'Kitzmiller v Dover' Judge's comment

[Audie]

And here I thought you were being funny. Guess I was wrong.

Atheism has made you mean. Or does it just come naturally?

FYI, I'm glad I have my wife's respect, because I want hers. I really don't want or need yours.

You were busy trying to make fun of me over a
perfectly normal word. Complete with lol.
I should be a'mused at your ongoing efforts to belittle me?
Not that I dont know why you do that, or claim
"ad hom' and run away.

If you do not get any respect for your intellectual honesty here,
and do not even want it, why do you bother with your arguments?

You get the respect you earn / deserve here.

Fundy religion seems to destroy intellectual honesty.
Mopping the floor with you is made too easy.

Oh, any suggestion made by me that your wife does
not respect you is inappropriate, and I apologize for that.

 

[Audie]

Belief is everywhere!

"ev·o·lu·tion·ist
ˌevəˈlo͞oSHənəst/
noun

1. 1.
   a person who believes in the theories of evolution and natural selection."

Excerpt (one of many):

"Based on its wings and feathers, scientists believe Archaeopteryx likely had some aerodynamic abilities."

So drop the "belief" line of reasoning as if scientists don't have any.



Design is observed everywhere among living things, from within (their cellular structure) and without (their symbiotic relationships).

Arguments from experience and observation regarding discoveries of specified information always support an intelligent origin.


Even the laws and cycles that help life to flourish reveal intelligence.

It's really sad you wish to blind yourself to ignored yet observed facts.

Belief

Ah, good ol' equivocation yet again.

ETA, there is a rabidly militant creationist site that
lists "Equivocation" as among the sins for which
a poster can be banned. A bit harsh, but they have a
point there-equivocation is not honest, serving only to
confuse the issue.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

It seems the current edition of his method, is working at odds with his intended purpose.

The same article continues, ”Bacon stated that he had three goals: to uncover truth, to serve his country, and to serve his church.”

Do you think his Scientific Methodology was the instrument he wanted to use to accomplish his goal, to “uncover truth”?

Now it seems, the U.S. Court deems truth is not the goal for science.


Comments? Ad Homs?

ID proponents claimed that ID met the current standards of science which is why it should be taught in modern science classes. Obviously, they were wrong.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Belief is everywhere!

"ev·o·lu·tion·ist
ˌevəˈlo͞oSHənəst/
noun

1. 1.
   a person who believes in the theories of evolution and natural selection."

Excerpt (one of many):

"Based on its wings and feathers, scientists believe Archaeopteryx likely had some aerodynamic abilities."

So drop the "belief" line of reasoning as if scientists don't have any.



Design is observed everywhere among living things, from within (their cellular structure) and without (their symbiotic relationships).

Arguments from experience and observation regarding discoveries of specified information always support an intelligent origin.


Even the laws and cycles that help life to flourish reveal intelligence.

It's really sad you wish to blind yourself to ignored yet observed facts.

Great. So go ahead and demonstrate that there is some Designer, and collect your Nobel Prize.

 

[Audie]

Great. So go ahead and demonstrate that there is some Designer, and collect your Nobel Prize.

The prize committee is made up of liberals, (see obama peace prize)
materialists and atheist-secularists. So they will be too biased to accept it/
Of any disproof of ToE. Or the WWCOSSTDR will get them.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You were busy trying to make fun of me over a
perfectly normal word. Complete with lol.

"Make fun" of you? Not my intent. Sorry you took it that way. I was responding to @exchemist.

Did you think he was making fun of you?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Out of curiosity: are you posting this because it’s the best argument you have for creationism/ID?

No, not by a long shot.
I was only highlighting the fact that discovery of the truth, ie., what is reality, was not the goal or intent of the Court. In essence, it's Judge Jones assessment that it is not the goal of science, either, as it inhibits itself by it's own parameters...."only ideas that can be tested, ie., natualistic causes, are accepted". Parameters, I'm sure, Francis Bacon would not approve of...but really that's neither here nor there.

Just interesting, how pov's have developed over time. Modern society, in general, fits the Bible's predictions well. But that's fodder for another thread.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Unless there actual evidences for the Designer himself.....

So, you're not denying that design is observed in organisms, only that the identity is in question? IOW, who it is?

That matters not one iota.

We don't know who designed Teotihuacan. Or the Nazca Lines. Do scientists attribute naturalistic causes? I.e., results from mindless, random processes? Why not?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

So, you're not denying that design is observed in organisms, only that the identity is in question? IOW, who it is?

That matters not one iota.

It seems to matter to the ID folk because they won't accept the natural process of evolution as the designer.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

It seems to matter to the ID folk because they won't accept the natural process of evolution as the designer.

Evolution has no intelligence. Are you saying it does?

 

[gnostic]

So, you're not denying that design is observed in organisms, only that the identity is in question? IOW, who it is?

That matters not one iota.

We don't know who designed Teotihuacan. Or the Nazca Lines. Do scientists attribute naturalistic causes? I.e., results from mindless, random processes? Why not?

You are the one claiming that “design” in nature, required a “designer”, then you must be able to provide evidences to support this Designer’s existences.

The cause-and-effect don’t work unless you have evidences for the CAUSE, as well as evidences for the EFFECT.

Showing evidences for EFFECT only, are not enough, especially if you are claiming there being a CAUSE.

Without evidences to back up the CAUSE, which in your case, is the Intelligent DESIGNER, then clearly you are not interested in science.

If you believe that DNA is too complex to be naturally occurring, that it would require a Designer to encode the DNA, THEN you must provide evidences that the Designer is responsible for DNA.

Otherwise you are just making baseless claim about the Designer.

Saying the Designer is invisible, is merely making excuse, and evading your responsibility on the burden of proof.

In the real world, buying a house, the buyer usually wouldn’t know who were the architect to design the house and who were the builders. So in essence they become invisible to the buyer.

BUT, if the buyer want to know who were the architect and builders, the buyer can track them down everyone, and even meet the architect, the builders (contractor, subcontractors, and the owner of contractor), so you will have evidences that these people responsible for the buyer’s new home are not invisible entities (like gods, angels or fairies).

Can you do that? Can you show that the Intelligent Designer is real, and not another one of your baseless fantasy?

 

[Audie]

You are the one claiming that “design” in nature, required a “designer”, then you must be able to provide evidences to support this Designer’s existences.

The cause-and-effect don’t work unless you have evidences for the CAUSE, as well as evidences for the EFFECT.

Showing evidences for EFFECT only, are not enough, especially if you are claiming there being a CAUSE.

Without evidences to back up the CAUSE, which in your case, is the Intelligent DESIGNER, then clearly you are not interested in science.

If you believe that DNA is too complex to be naturally occurring, that it would require a Designer to encode the DNA, THEN you must provide evidences that the Designer is responsible for DNA.

Otherwise you are just making baseless claim about the Designer.

Saying the Designer is invisible, is merely making excuse, and evading your responsibility on the burden of proof.

In the real world, buying a house, the buyer usually wouldn’t know who were the architect to design the house and who were the builders. So in essence they become invisible to the buyer.

BUT, if the buyer want to know who were the architect and builders, the buyer can track them down everyone, and even meet the architect, the builders (contractor, subcontractors, and the owner of contractor), so you will have evidences that these people responsible for the buyer’s new home are not invisible entities (like gods, angels or fairies).

Can you do that? Can you show that the Intelligent Designer is real, and not another one of your baseless fantasy?

"Who designed the designer" to the tune of
"Who shot the sheriff"

 

[Audie]

"Make fun" of you? Not my intent. Sorry you took it that way. I was responding to @exchemist.

Did you think he was making fun of you?

Dishonest to the core, phony apology.

 

[gnostic]

Evolution has no intelligence. Are you saying it does?

It doesn’t require intelligence.

What it required to be evolved, is the ability for life to adapt, so that descendants may survive the given environment.

Evolution don’t occur randomly.

In the last Ice Age, or the most recent series of glaciation periods, some part of the northern hemisphere were covered in ice sheets, while other parts were untouched by ice sheets.

For instance, most of Canada that were below the polar circle, and only parts of the US were covered in ice sheets. Those animals lived in regions covered in ice, have to survive in regions where there are no summers for thousands or even tens of thousands of years. And that can only happened if they successfully survive in those regions.

The bears in North America, were divided between those living in regions covered in ice all years around, and those bears living in regions that still have annual winter and summer seasons.

The brown bears that were living in region covered in ice sheet, had to physically and genetically, not just in one generation, but in all succeeding generations afterward.

Gradually those brown bears changed, adapting better in the icy cold with each new generations, until the brown bears evolved into sister species, the polar bears.

It is more than just changing the fur from brown to white, although being able to naturally camouflage themselves, is one of the evolutionary changes that can occur over given time. But the changes is lot more than that.

The fur is more thicker, more suited for icy winds as well as providing better waterproofing, so it also protecting them from the icy water. And due to diet change, the polar bears eat a lot more fat, like from sea seals, so the polar bears retained body fat than the brown bears, and I remembered in my high school biology, body fat are better insulation to the cold than muscles.

With the fur and body fat, the polar bears are able to hunt all year long, since during the ice age, there are periods of no summer seasons, so the polar bears don’t require to hibernate, like their brown bears’ ancestors or contemporaries.

Their paws and claws had also changed, and differed from the brown bears, which give them more traction on ice.

The changes are natural and directed by their needs for survival, not by randomness, and not directed by intelligence of some invisible and mythological being.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Dishonest to the core, phony apology.

You don't want to answer my question? Ok then... goodbye.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

It doesn’t require intelligence.

What it required to be evolved, is the ability for life to adapt, so that descendants may survive the given environment.

Evolution don’t occur randomly.

In the last Ice Age, or the most recent series of glaciation periods, some part of the northern hemisphere were covered in ice sheets, while other parts were untouched by ice sheets.

For instance, most of Canada that were below the polar circle, and only parts of the US were covered in ice sheets. Those animals lived in regions covered in ice, have to survive in regions where there are no summers for thousands or even tens of thousands of years. And that can only happened if they successfully survive in those regions.

The bears in North America, were divided between those living in regions covered in ice all years around, and those bears living in regions that still have annual winter and summer seasons.

The brown bears that were living in region covered in ice sheet, had to physically and genetically, not just in one generation, but in all succeeding generations afterward.

Gradually those brown bears changed, adapting better in the icy cold with each new generations, until the brown bears evolved into sister species, the polar bears.

It is more than just changing the fur from brown to white, although being able to naturally camouflage themselves, is one of the evolutionary changes that can occur over given time. But the changes is lot more than that.

The fur is more thicker, more suited for icy winds as well as providing better waterproofing, so it also protecting them from the icy water. And due to diet change, the polar bears eat a lot more fat, like from sea seals, so the polar bears retained body fat than the brown bears, and I remembered in my high school biology, body fat are better insulation to the cold than muscles.

With the fur and body fat, the polar bears are able to hunt all year long, since during the ice age, there are periods of no summer seasons, so the polar bears don’t require to hibernate, like their brown bears’ ancestors or contemporaries.

Their paws and claws had also changed, and differed from the brown bears, which give them more contraction on ice.

The changes are natural and directed by their needs for survival, not by randomness, and not directed by intelligence of some invisible and mythological being.

And guess what?! They are still.....bears!

 

[Audie]

You don't want to answer my question? Ok then... goodbye.

Say, that would a terrif std applied to you!
Hope everyone will take note.

 

[Audie]

It doesn’t require intelligence.

What it required to be evolved, is the ability for life to adapt, so that descendants may survive the given environment.

Evolution don’t occur randomly.

In the last Ice Age, or the most recent series of glaciation periods, some part of the northern hemisphere were covered in ice sheets, while other parts were untouched by ice sheets.

For instance, most of Canada that were below the polar circle, and only parts of the US were covered in ice sheets. Those animals lived in regions covered in ice, have to survive in regions where there are no summers for thousands or even tens of thousands of years. And that can only happened if they successfully survive in those regions.

The bears in North America, were divided between those living in regions covered in ice all years around, and those bears living in regions that still have annual winter and summer seasons.

The brown bears that were living in region covered in ice sheet, had to physically and genetically, not just in one generation, but in all succeeding generations afterward.

Gradually those brown bears changed, adapting better in the icy cold with each new generations, until the brown bears evolved into sister species, the polar bears.

It is more than just changing the fur from brown to white, although being able to naturally camouflage themselves, is one of the evolutionary changes that can occur over given time. But the changes is lot more than that.

The fur is more thicker, more suited for icy winds as well as providing better waterproofing, so it also protecting them from the icy water. And due to diet change, the polar bears eat a lot more fat, like from sea seals, so the polar bears retained body fat than the brown bears, and I remembered in my high school biology, body fat are better insulation to the cold than muscles.

With the fur and body fat, the polar bears are able to hunt all year long, since during the ice age, there are periods of no summer seasons, so the polar bears don’t require to hibernate, like their brown bears’ ancestors or contemporaries.

Their paws and claws had also changed, and differed from the brown bears, which give them more contraction on ice.

The changes are natural and directed by their needs for survival, not by randomness, and not directed by intelligence of some invisible and mythological being.

Contraction on ice?

 

[Subduction Zone]

And guess what?! They are still.....bears!

And you are still an ape.

Change of kinds is a creationist strawman.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Say, that would a terrif std applied to you!
Hope everyone will take note.

It is a shame that some have to put others on ignore simply because they lost the debate.