eternal, ever existing being who did the designing, than each designer would inherently be so complex that they would also have needed a designer.
At some point, there MUST be either a supernatural force, or something which didn't need to be designed.
Which means either ID needs god, or it's bullshit.
An alien race needing a designer (and so on, as you claim), is not part of the theory... it's an implication *from* the theory.
It amazes me how many people are unwilling to see that simple fact. What the theory *says*, and what must be true once we accept the conclusion of the theory are two separate things.
Just because neo-Darwinism has theological implications doesn't mean it isn't science, right? You see what I mean?
It's fascinating how the ID supporters insist that Intelligent Design isn't predicated on a supernatural being... yet there isn't anyone out there who believes in Intelligent Design, without believing in a supernatural being.
Npage85, I ask you. Do YOU believe the universe was designed by an omnipotent/omniscient supernatural deity, or do you believe it was designed by an ancient alien race?
An alien race needing a designer (and so on, as you claim), is not part of the theory... it's an implication *from* the theory.
It amazes me how many people are unwilling to see that simple fact. What the theory *says*, and what must be true once we accept the conclusion of the theory are two separate things.
Just because neo-Darwinism has theological implications doesn't mean it isn't science, right? You see what I mean?
I will retract my statement if you can provide a single verifiably accurate argument of evidence indicative of miraculous creation over biological evolution or any other avenue of actual science.
@npage85 I don't think he was saying ID could turn out to be right, so much as it could be possible that life on Earth was intelligently designed. Those are two very different statements.
@npage85 I've seen that clip many, many times. I'm not arguing that ID is or isn't theological (honestly don't care... I think it's just silly on the face of it), but I severely doubt that Dawkins was saying that the ID "theory" could be right, whether it's irreducible complexity, or CSI, or whatever other *ahem* "stuff" Dembski and his friends come up with.
He claims that it is entirely possible that we could find a "signature" of intelligence in molecular biology, that's ID in a nutshell. CSI is the signature of intelligence.
@npage85 oh bloody hell. It's clear he's admitting it's hypothetically possible that there might be an intelligent designer; it's not at all clear that he's saying ID'ers and their "theory" might be proven right (except in the remotest possibility of there actually being a designer)!
Dawkins also says that anything which designed the physical realm as we know it would by definition have had to evolve somewhere else.
In your defense, I think Stein might have cut that part out of Expelled... but that really shows how intellectually honest the producers of that movie were, eh?
@hossrex Yes, the part *was* cut. Dawkins describes the scenario in another interview. He also describes that, of course, he doesn't believe there are alien designers. Stein asked under which circumstances could Dawkins imagine a designer and Dawkins therefore answered with this highly unlikely scenario. Oh - and he also added that this "designer" would have to have evolved elsewhere himself.
@npage85 also, ID, from what i do understand of it, says that a designer is something of a necessity, when we're talking about life on Earth, right? I don't think Dawkins would admit that, given that there's a perfectly natural explanation ;). Anyways, on to other points...
@npage85 I'm just curious... you still go to school, right? Have any of your profs ever seen your videos on Youtube? What do they think? Have you ever faced what you think is "discrimination" based on your beliefs? Or are they impressed?
@npage85 well, that's not entirely true, is it? You're friends with linkmeup2003, right? What if somehow the university gets wind that you're into ID? Won't you be Expellololed?
@npage85 I dunno... the way I see is if they're willing to do it to professors, why not students? I guess because you're paying them money. Hahaha. So yeah... i just wanted some excuse to say Expellololed, to be honest.
Dude, seriously though, you've hit rock bottom with this ID stuff.
"Hitting rock bottom" is an opinion, unless you can explain to me that anything I have said in this video is irrational.
The only other comment from you on this video was one where you just said a bunch of derogatory things... that's a far cry from something that demonstrates that I've hit "rock bottom."
I realize that a lot of people disagree with this, but I see it as a byproduct of the lack of critical thinking classes in public education.
@npage85 if I back up what I said, you'll just come up with some devastating argument to show how I'm wrong, and I'm not willing to open myself up to that kind of hurt.
Haha. no, but seriously, you'll just talk twice as much bullshit, then four times, then 8, etc.
Anyways, nope... linkmeup2003 is just a guy who likes messing with the trolls' minds. It's actually quite fun, considering that you don't even have to *try* to answer them.
Sometimes I even am watching a show on Hulu and responding to comments. It just takes a few seconds, and then I'm continuing on watching my show.
Dude... how is it that your comments are marked as spam so quickly? I came to this video, and it said your comment was spam, and the timestamp said (4 seconds ago).
@npage85 thanks; I did not realize that. I thought it was based solely on user's votes. Why do they even let posts through that they figure are spam-ish? I guess they aren't confident in their algorithm, obviously..
Thanks for your bald assertions. They are comforting to people who seek the truth, as it lets them know that those who oppose them have nothing of substance to say in response.
An "intelligent designer for life" is not a theological concept.
It only has theological implications.
Dawkins *himself* said that ID could turn out to be right, but he rejected the idea of a God behind it... that *alone* should let you know (from your pope himself) that ID doesn't posit any theological concepts.
I already explained in my video how ID is science. You refuse to respond to any of it except to just deny it like the child-like troll that you are.
@npage85 Dawkins was asked under what circumstances he could imagine there being a "designer" - his reply, quotemined by the movie, was that he thinks the whole concept was silly, but that *if* the questioner insisted on the question the only way he could imagine there being a designer for life on earth he'd have to be an alien lifeform, itself *evolved* somewhere else.
Uri Miller tried to get life come into existence without any intelligent designer playing a role? Is it just me, or is that a paradoxical and self-defeating mission that's doomed to failure?
Nope, it isn't - first of all he wasn't trying to "create life". He tried to show that the building blocks of life can become existent in an elemental environment under the right conditions. Oh - and he did too.
And since he didn't design any of the amino-acids that came out of his experiment it's not paradoxical as well. It just shows once more that Creation...DAMN-ID'lers don't understand the basics of what they try to talk about. :)
I just said, at the time scientists were hot on the pursuit of getting life naturalistically.
Many scientists made experiments with goals being the small steps *towards* life, but the ultimate goal of all the experiments together was life, naturalistically.
Scientists have been trying to get life naturalistically for decades, and still are.
Learn the history, and stop putting words in my mouth.
LOL, yes I *am* here! Come on, give me a minute to answer to your rubbish!
Also: It's 01:00 here right now and I'm not planning to spend the rest of my night replying to you, so I'm afraid you will have to wait even longer for my next reply.
The water in the glass in front of me exceeds the UPB. Am I to infer there was some intelligent intervention for it to take the configuration that it has?
@npage85 by all means continue to be a pretentious asshat or... if you are really half as smart as you think you are you might be able to enlighten me where I went wrong.
That's why the UPB is based on all the know particles * all the time slices in which they could change state. Dembski is calculating the "probabilistic resources" of the natural world.
"... all attempts to purchase specified complexity without intelligence end in sterile reductionism that tries to make natural causes do the work of intelligent causes."
That's a Red Herring. Just because he's calculating the probabilistic resources of the natural world doesn't mean that he's stating that something is supernatural that breaks that boundary.
He's calculating the probabilistic resources of the natural world if no designer acts upon it. *Chance*, not design.
Humans aren't supernatural, yet *we* create things with CSI... so I fail to see your point.
"He's calculating the probabilistic resources of the natural world if no designer acts upon it."
If something's intelligence is natural then it's part of the natural world. Thus natural intelligence is restricted to the probabilistic resources of the natural world. Natural intelligence shouldn't be able to produce CSI.
Anyhow, would you be willing to answer a few questions about CSI if I made a video response?
You're forgetting the dichotomy between chance and design.
If I simply roll a die, there is a probability associated with it coming up a six. If, however, I lay it so that it *is* a six, I've bypassed probability.
So, when he's calculating the UPB, he's figuring the maximum probability that something will happen *by chance* in the natural world.
I don't see any problem with that.
Oh, and I was about to answer your PM... sure, I'd be willing. ;)
Yeah, but what caused you to lay it out? Was it the neural network in your skull firing based on random perturbations and natural law? Or was it some force that transcends the physical neurons in your head?
According to Dembski, neural networks are in the same category as evolutionary algorithms(p. 181 NFL) and should be equally impotent to create CSI.
laughable, you smartasses all think your pretty smart but your not, none of you, not just because your arguments are just stupid and boring anyway, it sounds like your all reading fucking books, none of you know the meaning of the word "spontaneous". stupid drones act smart when they just gobble up books and spew them out with your dumb acronyms. again your laughable.
SaucisseMerguez 1 month ago
That's very poor logic, actually. You're saying "everything designed has CSI so everything with CSI is designed." It would be like saying "everything we know of has a material cause so life must also have a material cause."
RationalFox 9 months ago
the universal improbability bound only matters if you assume this is the only universe that exists witch physics shows it probably isn't
255ad 1 year ago
I am not sure I agree with ID, but this is a good response to Stann.
ukchristian28 1 year ago
the guy got fired not because of what was in the paper it was because he ignored the peer review process and then lied
123columbo123 1 year ago
this is complete babble. It was proved in the Dover vs Kitzmiller case of 2007 that ID was EXACTLY a word processing substitution for creation. ID is NOT scientific in any way. NO real scientists entertain it as a possibility. It is thinly disguised religion. plain and simple, end of discussion
irish655 1 year ago
But it is a Super Natural being of an intelligent design. How can something of pure chance from chaos to order and complex patterns be intelligent and no being behind it all? This being must be super natural because nothing in the natural world could ever have done this otherwise we would have stupid design and not intelligent design.
gigerone 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY I just thought of something else you could ask him:
What is the scientific theory of intelligent design?
blueleadpot 1 year ago
@npage85 what are your thoughts on Ben Stein? Do you feel he handled himself well in the Expelled interviews? Just curious, as always.
blueleadpot 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY Tell me the theory of where nigger parasites like you come from, since yer not in the evolutionary tree... and, then I'll teach you about I.D.
Until then, I'm not wasting my time on a lying sack of shit like yerself.
theDracoIX 1 year ago
@theDracoIX lol stay classy
blueleadpot 1 year ago
So not only a creationist returd but a racist too? That fits well. :)
Zipfilutscher.
commanderkruge 1 year ago
Irreducible complexity, CSI, ... um ... fuck off materialist commie scum!
:P
blueleadpot 1 year ago
I was just saying that I disagree with ID too, and I was just trying to prove, even if we take that ID is a science at face value, its still flawed
DJbertjor 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY:
What's hilarious about your comment is that you are going on this long rant against me without realizing that you just pwned yourself.
Transpermia is a "scientific theory..." which is ID with aliens. Go look it up. Hahaha...
npage85 1 year ago
You're still confused, after all this time, about what a scientific theory is. A wild hypothesis is not a scientific theory.. Panspermia is a wild hypothesis that is difficult or impossible to test, at this time. There is no evidence which would make one think life on Earth was seeded. A scientific theory is a hypothesis (or set of hypotheses) that is well-tested, that explains all observations to date, makes testable predictions etc.
panspermia is NOT "ID with aliens". ID is anti-materialist.
blueleadpot 1 year ago
@blueleadpot:
By saying that ID is "anti-materialist," you have shown that you don't have any idea what ID is.
What about ID is anti-materialist? I have no idea which part of the theory you're referring to... it's really puzzling me.
npage85 1 year ago
@npage85 good job dodging the bulk of my post, lollll.
here's a tip for you: search google for site:discovery dawt org +materialism
One of the couple hundred results, which my eyes happened to first settle on, refers to the theory of evolution thusly: "Darwinian dogma of evolution by chance and natural selection ('materialism')."
There are many examples of this kind to be found, and if you read the history of ID, then you'll know that it was created as an attack on materialism.
blueleadpot 1 year ago
@blueleadpot:
Who cares what ID proponents think about other issues... or their proposed motives behind promoting ID?
It doesn't matter a bit to the theory itself.
So, let me get this right... if I claimed that the promotion of neo-Darwinism in our schools was primarily intended to demoralize our youth and turn our country eventually into a communistic state (and it were all true), would that make a bit of difference towards neo-Darwinism's truth or falsity?
npage85 1 year ago
@npage85 this isn't about other issues; this is about ID... its motivations and its claims. It was created by people with a beef against materialism, and it isn't compatible with materialism. From the Discovery Institute:
"ID holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an UNDIRECTED PROCESS such as natural selection."
Please explain how this is compatible with materialism.
blueleadpot 1 year ago
@npage85 from "Ten Questions to Ask Your Biology Teacher about Design by William Dembski":
"Moreover, for the materialist biologist, no evidence whatsoever could confirm intelligent design."
Dawkins already showed he was open to there being an intelligent designer, but (again) he's not open to the wacky claims of ID'ers (that undirected processes cannot blah blah blah). ID is anti-materialist, as I said.
blueleadpot 1 year ago
@npage85 from the same article by Dembski:
"ID argues that there are features of biological systems that lie beyond the reach of Darwinian and other MATERIAL MECHANISMS."
I could do this all night.
blueleadpot 1 year ago
@blueleadpot:
So... hold the phone...
... you're saying that if there is an intelligent designer of life that it must be an immaterial one? I don't think that makes too much sense... and I think you're leaping at shadows.
The only reason Dembski says that intelligent design is not a "material process" is because there aren't little material gears grinding and pumping out electricity to make my hands move in an intelligent way...
npage85 1 year ago
@npage85 you've got this nebulous definition of what ID is, and that's the only reason you're able to convince yourself that ID is not anti-materialist. You haven't read enough propaganda!
ID is about the idea that somehow science can apply to the nonmaterial.
blueleadpot 1 year ago
@blueleadpot:
Ah... so when you say that ID is anti-materialist... you mean the *implications* of the theory... not they theory itself.
I see... I guess you have just illustrated why the materialists are trying so hard to straw-man ID to death... the implications of it being true go against their entire worldview
npage85 1 year ago
@npage85 not the theory itself, but its implications? What kind of a distinction is that, other than one made by someone who doesn't want to admit they were wrong? Hilarious.
blueleadpot 1 year ago
@blueleadpot:
Umm... it's a distinction that is relevant.
For instance, one of the implications of neo-Darwinism (if true) is that God didn't create man in His image.
That's a religious claim... but it is only an implication of neo-Darwinism.
So, just that *that* was an *implication* of neo-Darwinism, non-materialism is an *implication* of ID.
So, ID isn't unscientific for having that implication, just like neo-Darwinism isn't unscientific for having *its* implications.
npage85 1 year ago
@npage85 lol wot
Inasmuch as neo-Darwinism (true) implies that some god didn't create humans in their image, I would rightly say that neo-Darwinism is anti-(whatever religion says we were created in their image). Your distinction is meaningless.
If ID was true, that would mean that materialism doesn't cut it, which would make it anti-materialist. Which it of course is.
blueleadpot 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY Why don't you do humanity a favor, and go die in a fire. Seriously, we don't need fvcking zombie-brained parasites like you around.
You are everything that's wrong with the world. A complete phony. A lying sack of the shit. Stop wasting everyone's time with yer mindless spam.
You have nothing intelligent to add to this debate, so shoo.
theDracoIX 1 year ago
if those particle for CERTAIN they will interact. When we talk about the electron located in an the orbit of an atom, we talk about the PROBABILITY of 90% of the electron being located there. THe electron in the 10% might be located far across the universe.
I'm just debating the arguments and I'm only giving it merit for not sounding completely stupid and making a basic premise that is at least, argumentative
DJbertjor 1 year ago
Actually, I can't :))))))))) What I know about ID is from the video of npage.
Personally, I don't believe ID is a science, and even it is, its flawed science, and that's what i'm trying to prove to npage.
The reality is this- you cannot calculate an universal probability whatever for one simple reason- Q U A N T U M M E C H A N I C H S!!!!!! The basic premise of this theory is that you can never be completely sure of anything when it comes to particles- so how can you calculate
DJbertjor 1 year ago
Comment removed
Me0Am0I 1 year ago
Comment removed
Me0Am0I 1 year ago
Comment removed
Me0Am0I 1 year ago
Comment removed
Me0Am0I 1 year ago
Nick, you do know that you are a homosexual right?
Me0Am0I 1 year ago
Dembski claims his filter detects design, but it doesn't say anything about design. The filter defines design as the elimination of regularity and chance, not, as most people would define design, as purposeful, intelligent arrangement. The two definitions are not equivalent, Dembski himself noted that some intelligent design will be eliminated in the first two steps. What the filter actually detects is copying, not intelligence.
Besides, "specified" and "chance hypothesis" are poorly defined.
anglicantian 1 year ago
My qualifications aren't really an issue as I'm not the person who has put ID to bed. I'm sure you and FOX think it's a hot topic but the fact is, ID is discredited and fell at the first hurdle in terms of being an actual credible scientific theory.
You can hold onto it as tight as you like and hell, it's no different than reading your horoscope in the morning and thinking its true I suppose but you shouldn't be surprised when people tell you that you're espousing Creationism in a new dress.
ProphetTenebrae 1 year ago
you´re full of shit shut the fuck up
ID is the teleological argument
don´t try it to make smething else
It´s Bullshit
Klamev 1 year ago
also, enzymes violate the CSI argument, right?
HateNeverCeasesHate 1 year ago
@HateNeverCeasesHate:
Hmm... I don't think individual enzymes do... no.
npage85 1 year ago
His entire point is that he can manipulate the scientific method so that the semantics of his argument have the appearance of being correct.
Just because you've found a potential problem with the scientific method (with a greater likelihood simply being that one, or both of us don't understand it well enough), doesn't mean you've proven anything.
At BEST, you've proven that inside of a vacuum that doesn't represent reality, life needs a designer.
How does that help us understand OUR reality?
hossrex 1 year ago
@hossrex:
Wait... so now that you can't show that ID doesn't follow the scientific method, you are going to say that there is something wrong with the scientific method?
Wow...
npage85 1 year ago
That's not even slightly what I said.
You're playing word games, and I'm bored.
Future replies will be ignored.
hossrex 1 year ago
@hossrex:
I know... I'm messing with you because it's fun.
You said that we've found a problem with the Scientific Method, and the *reason* we have is because ID follows it to the letter.
So, rather than admit that ID is science, you'd say that we've found a problem with the Scientific Method.
Go on... go run away now. ;P
npage85 1 year ago
Would a sand dune be an example of CSI that isn't intelligently designed? Sand dunes are designed by the wind... How about trees growing in straight lines, and red woods growing in circles? What about fields of grass? What about smooth beaches? What about the way that rivers snake?
HateNeverCeasesHate 1 year ago
@HateNeverCeasesHate:
A sand dune would not be an example, seeing as how the pattern in not specified.
npage85 1 year ago
But isn't a sand dune a pattern of sand particles that isn't emergent from the particles of sand themselves? It is specified because it is determined by the wind.
yeah, Im having trouble understanding specified. o well.
HateNeverCeasesHate 1 year ago
@HateNeverCeasesHate:
The problem is... "specified" applies to patterns.
What is the pattern found in the sand particles?
Then, "complexity" applies to the pattern that is specified.
You can't say that they whole thing *is* the pattern, because that isn't what a pattern is... one thing (the whole dune) doesn't make a pattern.
So, you'd be forced to look for a pattern in the configuration of the sand particles.
npage85 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY:
Wow... so you are giving up a prize if someone wins you over with reason?
Oh jeez... no one's going to win that... and it's not because they don't have a scientific theory, it's because you are immune to reason.
npage85 1 year ago
Also, npage85 - you want to call standinstan a pseudo-intellectual? Either you're a VERY good straight faced comedian, or you're just a cretin.
Oh, goodness - you're right! No, GOD AT ALL! Just A creator... the fact the theory is pushed by right wing Christian think tanks is NOTHING to do with anything.
You're a big fan of aliens, I bet. I mean, you don't THINK it was some unknowable unprovable GOD, right?
And seriously, fuck you - go check some books, Hitler knew nothing of eugenics.
ProphetTenebrae 1 year ago
@ProphetTenebrae:
See this? See what happens when people are left with no rational response?
They ridicule.
You can't give *one* good objection to ID, yet you mock its proponents. That's pretty sad.
You are now number 5 in that group of people... I'm beginning to keep count.
npage85 1 year ago
How about the fact that no one espousing it is ever really willing to stand up in a court of law and swear - under penalty of perjury - that what they say is the truth, the whole truth and NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH?
You're talking about something that is not really supported by people who want to teach it. I mean, you realise that ID is discredited and that neo-creationists have started to rush toward the "criticism of evolution" camp, right? I'd hate to think they didn't send you a memo.
ProphetTenebrae 1 year ago
@ProphetTenebrae:
More Red Herrings from guy #5 in the anti-ID troll camp.
Nothing you have said in that comment deals with *anything* that I've said in this video.
I've laid out what ID, the scientific theory, is, and your response is to ridicule and bring up Red Herrings.
Great job being a troll... keep up at it and you might surpass PostITnoteGUY. lol...
npage85 1 year ago
A troll would denote a lack of substance to my argument... and if I say, irreducible complexity or transitional forms - will you strike me down with more specious claims?
You've little to defend, I suppose. I mean, you're shirking from the fact even the think tanks that built this theory won't swear under oath to defend it - because it's just creationism.
I guess if calling a creationist a creationist is trolling then, I'm guilty.
ProphetTenebrae 1 year ago
@ProphetTenebae:
You do have a lack of substance. Calling ID creationism is the height of a strawman fallacy.
You can't even point to any part of the theory and say that it is creationsim. Not one part. You've tried, but at best you can only claim that the *implications* of the theory point to God.
The implications of a theory are not part of the theory, so you would fail.
npage85 1 year ago
Why are you still talking to me?
Are you willing to answer questions I put to you?
If not, please don't reply. You're embarrassing yourself.
But, by all means, if you're willing to answer simply put questions... please let me know.
hossrex 1 year ago
@hossrex:
I already explained (painfully, I might add) how your infinite regression criticism of ID does *not* demonstrate that there is anything unscientific with ID.
I explained that your infinite regression argument was an argument in its own right, and that since you have to provide that argument apart from ID, that means that ID itself does not posit a supernatural creator of life.
I'm not embarrassing myself at all. I actually am quite amused at the moment.
npage85 1 year ago
You haven't explained how your infinite regression doesn't make ID unscientific, you've simply STATED that it doesn't make it unscientific.
I assure you.
That DOES make it unscientific.
At least most religious garbage defies science, but there can be an underpinning of common sense applied to it.
This is such nonsense that I can't believe ANYone could believe it... at least without the presence of a god... but that isn't a problem for you, is it npage85... since you DO believe in god.
hossrex 1 year ago
@hossrex:
Umm... here's my explanation again... perhaps it went over your head the first five times I said it to you.
The reason the infinite regression argument you have made doesn't make ID unscientific is because it is a secondary argument to the theory, not the theory itself.
The only criteria that a scientific theory must meet is that it follows the Scientific Method. We go from a hypothesis that is testable, and keep testing it until it's been tested so much that it is highly supported.
npage85 1 year ago
Still with the insults? I thought you said you weren't that type of person.
The extension of the theory is PART OF the theory.
I said that before, and you found it inconvenient, so you ignored it. Are you prepared to address it this time?
hossrex 1 year ago
@hossrex:
The fact that you see insults where there are none seems to indicate that you aren't looking for a rational conversation... just an opportunity to lash out at someone who disagrees with your worldvew.
Again, in the Scientific Method, it says that the hypothesis is the theory... nothing else. You disagree then with the Scientific Method?
npage85 1 year ago
Part of the scientific method is testing, and investigating the ramifications of the theory is part of the testing process.
hossrex 1 year ago
@hossrex:
Umm... no. "Testing" hypothesis is *not* "investigating the ramifications of a theory."
Please, find me a quote from Wikipedia on the Scientific Method and you might have a case... otherwise, I fond no such claim in there.
Happy hunting.
npage85 1 year ago
Step three in wikipedia's model for the scientific method: "3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow?"
Hunting season is good.
hossrex 1 year ago
@hossrex:
Right... what consequences follow from the hypothesis being true?
If I find something with CSI, and I assume that the hypothesis is true, then the consequence would be the conclusion that it was intelligent designed.
(cont. below)
npage85 1 year ago
(cont. from above)
You seem to think that the conclusions to arguments separate from ID are the "consequences" they are talking about.
The "consequences" they are talking about are only attempts at falsification. *Predictions*... things which can *falsify* the theory.
Your conclusion to your argument that "God exists," if false, would not falsify the theory.
npage85 1 year ago
@npage85
No. The consequences of your hypothesis are untenable, since they aren't possible.
The "consequences" part of that statement don't only apply if the "consequences" are supportive of the hypothesis.
The consequences if your hypothesis require an impossibility.
hossrex 1 year ago
@hossrex:
Ah... I see... so you are saying that if you can create a deductively sound, logical argument that concludes with the hypothesis being false, then it's false?
I get ya... I do.
However, I have yet to see you provide an argument showing how my hypothesis can't possibly be true.
npage85 1 year ago
Again, ID isn't a theory - it's just pointing at evolution and going "Oh, as if science every proved ANYTHING - look at these parts!"
ID is the strawman, that has been literally torn apart more times than I imagine you'd care to mention - I suspect you're going to start throwing stones at those dirty "liberals" who think it isn't science and who keep winning court cases where none of your pals espousing ID turn up, right? Because they don't want to perjure themselves - that being a crime
ProphetTenebrae 1 year ago
@ProphetTenebrae:
I just explained what the hypothesis of ID is, and nowhere in it does it even *remotely* point at evolution.
You are attacking a straw man, sir... and wasting my time.
npage85 1 year ago
So, I suppose when ID hinges around things like irreducible complexity of the eye and such... it's just a theory unto itself?
If it were a theory, it would not need to be in opposition to evolution... the thing is - it's NOT a theory and you're crying strawman because ID isn't a theory. It has no real scientific credentials, it isn't even backed by those that espouse it and you're just twisting in the win, crying for help because people are saying "ID doesn't make sense".
ProphetTenebrae 1 year ago
@ProphetTenebrae:
When people bring up irreducible complexity, it is only to figure out if something contains CSI.
It is not part of the theory of ID. The theory is only the hypothesis... in order to figure out if something contains CSI you would do certain calculations and such.
In essence, if irreducible complexity failed as a concept, then that wouldn't falsify ID... it would only show that you can't say that life has CSI.
That's it.
npage85 1 year ago
There you go again.
I wonder if you read your post "The theory is only the hypothesis... " uhuh... that's either a big typo or proof you and Hovind graduated from the same university.
But yeah, sure irreducible complexity disproved - go to fall back position F... but ID is, as I said - widely abandoned and the people who loved it are just moving to criticising evolution position as ID is untenable intellectually and in most courts of law in the USA.
ProphetTenebrae 1 year ago 2
@ProphetTenebrae:
Did you not take any university courses? Physical Science (you know, one of those GE courses) details the Scientific Method.
It also explains what a "theory" is in science: a highly supported hypothesis.
No typo there man... I'm just educated. Please, go find a scientific definition of "theory" that contradicts me.
Oh, and sorry... but it isn't "fallback position F," ID just doesn't contain IC... sorry.
npage85 1 year ago
Wait, so you're actually a proponent of ID, npage85?
blueleadpot 1 year ago
Last time I checked, ID was defined by pointing at parts of evolution that aren't entirely understood and shouting "LOOKEHERE MA!" at them... oh, wait - you admitted that with your "universal probability bounds" notion.
You really want ANYONE to take neo-Creationists conjuring numbers seriously? Even people shoving numbers into the Drake Equation has more credibility. As creationists like to point out - we don't UNDERSTAND abiogenesis, so how the hell can we assign probability to it?!
ProphetTenebrae 1 year ago 2
@ProphetTenebrae:
ID isn't about pointing to all the parts of evolution that aren't understood... it's about finding CSI and making a valid inference from it.
I don't see anywhere in the actual theory that makes reference to neo-Darwinism.
While we don't understand abiogenesis (and likely never will... heh heh :P ), that doesn't mean that we can't figure out what the probability of a single protein forming by chance is.
Yeah... we can definitely calculate that out. ;)
npage85 1 year ago
Okey doke... so, I guess if ID isn't just trying to pick apart evolution... it's a theory or hypothesis in its own right? Any peer reviewed papers you can show me that give us some insight into it? I'm just dying to see 'em.
And your idiocy is astounding, you clearly gleefully admit we may never understand abiogenesis, yet we can still apparently put odds on it.
I'm pretty sure you're just kidding. I mean, it's either that or you and Sarah Palin are IQ mates.
ProphetTenebrae 1 year ago
@ProphetTenebrae:
What? I have to give you a peer-reviewed paper to show you that it is a hypothesis in its own right?
Didn't I *show* you that it is a hypothesis in its own right when I told you what the hypothesis was in this video?
Oh, and hello... I never said we could put odds on abiogenesis... I said we can put odds on the formation of a function protein from its constituent amino acids.
I pretty sure you're just trolling. I mean, it's either that, or you really are that dense.
npage85 1 year ago
Sorry, I know there aren't any.
It's not a hypothesis, it's people who don't like evolution, who have been defeated REPEATEDLY in scientific and legal settings - but i guess you know better.
As abiogenesis is the point of the whole thing, further issues of additional arbitrary nature are in themselves POINTLESS.
Ah, just proving my own hypothesis on creationists - that they will resort to turning the insults used against them on their critics. Bravo. What a troll I am, with my facts and logic
ProphetTenebrae 1 year ago
@ProphetTenebrae:
I just supplied the hypothesis of ID in this video at 4:38.
Since you claim that it isn't a hypothesis, I challenge you to substantiate yourself. You seem to think that you can baldly assert that I am not substantiating myself, but only calling you a troll.
I *am* substantiating myself. The hypothesis of ID can be found at 4:38. Please, here's your chance at substantiating yourself and proving you are not a troll.
Go ahead. Get on with it already.
npage85 1 year ago
A car is made from metal - therefore ID is valid? You're making banana man credible by comparison, old chap.
That's not a hypothesis, it's a horrible analogy. The whole "painting need a painter" looks genius compared to your "induction"...
How would you like me to substantiate myself? Because on my side there are over 150 years of scientists, your side is a guy clutching bananas, a guy in jail and you saying cars prove ID.
Who should I trust... the scientists or the evangelists...
ProphetTenebrae 1 year ago
@ProphetTenebrae:
Excuse me? The hypothesis "if I find a car, it will have a piece of metal in it" is a hypothesis.
The same sort of hypothesis is ID: If something contains CSI, then it was intelligently designed.
I'd like you to substantiate yourself by showing how that hypothesis isn't a hypothesis.
Keep up the insults and rhetoric though... you might fool a couple people that you are actually talking sense.
npage85 1 year ago
Ah, npage85 - you talked of strawmen... ha, I'd laugh so hard if thunderf00t kerb stomped you with SCIENCE... but in truth, you're just so far beneath the likes of him and I'm only toying with you because it amuses me.
Sure, you've pretended to be scientific and you like to say CSI a lot... I don't think you proved anything yet. To be honest, likening ID to your own idiotic car analogy (sorry if that's an insult, precious) just proves how shaky the ground you're standing on is.
ProphetTenebrae 1 year ago
@ProphetTenebrae:
Nah... actually I pointed out how *all* scientific theories are like the car analogy.
All of them are *inductive reasoning*...
Apparently, that went over your head.
npage85 1 year ago
"A pseudointellectual is someone who spews great amounts of garbage, interlaces it with huge words, and then expects to be accepted by the generally weak-minded sheep as a true intellectual..."
I have never seen a better description of the Intelligent Design cabal.
fooltard 1 year ago
@fooltard:
There's been about 4 of you so far. You come on to this video and make a bald assertion.
Please, by all means, explain how what I've laid out in this video as the Theory of Intelligent Design is pseudointellectual.
I bet you can't do it. ;)
npage85 1 year ago
Simple.
Take two decks of cards from different card manufacturers so you have 104 cards that are distinct. Shuffle the decks together in one big stack so they are random. The exact order of those cards are now CSI. Since the odds of getting that exact order are 104! (104 factorial) which is approximately 10^166 which is greater than 10^150. Therefore an intelligent agent had to have ordered the cards!
fooltard 1 year ago
@fooltard:
A completely randomized deck contains a specified pattern in it? Wha???
npage85 1 year ago
Comment removed
fooltard 1 year ago
Yes.
By the definition of CSI. The probability of the double deck of cards in front of me having the exact order they are in is greater than the UPB.
If you want to read a good refutation of specified complexity google up Elsberry & Shallit.
fooltard 1 year ago
Do you realize you didn't address what I said in any way? If your next comment isn't to actually refute, or agree with what I said, you lose the debate, and Intelligent Design is garbage.
hossrex 1 year ago
@hossrex:
You seem to think that this "infinite regression" of designers means that ID is unscientific.
However, the theory itself says nothing of that... you are merely forming a secondary argument from the conclusion of ID.
Because of that, the conclusion to *you* argument isn't found *in* ID, but is only an implication of it.
Therefore, since the theory itself doesn't posit anything supernatural, your objection doesn't show it to be unscientific.
Q.E.D.
npage85 1 year ago
No. That's a bullshit argument, and you MUST realize that.
You're not allowed to posit a thing, unless the natural extension of that thing is also true, or at least possible.
You CAN NOT say "life is complex, hence it had a designer", without accepting the fact that the designer of the previous complexity must also have a designer.
Your entire theory is bullshit at that point.
What possible use could it be to anyone if its so easily proven bullshit?
hossrex 1 year ago
@hossrex:
I'm sorry that you can't distinguish between the implications of a theory, and the theory itself.
You seem so wrapped up in your dogma, that your only response to a rational, well-thought-out argument against you is to call it "bullshit."
ID says that life had a designer. That's all *ID* says. If you want to then create an argument from that with your *own* conclusions in it, then those conclusions are *not* a part of ID... but actually a part of *your* argument.
Get it?
npage85 1 year ago
@npage85: "I'm sorry that you can't distinguish between the implications of a theory, and the theory itself."
To anyone with a shred of respect, there is no difference between a theory, and the implications of that theory.
Your whole point seems to be "this theory appears to be correct if people take my statements at face value, and don't bother to think about them."
That's not how science (or anything) works.
You're still a Christian who wants to defend his belief in god with "science."
hossrex 1 year ago
@hossrex:
If I take neo-Darwinism, and look at its theological implications, I find that it implies that God didn't play an active part in the origin of species.
However, just because it has a theological implication, does that mean that it is unscientific? As you just said, there's no difference between the theory and its implications... therefore what neo-Darwinism says about God is part of the theory.
Therefore, neo-Darwinism makes claims about God.
Therefore, it's unscientific.
npage85 1 year ago
You're not addressing what I said. You're simply trying to turn the tables in a "well, your beliefs are stupider than mine!" attempt. That's not valid.
By the way, a rejection of a claim isn't an endorsement to the validity of the claim.
You wouldn't say "you're a skeptic, which means your beliefs express a stance on the existence of bigfoot."
Well. In that they plainly object to the claim of bigfoot... sure. You aren't saying anything meaningful by pointing that out though.
hossrex 1 year ago
@hossrex:
I'm simply pointing out that your claim that if a theory has theological implications it isn't science is wrong.
The way I chose to do that (since nothing else worked, you are pretty dense), was to use a theory which it seems that you think is scientific.
So let's recap:
1. Nothing in the Scientific Method says that a theory needs to have no theological implications.
2. neo-Darwinism has theological implications, but you'd say it was scientific.
3. You're guilty of special pleading.
npage85 1 year ago
After about half a dozen posts of you failing to address what I've said, I'll now bow out of this discussion victorious.
Your only method of debate is name calling ("you are pretty dense"), and shifting the focus of the questions away from areas you find inconvenient, to entirely unrelated issues that don't actually answer any of the questions I've asked.
So. You win the prize for answering a million questions I didn't ask, while failing to answer even ONE that I did.
Congratulations.
hossrex 1 year ago
@hossrex:
Wow... really? Just because you didn't like my answers doesn't mean I didn't answer you.
My only method of debate is "name calling?" Really? I do feel sorry for you. Really.
Please, do declare yourself victorious without logically demonstrating why a theory can't have theological implications and be scientific.
Please, do just say that science *is* what you say it is, regardless of what the Scientific Method actually states that it is.
You're just another anti-ID troll. Cheers.
npage85 1 year ago
@npage85 What does "Neo Darvinism" say about god? And why do you insist of using the out-of date name "Neo Darvinism" in the first place and don't call it like the scientific community does?
You really must hate the word "Evolution"...
commanderkruge 1 year ago
That's why Intelligent Design DOES require a supernatural force, because if it isn't an eternal, ever existing being who did the designing, than each designer would inherently be so complex that they would also have needed a designer.
At some point, there MUST be either a supernatural force, or something which didn't need to be designed.
Which means either ID needs god, or it's bullshit.
hossrex 1 year ago
@hossrex:
An alien race needing a designer (and so on, as you claim), is not part of the theory... it's an implication *from* the theory.
It amazes me how many people are unwilling to see that simple fact. What the theory *says*, and what must be true once we accept the conclusion of the theory are two separate things.
Just because neo-Darwinism has theological implications doesn't mean it isn't science, right? You see what I mean?
npage85 1 year ago
It's fascinating how the ID supporters insist that Intelligent Design isn't predicated on a supernatural being... yet there isn't anyone out there who believes in Intelligent Design, without believing in a supernatural being.
Npage85, I ask you. Do YOU believe the universe was designed by an omnipotent/omniscient supernatural deity, or do you believe it was designed by an ancient alien race?
Wouldn't someone have had to design them?
hossrex 1 year ago
@hossrex:
An alien race needing a designer (and so on, as you claim), is not part of the theory... it's an implication *from* the theory.
It amazes me how many people are unwilling to see that simple fact. What the theory *says*, and what must be true once we accept the conclusion of the theory are two separate things.
Just because neo-Darwinism has theological implications doesn't mean it isn't science, right? You see what I mean?
npage85 1 year ago
Ironic how pseudointellectual this video is.
Brascofarian 1 year ago
@Brascofarian:
Just out of curiosity: would you like to substantiate that claim like I substantiated *my* claim of pseudointellectualism?
I mean, I thought that I demonstrated pretty clearly that his video was pseudointellectual... so would you mind returning the favor?
Is it pseudointellectual because you just don't agree with me? What is it exactly about it?
npage85 1 year ago
I will retract my statement if you can provide a single verifiably accurate argument of evidence indicative of miraculous creation over biological evolution or any other avenue of actual science.
Brascofarian 1 year ago
Just asking the next question in the ID disscusion. What is the intelligent designer?
Andybi0tics 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY:
Haha... it was in Expelled. Learn to live with it.
He said that ID could turn out to be right, but it'd have to be some sort of alien or something.
Your Pope himself asserted that ID has no theological concepts in it by saying that.
You are truly lost.
npage85 1 year ago
@npage85 I don't think he was saying ID could turn out to be right, so much as it could be possible that life on Earth was intelligently designed. Those are two very different statements.
blueleadpot 1 year ago
@blueleadpot:
Hmm... I don't think so.
watch?v=BtV22JPjmsk
Timestamp: 3:19
npage85 1 year ago
@npage85 I've seen that clip many, many times. I'm not arguing that ID is or isn't theological (honestly don't care... I think it's just silly on the face of it), but I severely doubt that Dawkins was saying that the ID "theory" could be right, whether it's irreducible complexity, or CSI, or whatever other *ahem* "stuff" Dembski and his friends come up with.
blueleadpot 1 year ago
@blueleadpot:
He claims that it is entirely possible that we could find a "signature" of intelligence in molecular biology, that's ID in a nutshell. CSI is the signature of intelligence.
npage85 1 year ago
@npage85 oh bloody hell. It's clear he's admitting it's hypothetically possible that there might be an intelligent designer; it's not at all clear that he's saying ID'ers and their "theory" might be proven right (except in the remotest possibility of there actually being a designer)!
blueleadpot 1 year ago
@blueleadpot:
Umm... he says that we might "find the signature of intelligence in molecular biology," and that would point to a "physical, natural" designer.
That's ID... it just ends in a designer that isn't God.
Therefore, Dawkins admits that ID doesn't posit theological concepts.
npage85 1 year ago
Dawkins also says that anything which designed the physical realm as we know it would by definition have had to evolve somewhere else.
In your defense, I think Stein might have cut that part out of Expelled... but that really shows how intellectually honest the producers of that movie were, eh?
hossrex 1 year ago
@hossrex Yes, the part *was* cut. Dawkins describes the scenario in another interview. He also describes that, of course, he doesn't believe there are alien designers. Stein asked under which circumstances could Dawkins imagine a designer and Dawkins therefore answered with this highly unlikely scenario. Oh - and he also added that this "designer" would have to have evolved elsewhere himself.
commanderkruge 1 year ago
@npage85 also, ID, from what i do understand of it, says that a designer is something of a necessity, when we're talking about life on Earth, right? I don't think Dawkins would admit that, given that there's a perfectly natural explanation ;). Anyways, on to other points...
blueleadpot 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY:
lol... more childish rubbish from you. When are you ever going to grow up and gain a pair?
All you do is ridicule, you *never* present actually rational responses to *anything* I say.
It's ridiculous.
npage85 1 year ago
@npage85 I'm just curious... you still go to school, right? Have any of your profs ever seen your videos on Youtube? What do they think? Have you ever faced what you think is "discrimination" based on your beliefs? Or are they impressed?
blueleadpot 1 year ago
@blueleadpot:
I go to a university, yes.
And no, I keep my private life and YouTube life separate.
npage85 1 year ago
@npage85 well, that's not entirely true, is it? You're friends with linkmeup2003, right? What if somehow the university gets wind that you're into ID? Won't you be Expellololed?
blueleadpot 1 year ago
@blueleadpot:
Seeing as how I'm not a professor, I don't think that would happen at all.
Students don't get expelled because of ideological differences with the faculty.
There's plenty of YECs enrolled in universities... you don't see them get expellolololed, do you?
npage85 1 year ago
@npage85 I dunno... the way I see is if they're willing to do it to professors, why not students? I guess because you're paying them money. Hahaha. So yeah... i just wanted some excuse to say Expellololed, to be honest.
Dude, seriously though, you've hit rock bottom with this ID stuff.
blueleadpot 1 year ago
@blueleadpot:
That's your opinion then?
"Hitting rock bottom" is an opinion, unless you can explain to me that anything I have said in this video is irrational.
The only other comment from you on this video was one where you just said a bunch of derogatory things... that's a far cry from something that demonstrates that I've hit "rock bottom."
I realize that a lot of people disagree with this, but I see it as a byproduct of the lack of critical thinking classes in public education.
npage85 1 year ago
@npage85 if I back up what I said, you'll just come up with some devastating argument to show how I'm wrong, and I'm not willing to open myself up to that kind of hurt.
Haha. no, but seriously, you'll just talk twice as much bullshit, then four times, then 8, etc.
So, yes. It was just an opinion.
Rock. Fucking. Bottom. Of. The Barrel. Of. Laughs. Out. Loud. And. Clear. As. Crystal. Ball's. In. Your. Court. Case. Closed.
blueleadpot 1 year ago
@blueleadpot:
Nice. Very nice.
By the way... did you make those comments to linkmeup2003 because you're jealous?
It seems like you have some sort of unhealthy obsession over me, seeing as how you like to troll me videos.
You know, just asking. ;)
npage85 1 year ago
@npage85 I do have an unhealthy obsession over you, but it's nonsexual and silly.
Why doesn't linkmeup2003 ever post a video of him- or herself? Are you the brains of the operation? Is linkmeup2003 really just a lackey?
blueleadpot 1 year ago
@blueleadpot:
That's what everyone with an obsession says.
Now I'm intrigued.
Anyways, nope... linkmeup2003 is just a guy who likes messing with the trolls' minds. It's actually quite fun, considering that you don't even have to *try* to answer them.
Sometimes I even am watching a show on Hulu and responding to comments. It just takes a few seconds, and then I'm continuing on watching my show.
npage85 1 year ago
Expellololed. I really did LOL when I read that. I will have to remember that one.
fooltard 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY:
lol... and yet you can't present your own arguments?
You are still just blatantly making bald assertions.
That's your MO, I guess you should be proud of it. ;)
npage85 1 year ago
Dude... how is it that your comments are marked as spam so quickly? I came to this video, and it said your comment was spam, and the timestamp said (4 seconds ago).
blueleadpot 1 year ago
@blueleadpot:
YouTube has automatic filters.
For example, if someone posts a comment that is *exactly* like a previous comment, it gets marked as spam.
I don't know their full algorithm, but it gets annoying after awhile.
npage85 1 year ago
@npage85 thanks; I did not realize that. I thought it was based solely on user's votes. Why do they even let posts through that they figure are spam-ish? I guess they aren't confident in their algorithm, obviously..
blueleadpot 1 year ago
@blueleadpot:
I think they do that because the author of the video, by clicking "not spam" once, makes it show up again.
However, if non-authors click it, it takes a few clicks...
npage85 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY:
wiki: Scientific Method.
npage85 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY:
Thanks for your bald assertions. They are comforting to people who seek the truth, as it lets them know that those who oppose them have nothing of substance to say in response.
npage85 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY:
An "intelligent designer for life" is not a theological concept.
It only has theological implications.
Dawkins *himself* said that ID could turn out to be right, but he rejected the idea of a God behind it... that *alone* should let you know (from your pope himself) that ID doesn't posit any theological concepts.
I already explained in my video how ID is science. You refuse to respond to any of it except to just deny it like the child-like troll that you are.
npage85 1 year ago
@npage85 Dawkins was asked under what circumstances he could imagine there being a "designer" - his reply, quotemined by the movie, was that he thinks the whole concept was silly, but that *if* the questioner insisted on the question the only way he could imagine there being a designer for life on earth he'd have to be an alien lifeform, itself *evolved* somewhere else.
commanderkruge 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY:
ID does not itself posit theological concepts, but it is pretty obvious hat it has theological implications.
neo-Darwinism has theological implications.
A lot of scientific theories have theological implications. So what?
ID *in and of itself* doesn't posit anything about the supernatural, nor anything about God. Get over it already.
npage85 1 year ago
Uri Miller tried to get life come into existence without any intelligent designer playing a role? Is it just me, or is that a paradoxical and self-defeating mission that's doomed to failure?
gerontodon 1 year ago
@gerontodon:
Yeah... it is... lol... ;)
npage85 1 year ago
Nope, it isn't - first of all he wasn't trying to "create life". He tried to show that the building blocks of life can become existent in an elemental environment under the right conditions. Oh - and he did too.
And since he didn't design any of the amino-acids that came out of his experiment it's not paradoxical as well. It just shows once more that Creation...DAMN-ID'lers don't understand the basics of what they try to talk about. :)
commanderkruge 1 year ago
@commanderkrudge:
Oh, I understand the basics just fine.
My point was that Miller was on a quest to produce life naturalistically. He made an experiment to get one step closer.
That experiment didn't produce CSI. Therefore, we have yet another instance of non-intelligence not creating CSI.
npage85 1 year ago
Well, if it is this what he wanted to do with his experiment: Show me where he said/wrote that. Please! :)
Unless you can I stick with my evaluation - that your claim is just another creationist lie.
Nuff said.
commanderkruge 1 year ago
@commanderkrudge:
Umm... hello... is anyone there?
I just said, at the time scientists were hot on the pursuit of getting life naturalistically.
Many scientists made experiments with goals being the small steps *towards* life, but the ultimate goal of all the experiments together was life, naturalistically.
Scientists have been trying to get life naturalistically for decades, and still are.
Learn the history, and stop putting words in my mouth.
npage85 1 year ago
LOL, yes I *am* here! Come on, give me a minute to answer to your rubbish!
Also: It's 01:00 here right now and I'm not planning to spend the rest of my night replying to you, so I'm afraid you will have to wait even longer for my next reply.
Until then: Nightnight
commanderkruge 1 year ago
@commanderkrudge:
Nice... I wasn't being impatient though... just asking if anyone was "there," since you obviously weren't listening to what I was saying.
Goodnight, dear sir.
npage85 1 year ago
The water in the glass in front of me exceeds the UPB. Am I to infer there was some intelligent intervention for it to take the configuration that it has?
infinit888 1 year ago
@infiniti888:
You've just demonstrated that you have no idea what you are talking about.
npage85 1 year ago
@npage85 by all means continue to be a pretentious asshat or... if you are really half as smart as you think you are you might be able to enlighten me where I went wrong.
Your pick.
infinit888 1 year ago
@npage85
"You seem to think that "intelligent designers" are always supernatural. That's preposterous."
This is actually part of ID theory, that intelligence is a supernatural force.
urbanelf 1 year ago
@urbanelf:
Umm... I don't think so.
npage85 1 year ago
That's why the UPB is based on all the know particles * all the time slices in which they could change state. Dembski is calculating the "probabilistic resources" of the natural world.
"... all attempts to purchase specified complexity without intelligence end in sterile reductionism that tries to make natural causes do the work of intelligent causes."
urbanelf 1 year ago
@urbanelf:
That's a Red Herring. Just because he's calculating the probabilistic resources of the natural world doesn't mean that he's stating that something is supernatural that breaks that boundary.
He's calculating the probabilistic resources of the natural world if no designer acts upon it. *Chance*, not design.
Humans aren't supernatural, yet *we* create things with CSI... so I fail to see your point.
npage85 1 year ago
"He's calculating the probabilistic resources of the natural world if no designer acts upon it."
If something's intelligence is natural then it's part of the natural world. Thus natural intelligence is restricted to the probabilistic resources of the natural world. Natural intelligence shouldn't be able to produce CSI.
Anyhow, would you be willing to answer a few questions about CSI if I made a video response?
urbanelf 1 year ago
@urbanelf:
You're forgetting the dichotomy between chance and design.
If I simply roll a die, there is a probability associated with it coming up a six. If, however, I lay it so that it *is* a six, I've bypassed probability.
So, when he's calculating the UPB, he's figuring the maximum probability that something will happen *by chance* in the natural world.
I don't see any problem with that.
Oh, and I was about to answer your PM... sure, I'd be willing. ;)
npage85 1 year ago
Yeah, but what caused you to lay it out? Was it the neural network in your skull firing based on random perturbations and natural law? Or was it some force that transcends the physical neurons in your head?
According to Dembski, neural networks are in the same category as evolutionary algorithms(p. 181 NFL) and should be equally impotent to create CSI.
Thanks, I'll make it soon.
urbanelf 1 year ago
@urbanelf:
You seem to think that since my brain is what makes decisions (and it's natural) that I am not intelligent...
You see... this is how it works according to what *I've* gathered:
He figures out the upper probability of something happening by chance in this universe without intelligence.
(cont. below)
npage85 1 year ago