Irony of the evolutionary belief

[Subduction Zone]

I am ok with that……… but @Subduction Zone isen´t

You tend to misinterpret everyone and everything when you know that you are wrong.

 

[blü 2]

In this context God is simply an “intelligent designer that exists independently of this FT universe.”

And you know that how?

When we've cleared that up, we can move on to a meaningful description of this being.

 

[gnostic]

That is circular reasoning

It is not circular reasoning.

Circular reasoning is what you do, with those illogical your conclusion that you derived off your 3 faulty premises, that you posted up earlier.

And it isn’t circular because even the Discovery Institute’s biggest champion, Michael Behe, a biochemist, admitted during cross-examination in the Kitzmiller & Dover trial in 2005, that no works of any supporters of Intelligent Design - including himself - have presented evidence, original experiments & data to support the existence of Intelligent Design and its Designer, and there are no scientific papers relating to Intelligent Design - including Behe’s own Irreducible Complexity - have ever gone through Peer Review.

Below is the portion of the morning transcript from that trial. Please, pay attention to portion I highlighted in red.

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District

Trial transcript: Day 12 (October 19), AM Session, Part 1


Q. [Mr Rothschild] Now you have never argued for intelligent design in a peer reviewed scientific journal, correct?

A. [Michael Behe] No, I argued for it in my book.

Q. Not in a peer reviewed scientific journal?

A. That's correct.

Q. And, in fact, there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred, is that correct?

A. That is correct, yes.

Q. And it is, in fact, the case that in Darwin's Black Box, you didn't report any new data or original research?

A. I did not do so, but I did generate an attempt at an explanation.

Q. Now you have written for peer reviewed scientific journals on subjects other than intelligent design, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And in those articles, you did report original research and data, at least in many of them, correct?

A. Yes.

The full court transcript for that morning session can be found & read here : TalkOrigins: Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Trial transcript: Day 12 (October 19), AM Session, Part 1

Behe was the leading “expert witness” for the Dover Area School District team.

You - Leroy - don’t seem to understand that Intelligent Design isn’t “science“, because no one, not even Behe himself, have ever tested the Intelligent Design.

The tests MUST include all relevant data from evidence & experiments…and clearly stated in red - there are none.

Without the evidence, experiments & data, nothing Behe or anyone (eg Phillip E Johnson & Stephen Meyer were the 2 cofounders of ID; the coauthors who wrote Of Pandas and People, Percival Davis & Dean H Kenyon, the cause of the trial, etc) say or wrote about that advocate the Intelligent Design or Intelligent Designer are “scientific“. Without such tests, Intelligent Design is nothing more than pseudoscience concept.

That means your Designer is nothing than figments of their imagination - and that would include you.

 

[gnostic]

Yes I affirm that intelligent design is the best explanation for the FT of the universe-…………… if you have a better alternative in mind, please develop it, and explain why is it better than design.

That’s just your personal opinion, Leroy.

it cannot be “the best explanation”, as you and everyone else who advocated for FT Universe and for ID, have never been able to test the concept, it is nothing more than baseless speculation. Unsubstantiated speculations are just personal opinions.

Without tests to verify the FT Universe, that would means “no evidence”, ”no experiments”, and “no data”, then the ID & FT are just speculative & pretty much useless philosophies.

 

[leroy]

Necessity, Chance, Design is not a scientific or logically complete set,

ok what else would you add? ............... (Just kitting I know you will not answer)

You dismiss the first two cases without evidence and yet claim that variation is not even necessary for fine tuna.

wrong, evidnece was provided................for exampe I said and supported the claim the BB paradox refutes the chance alternative.............you havent disagreed..................therefore tacitly your are granting this claim

On the other hand, using your criteria, Necessity seems obvious since the debate can only occur in a universe where intelligence is possible.

Yes, but that doesn’t proof that intelligence appeared by the particular mechanisms that are consistent with your own philosophical view.

As for design it can only be inferred through knowledge of the designers capabilities.

That is nonsense.

There are many cases where one infers design, and no prior knowledge of his capabilities is needed

You do not have a logical or scientific justification for any of your claims grounded in anything beyond your equivocation of meanings.
in other realms it is called proof texting.

yes,

Far better minds than yours have attempted and failed this ancient attempt to justify faith.

I note a deep anger against faith an religion in you…………. Why don’t you simply analyze the argument with an honest and an open mind?

Just ask yourself 2 questions

1 how would you know if a pattern is design? ¿what method would you use?

2 does the universe meets this criteria? Yes or no why?

 

[leroy]

It is not circular reasoning.

Circular reasoning is what you do, with those illogical your conclusion that you derived off your 3 faulty premises, that you posted up earlier.

It seems to me that you are saying that “you can´t use that FT argument (nor any other argument) in support of the existence of God, because the existence of God has not been stablished.

If that is what you are saying then it is circular reasoning, if not, then I have no idea on what you are talking about

 

[blü 2]

Necessity, Chance, Design, and you asked

ok what else would you add? ............... (Just kitting I know you will not answer)

You overlooked the one you rely on ─ Magic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It seems to me that you are saying that “you can´t use that FT argument (nor any other argument) in support of the existence of God, because the existence of God has not been stablished.

If that is what you are saying then it is circular reasoning, if not, then I have no idea on what you are talking about

When you won't let yourself learn no one can help you.

 

[Pogo]

1 how would you know if a pattern is design? ¿what method would you use?

2 does the universe meets this criteria? Yes or no why?

Intelligence is just an extension of evolution which is reality, your running away from your attempt at ID, and thank you for realizing that our universe necessarily has the parameters it has since we can measure them. Which doesn't mean that this isn't just the chance universe that has these parameters,
As for paradox, there are lots of them, which one that you read about somewhere without understanding are you harping about.
Dembski's little list has been dead outside of theological wannabes since he wrote it.


You don't without knowing what the designer can do. You are assuming a designer that can do anything which makes your conjecture totally worthless.
You have no criteria beyond your emotional desire for it to be true.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If you don’t followed the rules, you will be ignored.

"your" rules, you mean?

You didn't follow "my" rules either.
For example, you you didn't start with "I affirm that I was just repeating my claims and not supporting them for which I appologize" so should I also ignore you?


Quite the arrogance and act like a somewhat mature adult please.

You made a claim, I asked a question about said claim.

You claimed design is a "logical possibility".
I asked you how you determined it as such. How do you justify that claim?

If you don't want or can't answer then just say so, instead of this obnoxious arrogant drivel.

 

[leroy]

"your" rules, you mean?

You didn't follow "my" rules either.
For example, you you didn't start with "I affirm that I was just repeating my claims and not supporting them for which I appologize" so should I also ignore you?


Quite the arrogance and act like a somewhat mature adult please.

You made a claim, I asked a question about said claim.

You claimed design is a "logical possibility".
I asked you how you determined it as such. How do you justify that claim?

If you don't want or can't answer then just say so, instead of this obnoxious arrogant drivel.

Understand, I am assuming that you are familiar with the argument, that you have read about it in multiple sources and that you have seen “both sides” of the argument. (if this assumption is wrong, then I am not interested in a conversation)

Given that assumption, I’m a simply asking you to share the objection that you think is the strongest. In my opinion this is an honest request……………..

You didn't follow "my" rules either.
For example, you you didn't start with "I affirm that I was just repeating my claims and not supporting them for which I appologize" so should I also ignore you?

Because your alleged request is not a serious request but rather an attempt to denigrate me………… my request is conducive to a nice a interesting dialog, your request is just “you trolling”

Quite the arrogance and act like a somewhat mature adult please.

I am asking you to provide the best objection to an argument………….what is immature about that?

You made a claim, I asked a question about said claim.

But that was not an honest question, you are just in “questioning everything mode”

You claimed design is a "logical possibility".

and you dont disagree......so why wasting time with this question?

The answer is

“there is not al contradiction between the concept of a designer, and this designer being the cause of the FT of the universe. Therefore it is not logically impossible, (this is a contradiction not like a married bachelor)...................yoiu knoe and agree with this.........

You simply asked the question to keep the conversation long tedious and boring……….that you can claim victory after me getting tired.

If you don't want or can't answer then just say so, instead of this obnoxious arrogant drivel.

Ok I have answered your question (+ other 4 or 5 on the topic)

It is your turn to answer my question. ¿what is your best objection to the FT argument?

Where the argument the fails?

 

[leroy]

Intelligence is just an extension of evolution which is reality, your running away from your attempt at ID, and thank you for realizing that our universe necessarily has the parameters it has since we can measure them. Which doesn't mean that this isn't just the chance universe that has these parameters,
As for paradox, there are lots of them, which one that you read about somewhere without understanding are you harping about.
Dembski's little list has been dead outside of theological wannabes since he wrote it.


You don't without knowing what the designer can do. You are assuming a designer that can do anything which makes your conjecture totally worthless.
You have no criteria beyond your emotional desire for it to be true.

Why did you quote my comment if you are not answering the question in that comment?

I´ll ask a different but similar question

If the stars suddenly rearrange to spell the words “I exists” sincerely the God of the bible………….would you accept that as evidence for God,? would you at least accept that as evidence for design? Yes no why?

Intelligence is just an extension of evolution which is reality, your running away from your attempt at ID,

relevance?

thank you for realizing that our universe necessarily has the parameters it has since we can measure them

your point?

Which doesn't mean that this isn't just the chance universe that has these parameters,
As for paradox, there are lots of them, which one that you read about somewhere without understanding are you harping about.
Dembski's little list has been dead outside of theological wannabes since he wrote it.

what are you talkign about?

You don't without knowing what the designer can do. You are assuming a designer that can do anything which makes your conjecture totally worthless.
You have no criteria beyond your emotional desire for it to be true.

And you are assuming that the natural mechanism responsible for the FT can create FT universes.

We are making the same assumption

 

[leroy]

When you won't let yourself learn no one can help you.

ok then the value of gravity / mass of the electron, etc. are not determined by deeper laws..............in ether case it is ok with me

 

[leroy]

That’s just your personal opinion, Leroy.

it cannot be “the best explanation”, as you and everyone else who advocated for FT Universe and for ID, have never been able to test the concept, it is nothing more than baseless speculation. Unsubstantiated speculations are just personal opinions.

Without tests to verify the FT Universe, that would means “no evidence”, ”no experiments”, and “no data”, then the ID & FT are just speculative & pretty much useless philosophies.

The FT of the universe has been tested, nobody denies that the universe is FT

No scientists denies that

1 if gravity would have been 1% stronger the universe would have collapsed in a Black hole shortly after the big bang

2 life can no exist if a black hole is all there is

(gravity is just an example the same is true with other constants and initial conditions)

This is what FT means

If you think you have a better explanation than design, for why we have FT, why don’t you share that explanation? Isn’t ´it perplexing that atheist always run away from this challenge?

 

[Pogo]

Why did you quote my comment if you are not answering the question in that comment?

I´ll ask a different but similar question

If the stars suddenly rearrange to spell the words “I exists” sincerely the God of the bible………….would you accept that as evidence for God,? would you at least accept that as evidence for design? Yes no why?


relevance?

your point?

what are you talkign about?


And you are assuming that the natural mechanism responsible for the FT can create FT universes.

We are making the same assumption

Reading comprehension sir, I quoted and answered the two questions at the bottom of your post.

The rest of the post is yet another explanation of why your assumptions are just that and not suitable for drawing any conclusion beyond we don't know.

 

[leroy]

Reading comprehension sir, I quoted and answered the two questions at the bottom of your post.

The rest of the post is yet another explanation of why your assumptions are just that and not suitable for drawing any conclusion beyond we don't know.

Since you are unable to answer question I will simply keep repeating the question

If the stars suddenly rearrange to spell the words “I exists” sincerely the God of the bible………….would you accept that as evidence for God,? would you at least accept that as evidence for design? Yes no why?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Since you are unable to answer question I will simply keep repeating the question

If the stars suddenly rearrange to spell the words “I exists” sincerely the God of the bible………….would you accept that as evidence for God,? would you at least accept that as evidence for design? Yes no why?

I'll answer that -- though it wasn't addressed to me.

Yes, of course I would accept that as evidence for God.

Now, what do you make out of the fact that it has never happened?

 

[leroy]

Reading comprehension sir, I quoted and answered the two questions at the bottom of your post.

The rest of the post is yet another explanation of why your assumptions are just that and not suitable for drawing any conclusion beyond we don't know.

Since you are unable to answer question I will simply keep repeating the question

If the stars suddenly rearrange to spell the words “I exists” sincerely the God of the bible………….would you accept that as evidence for God,? would you at least accept that as evidence for design? Yes no why?

 

[Subduction Zone]

ok then the value of gravity / mass of the electron, etc. are not determined by deeper laws..............in ether case it is ok with me

What is this "deeper laws" nonsense? They appear to be most likely just due to scientific laws that we do not fully understand yet.

Can you cut out the nonsense?

 

[Pogo]

Since you are unable to answer question I will simply keep repeating the question

If the stars suddenly rearrange to spell the words “I exists” sincerely the God of the bible………….would you accept that as evidence for God,? would you at least accept that as evidence for design? Yes no why?

Here is the whole post with your questions and the answers for you to practice comprehension.
Leeroy's Questions?

1 how would you know if a pattern is design? ¿what method would you use?

2 does the universe meets this criteria? Yes or no why?

Intelligence is just an extension of evolution which is reality, your running away from your attempt at ID, and thank you for realizing that our universe necessarily has the parameters it has since we can measure them. Which doesn't mean that this isn't just the chance universe that has these parameters,
As for paradox, there are lots of them, which one that you read about somewhere without understanding are you harping about.
Dembski's little list has been dead outside of theological wannabes since he wrote it.

My Answers.
You don't without knowing what the designer can do. You are assuming a designer that can do anything which makes your conjecture totally worthless.
You have no criteria beyond your emotional desire for it to be true.

The answer to any questions that you have no real knowledge about should be I don't know,
Not, Well if I imagine this supercalifragalisticexpialidocious being,
Then I have the answer to all the questions that can be asked whether the questions make sense or not.