Just Accidental?

[Deeje]

You can read it as the majority here, the scientific community, 95% of the National Academy of Sciences or just my use of the "royal we" your need for correction is clear in any case.

Who are the National Academy of Sciences compared with the Sovereign Creator of the universe? You spoke before about ants and elephants?

Guess who the ants are......

Correct, it is a lie because you are misrepresenting things that others believe.

But of course, you would never do that.....

I never present it as "fact" only as closely approaching fact at it's limit, that is to say, very, very, very, probable.

What do you think makes it so probable? Isn't it from the "evidence" that scientists present to demonstrate that their theory must be right? That makes it "very, very, very, probable" to someone who takes all that "evidence" at face value, but really has nothing but supposition and likelihood to suggest the belief in the first place. There is no "evidence" that puts evolution before belief in a Creator, except what is manufactured by science itself. Since scientists only need to convince each other, you think that the blind can't lead the blind?

No, that means that the likelihood of my views a 99.99999999999999999999% (or so) and that you get the difference between that and 100. We are not even-steven on the field, so stop pretending that we are.

I don't have to pretend...science does enough of that for the both of us.

Yet ... neither you nor any of your fellow travelers can make a coherent case to it. Bad show.

Its not our fault that someone supplied you with those virtual glasses that make everything look real, but its just an illusion.
The fossils are not speaking for themselves because science has to speak for them....

The argument for ID is both logical and consistent.....just not to those who need an excuse to disbelieve.
If you want to place the Creator in the realms of myth and fantasy, that is your prerogative. That is not where we put him.

Living a good life and dying without the egotism of blind hope that you are cursed with.

Then I assure you you will not be disappointed....you will get what you wish for. I'm not sure about the "egotism of blind hope" part though.....egotism seems to stem from a different source.
I think its the same place that arrogance comes from if I'm not mistaken.

 

[ArtieE]

Hmmmm..."a hyperactive agency-detecting device". Sounds like a sophisticated piece of technology....is there an app for that?

So you have to psychoanalyze me to explain how my mind works?

Not just your mind but the minds of everybody who believe in or have believed in thousands of gods up through the years. And HADD and ToM seem to be logical and rational explanations for all these often irrational, illogical, wildly varying and contradictory beliefs. The anthropology of religion is a fascinating study. I strongly encourage every believer to try to set aside their belief for a while. Pretend you are an alien anthropologist who'd never heard of religions and god beliefs and has come to earth to study this phenomenon.

 

[Shad]

You can think whatever you like.......no point in

I have nothing to prove to you.

Perhaps not to me as you have failed repeatedly to convince me your argument is reasonable let alone true. Yet you do have an interest in proving yourself to others on this forum hence why you continue to make posts in this thread.

BTW you are not the only one who can

It is good to see that other people can see beyond your biblical literialism. Oh wait most of humanity sees beyond it's nonsense.

 

[Sapiens]

According to the Wiktionary : THEORY

"From Middle French théorie, from Late Latin theōria, from Ancient Greek θεωρία ‎(theōría, “contemplation, speculation, a looking at, things looked at”), from θεωρέω ‎(theōréō, “I look at, view, consider, examine”), from θεωρός ‎(theōrós, “spectator”), from θέα ‎(théa, “a view”) + ὁράω ‎(horáō, “I see,look”).

There is several different meaning depending on the context (hence the classical debate on the Theory of Evolution which is a scientific theory and not a conjecture.)

1. (sciences) A coherent statement or set of ideas that explains observed facts or phenomena, or which sets out the laws and principles of something known or observed; a hypothesis confirmed by observation, experiment etc. [from 17th c.]
2. A hypothesis or conjecture. [from 18th c.]

NB : In scientific discourse, the sense “unproven conjecture” is discouraged (with hypothesis or conjecture preferred), due to unintentional ambiguity and intentional equivocation with the sense “well-developed statement or structure”."

So far so good, but my Greek tutor at university would have taken specific exception at your statement concerning your fantasy of the "original" meaning of "theory". At least be honest and admit your error there, rather than backpedaling to the fact that we in the scientific community use a different definition than you do.

Now I can see a bit of contradiction in this statement....which describes evolution as "a scientific theory and not a conjecture" but also says that it is "A coherent statement or set of ideas that explains observed facts or phenomena, or which sets out the laws and principles of something known or observed; a hypothesis confirmed by observation, experiment etc.".....But from what I can ascertain from the literature, evolution cannot possibly be "confirmed or observed", because no human was alive to do so, and if by "experimentation" it means the speciation experiments, Then all it has is proof of adaptation within a species, not organic evolution confirming that one creature evolved into another in any kind of line of descent. So I see failure on the part of science to present any "facts" that they did not "interpret" or invent to support their theory.

You have repeatedly revealed yourself to be so unfamiliar with the actual scientific literature that I can see no reason why your opinion should be taken seriously.
of two things....either they are all correct..or all horribly mistaken. Wont it be interesting to find out which?
[/quote]
No branches of science reject evolution. There is a very, very, very high probability that science is correct, there is a minuscule probability that you are correct. Your attempt at the pretense of anything resembling a more or less equal probability falls into the crapper of the logical fallacy of False Equivalency, another lie. So, we really don't need to fine out which is correct, that is already known.

Then tell the school systems to stop teaching it as fact.

I do.

That is lying. If science doesn't deal in facts, then tell those science students the truth.

It is "simplification." Consider that you have trouble mastering the concept, so do you really expect elementary school students to do better than you are able to? The iota of difference between "very, very, very probable" and "absolute fact" is just a "rounding off." it does not amount to a lie. nor does it give me much heartburn.

This is what science "THINKS" "might have" happened. Its a belief, not something that can be proven.

No, you've got it wrong ... again.

You are very big on put downs but a bit short on evidence. Constantly calling people a liar betrays a lack of confidence on your part. If you have to put others down to elevate yourself, you know what that means......attack means you have no defense.
It just makes you sound like an arrogant .....q -headed intellectual.

You've received a lot of evidence. Your response has been to quote mine, a form of lying. If calling you on your dishonesty betrays a lack of confidence on my part, so be it, I am a scientist and if I am only 99.99999999999% confident that you are lying, I will just have to life with that level of uncertainty.

You do have a way with words Sapiens.....put downs as usual.....

Thank you.

Well, you hope its like that...but perhaps there are some who just can't swallow the fantasy that you are trying to prop up. A house of cards that has absolutely no foundation except in the fertile minds of scientists......

You keep making claims like that, but you never are able to support your claims with evidence.

I'd rather be one of these....

than one of these.....

You don't have be be either. You're stuck on presenting false dichotomies.

Who are the National Academy of Sciences compared with the Sovereign Creator of the universe?

Actual people, very smart and well educated people, elected to the NAS by their peers. What is a fairy tale of an invisible friend compared to that?

You spoke before about ants and elephants?

Guess who the ants are......

Since it was my metaphor permit me to tell you that the ants represent the creationists and IDers.

But of course, you would never do that.....

Done, no need to guess.

What do you think makes it so probable? Isn't it from the "evidence" that scientists present to demonstrate that their theory must be right?

It might be that all the evidence supports the ToE and the ToE has been used to make accurate predictions, ID is without evidentiary support and lacks any predictive power. ID exists only as a anti-intellectual criticism of the ToE.

That makes it "very, very, very, probable" to someone who takes all that "evidence" at face value, but really has nothing but supposition and likelihood to suggest the belief in the first place. There is no "evidence" that puts evolution before belief in a Creator, except what is manufactured by science itself. Since scientists only need to convince each other, you think that the blind can't lead the blind?

Since religion has long been in the business of manufacturing "creators" for fun and profit, I can understand how you might have trouble understanding that science does not manufacture evidence, it evaluates it.

I don't have to pretend...science does enough of that for the both of us.

The fossils are not speaking for themselves because science has to speak for them....

The argument for ID is both logical and consistent.....just not to those who need an excuse to disbelieve.

We have been asking over many threads for several years for someone to lay out a logical evidence based case for creationism or ID. To date, no one has. Why don't you take a stab at it?

If you want to place the Creator in the realms of myth and fantasy, that is your prerogative. That is not where we put him.

You have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

Then I assure you you will not be disappointed....you will get what you wish for. I'm not sure about the "egotism of blind hope" part though.....egotism seems to stem from a different source.

If you were sure about it you'd not wallow in it.

I think its the same place that arrogance comes from if I'm not mistaken.

You have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

 

[psychoslice]

I believe that the Cosmos breaths out and then in, or the big bang and the big crutch, each time it breaths out is a possibility for whatever, we ourselves are one of those possibility's, its no accident, its just whatever the big bang gives us at that time, and every time its different, its just us little minded creatures on this little rock that can't grasp what is happening, and we don't need to, we only need to live our life and be happy.

 

[Sapiens]

The way Deeje and I each argue bears some examination at this juncture. I argue the information, even when I brand her "liar." I do so in the context of evidence. She quote mine. She doesn't even deny it, useless as that would be. That is a form of lying, so, she is a liar. She'd like to pawn that off on me as, "Constantly calling people a liar betrays a lack of confidence on your part. If you have to put others down to elevate yourself, you know what that means......attack means you have no defense."

Please note that I do not constantly call people liars, I call those who have bald-faced lied right here, in front of "God and everyone," liars.

I note that she does not deny the appellation nor does she make any defense of her dishonest practices. But then she turns about and tries the snide ad hominem against me, claiming that I have a "lack of confidence," that I, "put others down to elevate myself," and that "attack means I have no defense."

Now, even if those accusations were true, none save the last have anything what-so-ever to do with the argument. They are logical fallacies. Wiki notes that: "ad hominen attacks, in some cases, can be non fallacious however: if the attack on the character of the person is directly tackling the argument itself. For example if the truth of the argument relies on the truthfulness of the person making the argument, rather than known facts; pointing out that the person has previously lied is not fallacious." I point out that, to a degree, the truth of the argument relies on the truthfulness of the person making the argument.

Her argument that "attack means you have no defense" could be relevant, were it not so banal. Remember Clausewitz? Remember the Offensive Principal of War: "a good offense is the best defense." This view is mirrored by George Washington who wrote in 1799: "… offensive operations, often times, is the surest, if not the only (in some cases) means of defense"; Mao Zedong who opined that "the only real defense is active defense"; and that this very principle is paralleled in the writings of Machiavellii,Sun Tzu, and many others.

 

[SkepticThinker]

If the defect of sin (imperfection) occurred in the genetics of our first parent, then the defect has to be inherited. (Romans 5:12 indicates that it was.) I don't need to tell you how inherited genetic disorders are passed on do I? Both Adam and his wife were defective due to their receiving the same sentence of death.....the defect applying equally to both. So if both parents have the defect, there is no way to avoid passing it on. It's not a difficult concept surely? Inheritance is a 50/50 thing.



Adam and his wife paid for their own abuse of free will. We can blame them for the situation we find ourselves in, but their children did not die without hope. If we remember that the Creator does not exist in a realm where time is counted in earth years, we can understand why it has taken so long for the rescue mission to be completed. The first rebel was not human and he not only influenced rebellion in the human race, but managed to lure a good many of his fellow spirit beings into rebellion as well. Spirits operate in universal time, which is not 24 hour days. (2 Peter 3:8) It is these beings who can do the most damage by abusing free will. It is dealt with in their time, not ours.

Giving his intelligent creatures free will was not a mistake....it was a calculated risk, in full awareness of the possible outcome. God allowed for all contingencies and he will keep his original purpose on track as he brings it to completion. (Isaiah 55:11) What he accomplishes in the process is a tested population for his earthly Kingdom who have all proved that humans can serve the interests of the Creator without being influenced away from him by the cunning and deceptive speech of others.
That is what faith is....its the "irresistible force meeting the immovable object".



It wasn't an apple, but that doesn't matter. It is what the fruit represented, not the fruit itself. That particular tree represented something that God withheld from his children for their own benefit. It wasn't wisdom that resulted from the eating, but a "knowledge of good and evil". Withholding this knowledge was in effect, God saying to his children, I will decide what is good for you and keep evil away from you. A knowledge of evil was never going to benefit them in any way and God knew it.....the devil talked the whole issue into a situation where the withholding of that knowledge meant something else entirely. He implied that it was the actions of a controlling and uncaring Father who was keeping something from them that they had a right to have.
He targeted the 'newbie' and she fell for it. But her husband was not with her to modify what the devil had said, so knowing what that meant, Adam chose to eat for a very different reason. Maybe the thought of losing her was more than he could bear? So rather than live without her he chose to join her in death. Or maybe because death was not immediate, he felt that she might be right?
Whatever his reason...the rest is history. Both suffered the consequences of what they each chose to do. So do we.



This is a passage that has much overlooked detail.

First of all, the long garments of skin made for them by God to replace the loin coverings that they had made for themselves as a result of this new knowledge they has stolen....revealed a new feeling....shame over their nakedness. God then introduced an appropriate standard of modesty. The skins would also protect them to a degree from the wilderness outside the garden, where thorns and thistles would make farming difficult on cursed ground. (Genesis 3:17-19)
Along with the knowledge of evil, came the desire to carry it out. Within one generation, a murderer emerged, who killed his own brother in a premeditated act of jealousy.

Along with "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" was "the tree of life". This tree was the one that could have kept them 'living forever' in their perfect state. There was no death mentioned in Eden except as a penalty for disobedience. The partaking of this tree would have complicated the now sinful condition that the first humans found themselves in. With access to this tree, evil men could have lived forever! Imagine what the world would be like if men like Hitler, Idi Armin or Pol Pot were still alive and never had to face death?
God evicted the pair from the garden and barred access to the tree of life to prevent such a situation. Humans would have seen that sword and the guardian angels probably until the flood of Noah's day completely changed the landscape. It served as a constant reminder that humans were suffering on cursed ground because of what Adam did. Obedience would have saved them from all of that.Object lessons are always the best teachers.



Giving humans free will was not a bad thing. It gave them an attribute that other creatures did not have. Only humans were "made in God's image and likeness". They alone could act by conscious forethought. Humans can contemplate past present and future actions and make decisions based on this knowledge. To understand or to imagine what will happen if we consider a certain course separates us from the animals, who only live by programmed instinct.



I thought I explained that already. Being "born in sin" simply means inheriting the defect of imperfection from Adam. No one can redeem themselves. All they can do is avail themselves of the merit of Christ's sacrifice and live in such a way that they do not lose it. Disobedience to God's commands through his Christ eliminates us from citizenship in his Kingdom. No one outside of that kingdom is alive. There is no reason to keep dissenters or rebels in existence. It serves no purpose.

Children are judged by the merits (or lack of them) from their parents until they are of an age to make their own decisions. You will recall that not a single child survived the flood but were swept away with their wicked parents. It is also good to understand that death to God is reversible. It isn't an end to life unless you are deemed to be incorrigible. Denying God's existence is one way to lose all possibility of being accepted for citizenship in the only place where life will be found. According to the Bible, only those who want to live under God's rules will get to experience the life he is offering, but not forcing.



The Bible's hell is sheol.....simply mankind's common grave. We all go to this "hell" and sleep peacefully, unaware of anything that is taking place in the land of the living. (Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10)

None of that is history.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The amazing design of insects......can these few examples possibly be the work of blind chance?

View attachment 15460

Its easy to talk about evolution when you don't see what you assume just accidentally created itself.

Pictures aren't an argument.

 

[SkepticThinker]

LOL...was that diversionary tactics? You envision God working on something like...a mechano set?

I can only enlighten you as to "what" God created...."how" he did so is beyond the scope of present human knowledge and experience.
He may tell us one day when our brain capacity has broadened to a higher level. We haven't even reached kindergarten level yet.

Doesn't biological science teach that for the majority of creatures, "two of everything" needs to be present to reproduce? Perhaps my question was too difficult? Here it is again.......

"Did males and females "evolve" separately? If they did, what did they do to reproduce before the sexual function was fully equipped for the task? Please explain......"

And this is why "God did it" is not actually an explanation for anything.
Thanks for illustrating that point for us.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The amazing design of insects......can these few examples possibly be the work of blind chance?

View attachment 15460

Its easy to talk about evolution when you don't see what you assume just accidentally created itself.

It's a good point..

There is a stark correlation between people living removed from nature, and believing in it's chance creation.

I suppose I'd say it's possible, that every design element appeared spontaneously, by chance- in the same way it's technically possibly for a monkey to type War and Peace by chance.
But that doesn't make it the most likely explanation!

i.e. the atheist must utterly remove any possibility of God, to allow chance to prevail.

Not so the other way around: Allowing the possibility of both- as we have no good reason not to do- creative intelligence is the clear winner.


The progress of science, the sudden appearances and gaps established in the fossil record, the language of DNA, merely backs up what was already the logical deduction for most.

 

[ArtieE]

Not so the other way around: Allowing the possibility of both- as we have no good reason not to do- creative intelligence is the clear winner.

Just read my post number 1755 to understand why Guy thinks this way.

 

[Sapiens]

It's a good point..

No it is not good point, it is (surprise, surprise) another form of a lie ... a straw-man fallacy. A straw-man that, I believe, you've used before and that has been exposed before.

There is a stark correlation between people living removed from nature, and believing in it's chance creation.

What is your point? I live rather closer to nature than most, I have all of my life, what is your point. Surely is not that I (or any scientist) believes in what you are calling "chance creation." Chance supplies the variation, the raw material, in the form of random mutations. Natural selection is how evolution works that variation into the various forms we now observe. This has all been explained to you in past threads.

I suppose I'd say it's possible, that every design element appeared spontaneously, by chance- in the same way it's technically possibly for a monkey to type War and Peace by chance.

Actually the odds of that are so passing small as to not be worth considering. To understand how the process actually works you need to look a the Weasel Program: Weasel program - Wikipedia .

But that doesn't make it the most likely explanation!

It is not only the most likely explanation, it is the only explanation that is actually supported by scientific evidence and rational argument.

i.e. the atheist must utterly remove any possibility of God, to allow chance to prevail.

That's just foolish. Since it is impossible to falsify a negative (e.g., there is not God) no matter how unlikely the claim, you are attempting to stake out high ground that you've not actually managed to legitimately claim. Just another example of your addiction to Pigeon Chess.

Not so the other way around: Allowing the possibility of both- as we have no good reason not to do- creative intelligence is the clear winner.

That is nothing more that having such an open mind that your brains fall out. There is no evidence that creative intelligence is part of the process, there is just mystical mumbo-jumbo in the form of a Bronze Age Bible stacked up against cold, hard, evidence. I'll go with evidence every time. Creationists and IDers have been given lots of opportunity to make their case and can no seem to come up with any evidence of their own, all the are able to do is quibble about the details of the ToE. Again, this has all been said before.

The progress of science, the sudden appearances and gaps established in the fossil record, the language of DNA, merely backs up what was already the logical deduction for most.

That is patently absurd. Deductive reasoning, also deductive logic, logical deduction is the process of reasoning from one or more statements (premises) to reach a logically certain conclusion. Please, without using either the Bible, or arguments against the ToE, support creationism or ID directly by listing the premises and the path of logical certainty that leads to a conclusion supporting either the fairy tale of the Bible or the fake science of ID.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

No it is not good point, it is (surprise, surprise) another form of a lie ... a straw-man fallacy. A straw-man that, I believe, you've used before and that has been exposed before.
What is your point? I live rather closer to nature than most, I have all of my life, what is your point. Surely is not that I (or any scientist) believes in what you are calling "chance creation." Chance supplies the variation, the raw material, in the form of random mutations. Natural selection is how evolution works that variation into the various forms we now observe. This has all been explained to you in past threads.
Actually the odds of that are so passing small as to not be worth considering. To understand how the process actually works you need to look a the Weasel Program: Weasel program - Wikipedia .
It is not only the most likely explanation, it is the only explanation that is actually supported by scientific evidence and rational argument.
That's just foolish. Since it is impossible to falsify a negative (e.g., there is not God) no matter how unlikely the claim, you are attempting to stake out high ground that you've not actually managed to legitimately claim. Just another example of your addiction to Pigeon Chess.
That is nothing more that having such an open mind that your brains fall out. There is no evidence that creative intelligence is part of the process, there is just mystical mumbo-jumbo in the form of a Bronze Age Bible stacked up against cold, hard, evidence. I'll go with evidence every time. Creationists and IDers have been given lots of opportunity to make their case and can no seem to come up with any evidence of their own, all the are able to do is quibble about the details of the ToE. Again, this has all been said before.

That is patently absurd. Deductive reasoning, also deductive logic, logical deduction is the process of reasoning from one or more statements (premises) to reach a logically certain conclusion. Please, without using either the Bible, or arguments against the ToE, support creationism or ID directly by listing the premises and the path of logical certainty that leads to a conclusion supporting either fairy tale.

There is obviously no direct, empirical, observable, evidence of a molecule becoming a man through millions of lucky accidents, I think we can both agree on that.
What evidence there is, is open to interpretation, speculation

I'm as open to evidence for evolution now as when I was a staunch believer in it.

Had the fossil record supported predictions of smooth steady progression, if life were shown to be the sort of thing that tends to organize itself from any arbitrary collection of chemicals, had the mathematical algorithms operated in models the way they were supposed to in nature, then I'd accept the implications of that.

But I'm also willing to accept the opposite implication, that of observed reality. I've nothing against evolution or people who believe in it, how many names have I called you? you seem like a perfectly intelligent person to me. As I think I was when I held your positions. And I was every bit as irritable when people didn't share my beliefs.

Name calling only betrays the fact that our position is supported by our own passion more than cold hard objective evidence. I've also nothing against ID or creationism, I'm interested in knowing the truth either way. I just find the scientific evidence more compelling for ID, once you dig beneath the superficial, admittedly intuitive appearance of a chance driven process.

Since it is impossible to falsify a negative (e.g., there is not God) no matter how unlikely the claim

exactly, that's why chance is unlikely to win- because you cannot grant it the entire playing field to itself, as it would need to score a goal.

If you see a monkey at a typewriter with the first page of War & Peace typed perfectly, zero evidence of any person being around..

Do you default to the Monkey as the best explanation? or creative agency?

why not? what's your deductive reasoning, logic, that leads to your conclusion?

 

[ArtieE]

If you see a monkey at a typewriter with the first page of War & Peace typed perfectly, zero evidence of any person being around..

Do you default to the Monkey as the best explanation? or creative agency?

why not?

I default to the explanation that some human had either typed it up there or put a pre-written sheet of paper in the typewriter. If you want me to believe a god did it first you would have to at least show that your god exists.

 

[Sapiens]

There is obviously no direct, empirical, observable, evidence of a molecule becoming a man through millions of lucky accidents, I think we can both agree on that.
What evidence there is, is open to interpretation, speculation

I'm as open to evidence for evolution now as when I was a staunch believer in it.

Had the fossil record supported predictions of smooth steady progression, if life were shown to be the sort of thing that tends to organize itself from any arbitrary collection of chemicals, had the mathematical algorithms operated in models the way they were supposed to in nature, then I'd accept the implications of that.

But I'm also willing to accept the opposite implication, that of observed reality. I've nothing against evolution or people who believe in it, how many names have I called you? you seem like a perfectly intelligent person to me. As I think I was when I held your positions. And I was every bit as irritable when people didn't share my beliefs.

Name calling only betrays the fact that our position is supported by our own passion more than cold hard objective evidence. I've also nothing against ID or creationism, I'm interested in knowing the truth either way. I just find the scientific evidence more compelling for ID, once you dig beneath the superficial, admittedly intuitive appearance of a chance driven process.



exactly, that's why chance is unlikely to win- because you cannot grant it the entire playing field to itself, as it would need to score a goal.

If you see a monkey at a typewriter with the first page of War & Peace typed perfectly, zero evidence of any person being around..

Do you default to the Monkey as the best explanation? or creative agency?

why not? what's your deductive reasoning, logic, that leads to your conclusion?

I have already shown you how your analogy is in error and does not represent the ToE. Why do you persist in trying to advance it?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I default to the explanation that some human had either typed it up there or put a pre-written sheet of paper in the typewriter. If you want me to believe a god did it first you would have to at least show that your god exists.

Right, so ID wins over chance, even when you don't see it, you can conclude it through probability and power of explanation.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I have already shown you how your analogy is in error and does not represent the ToE. Why do you persist in trying to advance it?

In what way is it in error?

 

[Sapiens]

There is obviously no direct, empirical, observable, evidence of a molecule becoming a man through millions of lucky accidents, I think we can both agree on that.

A demonstrably wrong-headed view.

What evidence there is, is open to interpretation, speculation

This is always true. The ToE is in harmony with the evidence, theh Bible is not and as to ID, well ... as previously demonstrated, there is no evidence for it.

I'm as open to evidence for evolution now as when I was a staunch believer in it.

If you were a "believer" than you were in the wrong.

Had the fossil record supported predictions of smooth steady progression,

Why should it be smooth and steady? The fossil record mirrors evolution and evolution responds to negative pressure in the n-dimensional hyper-volume that models the ecological niches. That is not a constant and thus would not be expected to result in a smooth steady progression.

if life were shown to be the sort of thing that tends to organize itself from any arbitrary collection of chemicals,

It has been, thermodynamics explains life.

had the mathematical algorithms operated in models the way they were supposed to in nature,

They do.

then I'd accept the implications of that.

You should, but you don't.

But I'm also willing to accept the opposite implication, that of observed reality.

"Observed reality" as you describe it should provide tangible, rational, evidence, yet you present none.

I've nothing against evolution or people who believe in it, how many names have I called you? you seem like a perfectly intelligent person to me. As I think I was when I held your positions. And I was every bit as irritable when people didn't share my beliefs.

You are way off base and insulting to boot. You have beliefs, that is your problem. You believed in the ToE at one time, that is quite different from understanding it.

Name calling only betrays the fact that our position is supported by our own passion more than cold hard objective evidence.

What "name calling?" I merely demonstrate that you lie. That is not "name calling" that is demonstrable fact.

I've also nothing against ID or creationism, I'm interested in knowing the truth either way. I just find the scientific evidence more compelling for ID,

You have been repeatedly requested to present such evidence, yet you fail to do so.

once you dig beneath the superficial, admittedly intuitive appearance of a chance driven process.

Again, you repeat a straw-man that has been debunked.

exactly, that's why chance is unlikely to win- because you cannot grant it the entire playing field to itself, as it would need to score a goal.

There is no long term goal in evolution, the raw material is random mutation, the molding force is today's exact niche, but the ultimate determiner is tomorrows exact niche, which changes due to conditions that include the evolution of the specie in question.

If you see a monkey at a typewriter with the first page of War & Peace typed perfectly, zero evidence of any person being around..

Do you default to the Monkey as the best explanation? or creative agency?

why not? what's your deductive reasoning, logic, that leads to your conclusion?

You have already been shown how your model is fallacious.

 

[ArtieE]

Right, so ID wins over chance, even when you don't see it, you can conclude it through probability and power of explanation.

LOL Your ID theory doesn't have any power of explanation. Your "explanation" is that a "creative agency" did it. And? What does that "explain"? Does it say anything about exactly who or exactly how or exactly why or for over how long a period of time exactly? Please tell us in detail what it is that we are supposed to believe so we can determine if what you say is logical and rational or not.

 

[Sapiens]

In what way is it in error?

Did you bother to read and think about the wiki entry concerning the Weasel Program?