Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

[Bunyip]

nothing determines how the snowflake forms? I think you'll find there are very specific instructions -

Urm... oh really? And where Guy are these 'instructions' inside snowflakes? There are no such 'instructions'. But I do love how you make up your 'version' of science as you go along.

A snowflake is no more self organizing than the pixels that 'self organize' on your tv when you are watching a DVD.

LOL. Guy, snowflakes self organise, so do crystals, bubbles, ecosystems, the patterns in sand dunes etc etc.

But if you relly don't think I care about truth you are right, there's no point in continuing, but I think you do, everybody does.

I think you demonstrate very clearly that you do not care for the truth by posting consistently what you know is not true. Like the idea that evolution is random.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Read the sentence again. Who are the “WE” here?

Please read my response again, which was not even a response to the sentence you are quoting here. It was a response to these two statements:

"You see how Metis contradicted himself by describing “Moses brought down the first 10 in tablet form”. How can he rightly quote about Moses if he was not sure if he really exist or not?"

"And if you notice he even mentioned the “Seven Noachide Laws”. Was he referring after the flood on which the EVOLUTIONISTS do not agree at all?"

The words “quote mining” was used first by the scientific community or the Evolutionist in the 1990s to refute the Creationist arguments. So, every time you hear the words “quote mining” the next thing in your mind is, it’s a lie, because this is what the Evolutionist meant by it. I gave you an example on how Mestemia used the words “quote mining” and it proved that it was not really a lie at all, but the opposite, which is the truth. So, if you use the words “quote mining” make sure that it will not get back at you and prove you wrong.

Well, considering I've already seen you quote mine Darwin, you may want to re-address how truthful you actually are.

When are you gonna start understanding this? Again for the 4th times, AHEM, AHEM, AHEM! It was used by the scientific community or Evolutionist as a way to refute Creationist arguments. So, if I say: I love quote mining, the next thing in your mind is I’m a liar because this is what the Evolutionist meant by it.

It's not just one side of the debate that use the phrase "quote mining". It is a commonly understood dishonest practice of debate. What about that is so difficult to understand? Do you or do you not understand that "quote mining" refers to a deliberately dishonest practice, and do you or do you not understand that therefore saying "I love quote mining" can be seen as an admission of dishonesty?

Mestemia accused me of quote mining but it turn out that he is the liar, meaning that quote mining is not what the evolutionist really meant but actually the opposite, which is the truth. So how do you balance this? With prejudice of course in favor of mestemia and metis, but if you read and understand it correctly, the use of the words quote mining is misunderstood by you and the evolutionists and especially by Mestemia.

Since you apparently aren't reading what I write, I'll say it again: I NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT MESTEMIA OR METIS' ACCUSATIONS OF QUOTE MINING, I was simply telling you that saying "I love quote mining" is not a very clever thing to say.

 

[kmaster268]

The more I hear about Dawkins, the more he annoys me.
"Blind watchmaker evolution" seems best suited to describe a divine creator who uses
evolution &/or abiogenesis as the tools to create the diversity of life we observe.
(Such a "god" strikes me as a pretty reasonable belief....not for me, but respectable.)
The secular view of the non-intentional mechanism of evolution is better described as
a stochastic process with a fitness function.

wow

 

[SkepticThinker]

100% of paranormal investigators believe in ghosts, and they should know, they're the experts, right? The rest of us are not qualified to have an opinion are we?

If you read what I said, it's about more than just opinions - it's about evidence.

You were trying to say that evolution isn't a fact of reality by providing quotes where scientists are quibbling about some of the details and mechanisms involved which isn't entirely honest because they are not actually arguing about whether evolution happens at all - they already agree that it does.

 

[Unification]

Of course, same goes for every explanatory theory in science. So what? Not that I can see.

The response was for classical mechanics, not every other explanatory theory in science.

You see differently because you are conscious. Whether we are aware or not, it's impossible to have an all physical/material world using every other explanatory theory in physical science and all of its theorems and laws. It needs extended. It always leads back to the dimension not many are brave enough to explore, and that is highly necessary for the world and science: consciousness.

 

[Unification]

Why not? Amino acids and such formed Einstein, Shakespeare, Da Vinci. Even simpler molecules form the Mona Lisa. So of course collations of amino acids, enzymes and such can write Romeo and Juliette, invent spacecraft and perform theoretical physics calculations.

I don't want to assume anything so I will ask you: are you trying to say that information is encoded into matter?

 

[outhouse]

nothing determines how the snowflake forms? I think you'll find there are very specific instructions -

LOL and yet the instructions are so very specific, every one shapes itself differently

The rest of us are not qualified to have an opinion are we?

Not with fanaticism and fundamentalism that places mythology before science. Your position/opinion is outlawed from school children so we don't poison their minds in science classes.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

we have no other instance of the majority phyla, kinds, whatever word we prefer, appearing, just the Cambrian explosion and with 'no direct evidence of smooth transitions' as Dawkins put it.

It is all to easy for these debates to become polarized, this does not mean God did it, it simply means we have no evidence for evolution doing it, remove all the 'suspicion' 'invention' 'derision of the alternative' academics like Dawkins refer to, and look at the cold hard unemotional science, it's still an area that deserves investigation, application of the scientific method, not shutting down all dissent from academic consensus, as some still promote, as Hoyle did with Lemaitre.

This if based in ignorance. If you would like I can provide you plenty of fossil evidence in the record that does show smooth transitions. The Cambrian explosion has been under recent suspicion as we have found animals that date even later than the Cambrian. Also none of the animal kingdom or the vast majority of phylum were developed yet during the Cambrian. It was basically some basic animal life with shells and the beginnings of fish. No mammals, all mamals evolved after, all reptiles evolved after, the vast majority of fish evolved after, sharks evolved after, ect ect ect. Hell even insects evolved after. Tree's didn't exist yet.

What we had was a lack of fossil evidence of these very small pre-forms without very many good fossil sites. Then we have an incredibly wealthy fossil site. It was like suddenly turning on the lights and allowing us to get a good look. It doesn't mean they were not there before.

I agree with you that this should be the case, if evolution were a purely scientific field, it would be, but not all agree with us.

“Evolution is a fact. [] beyond doubt evolution is a fact" Dawkins

It is beyond reasonable doubt. It is a fact. It is not immutable. Immutable is something else. Nothing in science is immutable and you need to quit pretending as if it was.

 

[Unification]

LOL and yet the instructions are so very specific, every one shapes itself differently




Not with fanaticism and fundamentalism that places mythology before science. Your position/opinion is outlawed from school children so we don't poison their minds in science classes.

That would be circular reasoning though.

“There is something magical about snowflakes,” he says from his laboratory in Pasadena. “You don’t often see such complex symmetry in nature and that makes them extraordinary. The whole intriguing structure of a snow crystal simply arises quite literally out of thin air, as it tumbles through the clouds. The way the crystal grows depends on the temperature it is shaped in – a simple enough idea to grasp – but the underlying physics is fiendishly complicated and has remained a puzzle. I spend a lot, and I mean a lot, of time thinking about this.” -Ken Libbrecht, snowflake expert.

How does science explain fanaticism using its fundamental laws of nature? It's contradictory.

That idealogy is flawed and formed on opinion. There are many things outlawed in many places of the world. It would be no different than saying gay marriage is outlawed because of mind poisoning. An illogical opinion.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

100% of paranormal investigators believe in ghosts, and they should know, they're the experts, right? The rest of us are not qualified to have an opinion are we?

Evolution has evidence. It is considered a science and fact because of the incredible amounts of evidence. Paranormal investigators have nothing for the most part. That is why they aren't considered a science and why they haven't convinced anyone. Evidence evidence evidence. That makes all the difference.

 

[jonathan180iq]

You people have not explained anything yet to convince me about what is your “logical explanation” about evolution

Ask a specific question(s) and I will give you a specific answer(s).

 

[Unification]

That would be circular reasoning though.

“There is something magical about snowflakes,” he says from his laboratory in Pasadena. “You don’t often see such complex symmetry in nature and that makes them extraordinary. The whole intriguing structure of a snow crystal simply arises quite literally out of thin air, as it tumbles through the clouds. The way the crystal grows depends on the temperature it is shaped in – a simple enough idea to grasp – but the underlying physics is fiendishly complicated and has remained a puzzle. I spend a lot, and I mean a lot, of time thinking about this.” -Ken Libbrecht, snowflake expert.

How does science explain fanaticism using its fundamental laws of nature? It's contradictory.

That idealogy is flawed and formed on opinion. There are many things outlawed in many places of the world. It would be no different than saying gay marriage is outlawed because of mind poisoning. An illogical opinion.

I do agree, however, that if science wants to detach itself from all other forms of experience and reality, that it should. That's where the law comes in.

What would be taught as to what remains confounded into science and what may be experienced in a mind are two separate things.

It wouldn't be poisoning, it would simply be excluding anything that isn't defined as science. Anything that would be taught that isn't defined as science, would be misrepresenting what science has defined it's own self as. Doesn't make reality and the mind go away. It just ignores it.

Doesn't make the mind and experience any less real. Imagination, fanaticism, are real also.

Physical experience and conscious experience.

 

[outhouse]

How does science explain fanaticism using its fundamental laws of nature?

Your statement does not make sense to me, I cant understand what your even saying here.

Fanaticism is not nature. It is when religious people shut their minds to reality and refuse credible education and knowledge. It has absolutely nothing to do with nature.

 

[outhouse]

Imagination, fanaticism, are real also.

Inside the brain only.

 

[outhouse]

That would be circular reasoning though.

Maybe your understanding is circular?

Because my statement was anything but circular

 

[outhouse]

I don't want to assume anything

Every reply you post assumes, why change now?

 

[Unification]

Maybe your understanding is circular?

Because my statement was anything but circular

My understanding is in the middle. Not one assumptive extreme.

 

[Unification]

Every reply you post assumes, why change now?

In your opinion.

It's never good to assume and conclude something for another mind.

 

[David M]

Argon is the final or stable element of potassium. So, when after the argon cooled off, let’s say for 10 years, one can start dating it, but the problem is no potassium can be found to base a half-life of potassium to argon. IOW, you need to know when the potassium started decaying or clocking.

Completely wrong. In fact every single sentence there is wrong.

1. Argon is not a "final or stable element of potassium". It is an element in its own right.
2. Argon is a gas, it escapes from molten rock but does not escape when the rock solidifies, which does not take 10 years.
3. Potassium will remain detectable in the rock for millions of years.
4. Potassium 40 is always decaying, its the point at which the rock solidifies that is being measured by the dating method.

Thanks for demonstrating that you definitely know nothing about K-Ar dating methods.

 

[David M]

I think you are confused between “clocking” and “decaying”, they are the same. Any elements are radioactive, meaning they are decaying, meaning it changes from one element to another like potassium to argon and that’s how they get the ages by measuring half-lives. Potassium when starts decaying, that is, clocking, you will see the presence of argon and by measuring their half-lives you can determine the age.

Yeah, got it from the internet again and no formal study of this.

You use the term "clocking", any confusion stems from your misuse of the terminology.

You are completely wrong. You don't understand anything about radio-metric dating, for example:

you will see the presence of argon and by measuring their half-lives you can determine the age.

This is complete nonsense. No one measures the half-lives to date a rock sample. Half-lives are established and verified independently.