Why is ID not a scientific hypothesis?

[Anachronous Rex]

I wasn't laughing at him for recieving a warning. I was laughing at YOU for giving him a warning after it was obvious that you only intended to give me a warning. Yet you were not about to give him one, even though he called me a dumb ass first. You should not have bothered giving him the warning after I pointed this fact out.

Why should I not have bothered. Do you have evidence to suggest that I mod this forum in anything other than a fair and unbiased way? If you do present it, or kindly fuck off with the baseless assertions. I do not read every post in this forum: I read the posts that interest me and I read the posts that get reported. I acted on a report. When further information was brought to light I acted again, and if you're paying attention you will note that I gave a final warning to a long standing user in this very thread.

If you are to question the nature of my moderation then you had better come with a fucking shit load of evidence, because one thing you are not going to question is my integrity.

For the record, I still love you Squawk.

Also, I'm feeling ever increasing sympathy for the Slavs if this is what they have to put up with for rulership. I mean, even at their most craven, I've always thought that Russians (and hell, let's throw in Wallachians, why not?) have always at least had leaders who could string together a coherent thought.

By the way, Царь, you can instantly improve my estimation of you by addressing my previous posts. Or perhaps I'm being ignored? If so, one might at least extend the common-fucking-courtesy of telling me why.

 

[trigger72]

Reading back, I think you got let off the hook lightly here.

I don't understand why you think this makes the entire ID hypothesis falsifiable.

The falsifiability criteria applies to the hypothesis/theory as a whole not the simple case of a specific instance.

Depends on what you are testing. If you are testing a chance hypothesis, meaning if you are testng if a certain object came about by chance, then yeah, it's only for that specific case.

It seems to me that you believe your snowflake example shows that ID is falsifiable - it does not - because you will then use ID to examine other objects of unknown providence and put them through your explanatory filter to see whether design applies or not. (I wont start - yet - on the intellectual paucity of the explanatory filter) i.e. you are still using the hypothesis despite having, apparently, falsified it!

For that specific object. Imagine if we tried to test if certain object came about by chance, and we decided that it did not. Would we then say that we can NEVER use chance as an explanation EVER!? How illogcal is that?

So do tell what event/observation, for you, would drive a coach and horses through ID as a whole causing the hypothesis to be amended or abandoned?

When chance and natural laws stop being considered explanations.

?

So you will abandon ID when chance and natural law stop being considered explanations? That makes no sense.

I'll ask again. What possible observation would cause the hypothesis of ID to be abandoned completely?

Not specific instances. The entire hypothesis.

 

[Deleted member 619]

For the record, I still love you Squawk.

+1.

I have had the pleasure of knowing Mr Cadbury's Parrot for more than two years, and in my experience, he is a man of great integrity and honesty.

One of the good guys.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Damn it, now I feel bad for having said that.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I know I am on ignore, but I must address this or it will drive me nuts.

I don't care what he has to say.

Of course you would not care what he has to say; you would rather remain wrong and hold on to your preconceived notions than correct your misunderstandings.

But if evolution could predict the location of fossils, then all paleontologists would simply predict where some fossils are and find them. But they don't do it. Why?

Wait, what? I just said they could and have do that:

he_who_is_nobody[/url]"]If they are trying to test a prediction than they would use pretty much the same method they used to discover Tiktaalik.

I guess it is good you finally physically ignored me because you were ignoring most of my responses anyways.

But an animal could have evolved according to you in that period also to go from water to land. There is no obstacle for that.

Yes, an animal could have evolved that way during that time, but it would not have fit into the "fish to amphibian" transition that Tiktaalik did. The reason being is that transitional fossils can be demonstrably determined to be transitional. The fact you have ignored this every time I brought it up was quite telling. The reason Tiktaalik fits and not some other "walking fish" (e.g. snakeheads) from any other period is because of our understanding of cladistics. Since I am on ignore, I will not go into more detail.

Your article said they had 4 years.

First off, we are not even talking about the same thing anymore. This was about the Wikipedia article that debunked Dembski's paper, not Tiktaalik. Second, I already explained to you that the actual amount of time it took them to discover Tiktaalik would have been anywhere between four months to one year because paleontologists (for the most part) dig once a season and seasons last one to three months. Furthermore, they would not have found Tiktaalik unless they were looking in the right part of the world anyways.

There is nothing he know more than I do.

Yes, it is plainly obvious that he knows a great deal more than you do about any number of subjects. It is plainly obvious that anyone on this forum does.

EXPLAIN WHY!

I did. You ignored it. Moreover, if I were not on ignore I would look for my response so I could quote it back at you.

NOT IF THEY EVOLVED THAT WAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

However, they did not evolve that way (nor does it seem like some of those could evolve that way).

The only reason you consider them hybrids is because we have animals around that we do! If we had those animals around,a nd not these that we do, than those in the picture would NOT be considered hybrids. They would be considered normal!!!!

As I have already pointed out the modern evolutionary synthesis would not account for creatures like that. If we were to go back to the Cambrian and destroy something, than we would have a very different biota to deal with today. In that case, perhaps one of those creatures (something physically similar) could have evolved. Again, creatures are bound by their evolutionary history. Thus, once a creature starts down a certain path, it will be unable to go back an acquire traits available on the other paths.

How does it close a door!? EXPLAIN HOW!

No point in explaining how now, since I am on ignore, but I will just point to Dollo's Law again for anyone to read.

Because that's called a prediction. I can't predict teh next lightning strike because weatehr is not a natural law. Electricity is, but a lightning has more that just electricity to it, so it can't be predicted. But objects falling can be predicted. If you see a drop of rain falling from the sky using the equation for velocity and knowing the gravitational constant you can predict when its going to fall.

Therefore, under your bastardized definition of natural law, you admit that lightening cannot be predicted. Need I say anymore?

Simply saying it does not explain why its so.

I explained it at least twice, and gave a link to a Wikipedia article that went into more detail about it. What more would you want?

So you ASSUME. Maybe they jsut changed without being extinct. There is a high amount of genetic diversity that makes for large phenotypic differences between species possible. What we see today might just be almost all species that ever lived just with different gene expressions.

You could not be any funnier if you tried. So you are suggesting that things like the T. rex are still alive, they are just expressing different genes. There is an image I want to use here, but Master_Ghost_Knight was already reprimanded for posting it.

Dollo's Law is nothing but a pure assumption. Based on nothing but an improbability that an animals will evolve back to what it was. That is all. It doesn't say that it can't happen.

For someone that loves to "crunch" the numbers to see if something is improbable, why have you not done that for this? Hell, if you prove that Dollo's Law is incorrect you could publish on that and make a lot of money. Not to mention you would become the world's most famous scientist overnight.

About design detection.

No shit. Design in what than? I guess this is not worth asking now since you will never see this.

LOL, no. I claimed that design inference was used in general in biology. Not CSI.

However, it is not used in biology and you have claimed it was used in archaeology and forensics. If you did not ignore me, I would have taken the time to find your posts where you state that.

Those are possible evolutionary pathways. That does not mean that evolution actually could take that pathway. But not only that, even if it did, it had no probabilistic resources to produce those features. Which means that if evolution took place it was designed to produce them. Evolution by itself ahs no designing capacity.

You already tried this argument on this forum, and it was knocked down almost as soon as you posted it. If I were not on ignore, I would find who did it and quote it back to you. Clinging to an argument once it has been refuted is pointless and only exposes that you are unwilling to accept facts.

One last thing:

Now this is a prediction made by a creation scientist Russel Humphreys. I pretty much do not care what he predicted, or if he is correct or not, that's not my point. My point is rather to show you what a prediction is. He actually wrote a paper in 1984 and predicted magnetic fields of few planets in the Solar system. He predicted that before we knew their magnetic fields. NASA has also made some predictions based on their models. In 1986 they actually sent some probes to one of the planets in question. And Huphrey's predictions were shown to be right, NASA was shown wrong. In 1989, there was second probe sent. Again, Humphreys was right, NASA was almost wrong on all predictions.

The point of this example is to show you that you have to make predictions before the event happens. And after it happens, you see how well you predicted it. If it was withinn the error bars, then you predicted well, if not your prediction and the hypothesis fails. That's how you test predictions.

If you are able to understand how this is a prediction than now I know you were being extremely obtuse when it came to my example of Tiktaalik being predicted using evolutionary theory.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

So Tsar can see it (assuming I'm not also being ignored for reasons unknown.)

I know I am on ignore, but I must address this or it will drive me nuts.

I don't care what he has to say.

Of course you would not care what he has to say; you would rather remain wrong and hold on to your preconceived notions than correct your misunderstandings.

But if evolution could predict the location of fossils, then all paleontologists would simply predict where some fossils are and find them. But they don't do it. Why?

Wait, what? I just said they could and have do that:

he_who_is_nobody[/url]"]If they are trying to test a prediction than they would use pretty much the same method they used to discover Tiktaalik.

I guess it is good you finally physically ignored me because you were ignoring most of my responses anyways.

But an animal could have evolved according to you in that period also to go from water to land. There is no obstacle for that.

Yes, an animal could have evolved that way during that time, but it would not have fit into the "fish to amphibian" transition that Tiktaalik did. The reason being is that transitional fossils can be demonstrably determined to be transitional. The fact you have ignored this every time I brought it up was quite telling. The reason Tiktaalik fits and not some other "walking fish" (e.g. snakeheads) from any other period is because of our understanding of cladistics. Since I am on ignore, I will not go into more detail.

Your article said they had 4 years.

First off, we are not even talking about the same thing anymore. This was about the Wikipedia article that debunked Dembski's paper, not Tiktaalik. Second, I already explained to you that the actual amount of time it took them to discover Tiktaalik would have been anywhere between four months to one year because paleontologists (for the most part) dig once a season and seasons last one to three months. Furthermore, they would not have found Tiktaalik unless they were looking in the right part of the world anyways.

There is nothing he know more than I do.

Yes, it is plainly obvious that he knows a great deal more than you do about any number of subjects. It is plainly obvious that anyone on this forum does.

EXPLAIN WHY!

I did. You ignored it. Moreover, if I were not on ignore I would look for my response so I could quote it back at you.

NOT IF THEY EVOLVED THAT WAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

However, they did not evolve that way (nor does it seem like some of those could evolve that way).

The only reason you consider them hybrids is because we have animals around that we do! If we had those animals around,a nd not these that we do, than those in the picture would NOT be considered hybrids. They would be considered normal!!!!

As I have already pointed out the modern evolutionary synthesis would not account for creatures like that. If we were to go back to the Cambrian and destroy something, than we would have a very different biota to deal with today. In that case, perhaps one of those creatures (something physically similar) could have evolved. Again, creatures are bound by their evolutionary history. Thus, once a creature starts down a certain path, it will be unable to go back an acquire traits available on the other paths.

How does it close a door!? EXPLAIN HOW!

No point in explaining how now, since I am on ignore, but I will just point to Dollo's Law again for anyone to read.

Because that's called a prediction. I can't predict teh next lightning strike because weatehr is not a natural law. Electricity is, but a lightning has more that just electricity to it, so it can't be predicted. But objects falling can be predicted. If you see a drop of rain falling from the sky using the equation for velocity and knowing the gravitational constant you can predict when its going to fall.

Therefore, under your bastardized definition of natural law, you admit that lightening cannot be predicted. Need I say anymore?

Simply saying it does not explain why its so.

I explained it at least twice, and gave a link to a Wikipedia article that went into more detail about it. What more would you want?

So you ASSUME. Maybe they jsut changed without being extinct. There is a high amount of genetic diversity that makes for large phenotypic differences between species possible. What we see today might just be almost all species that ever lived just with different gene expressions.

You could not be any funnier if you tried. So you are suggesting that things like the T. rex are still alive, they are just expressing different genes. There is an image I want to use here, but Master_Ghost_Knight was already reprimanded for posting it.

Dollo's Law is nothing but a pure assumption. Based on nothing but an improbability that an animals will evolve back to what it was. That is all. It doesn't say that it can't happen.

For someone that loves to "crunch" the numbers to see if something is improbable, why have you not done that for this? Hell, if you prove that Dollo's Law is incorrect you could publish on that and make a lot of money. Not to mention you would become the world's most famous scientist overnight.

About design detection.

No shit. Design in what than? I guess this is not worth asking now since you will never see this.

LOL, no. I claimed that design inference was used in general in biology. Not CSI.

However, it is not used in biology and you have claimed it was used in archaeology and forensics. If you did not ignore me, I would have taken the time to find your posts where you state that.

Those are possible evolutionary pathways. That does not mean that evolution actually could take that pathway. But not only that, even if it did, it had no probabilistic resources to produce those features. Which means that if evolution took place it was designed to produce them. Evolution by itself ahs no designing capacity.

You already tried this argument on this forum, and it was knocked down almost as soon as you posted it. If I were not on ignore, I would find who did it and quote it back to you. Clinging to an argument once it has been refuted is pointless and only exposes that you are unwilling to accept facts.

One last thing:

Now this is a prediction made by a creation scientist Russel Humphreys. I pretty much do not care what he predicted, or if he is correct or not, that's not my point. My point is rather to show you what a prediction is. He actually wrote a paper in 1984 and predicted magnetic fields of few planets in the Solar system. He predicted that before we knew their magnetic fields. NASA has also made some predictions based on their models. In 1986 they actually sent some probes to one of the planets in question. And Huphrey's predictions were shown to be right, NASA was shown wrong. In 1989, there was second probe sent. Again, Humphreys was right, NASA was almost wrong on all predictions.

The point of this example is to show you that you have to make predictions before the event happens. And after it happens, you see how well you predicted it. If it was withinn the error bars, then you predicted well, if not your prediction and the hypothesis fails. That's how you test predictions.

If you are able to understand how this is a prediction than now I know you were being extremely obtuse when it came to my example of Tiktaalik being predicted using evolutionary theory.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

So Tsar can see it (assuming I'm not also being ignored for reasons unknown.)

Thanks Anachronous Rex. ​

If I knew this was going to happen I would have put more links and found the posts I was alluding too. :geek:

However, It does seem as if the creationist has also ignored you.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

No he just lives in different time zone, he is probably very asleep right now.

 

[Duvelthehobbit666]

In case Rex is on ignore.

I know I am on ignore, but I must address this or it will drive me nuts.

I don't care what he has to say.

Of course you would not care what he has to say; you would rather remain wrong and hold on to your preconceived notions than correct your misunderstandings.

But if evolution could predict the location of fossils, then all paleontologists would simply predict where some fossils are and find them. But they don't do it. Why?

Wait, what? I just said they could and have do that:

he_who_is_nobody[/url]"]If they are trying to test a prediction than they would use pretty much the same method they used to discover Tiktaalik.

I guess it is good you finally physically ignored me because you were ignoring most of my responses anyways.

But an animal could have evolved according to you in that period also to go from water to land. There is no obstacle for that.

Yes, an animal could have evolved that way during that time, but it would not have fit into the "fish to amphibian" transition that Tiktaalik did. The reason being is that transitional fossils can be demonstrably determined to be transitional. The fact you have ignored this every time I brought it up was quite telling. The reason Tiktaalik fits and not some other "walking fish" (e.g. snakeheads) from any other period is because of our understanding of cladistics. Since I am on ignore, I will not go into more detail.

Your article said they had 4 years.

First off, we are not even talking about the same thing anymore. This was about the Wikipedia article that debunked Dembski's paper, not Tiktaalik. Second, I already explained to you that the actual amount of time it took them to discover Tiktaalik would have been anywhere between four months to one year because paleontologists (for the most part) dig once a season and seasons last one to three months. Furthermore, they would not have found Tiktaalik unless they were looking in the right part of the world anyways.

There is nothing he know more than I do.

Yes, it is plainly obvious that he knows a great deal more than you do about any number of subjects. It is plainly obvious that anyone on this forum does.

EXPLAIN WHY!

I did. You ignored it. Moreover, if I were not on ignore I would look for my response so I could quote it back at you.

NOT IF THEY EVOLVED THAT WAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

However, they did not evolve that way (nor does it seem like some of those could evolve that way).

The only reason you consider them hybrids is because we have animals around that we do! If we had those animals around,a nd not these that we do, than those in the picture would NOT be considered hybrids. They would be considered normal!!!!

As I have already pointed out the modern evolutionary synthesis would not account for creatures like that. If we were to go back to the Cambrian and destroy something, than we would have a very different biota to deal with today. In that case, perhaps one of those creatures (something physically similar) could have evolved. Again, creatures are bound by their evolutionary history. Thus, once a creature starts down a certain path, it will be unable to go back an acquire traits available on the other paths.

How does it close a door!? EXPLAIN HOW!

No point in explaining how now, since I am on ignore, but I will just point to Dollo's Law again for anyone to read.

Because that's called a prediction. I can't predict teh next lightning strike because weatehr is not a natural law. Electricity is, but a lightning has more that just electricity to it, so it can't be predicted. But objects falling can be predicted. If you see a drop of rain falling from the sky using the equation for velocity and knowing the gravitational constant you can predict when its going to fall.

Therefore, under your bastardized definition of natural law, you admit that lightening cannot be predicted. Need I say anymore?

Simply saying it does not explain why its so.

I explained it at least twice, and gave a link to a Wikipedia article that went into more detail about it. What more would you want?

So you ASSUME. Maybe they jsut changed without being extinct. There is a high amount of genetic diversity that makes for large phenotypic differences between species possible. What we see today might just be almost all species that ever lived just with different gene expressions.

You could not be any funnier if you tried. So you are suggesting that things like the T. rex are still alive, they are just expressing different genes. There is an image I want to use here, but Master_Ghost_Knight was already reprimanded for posting it.

Dollo's Law is nothing but a pure assumption. Based on nothing but an improbability that an animals will evolve back to what it was. That is all. It doesn't say that it can't happen.

For someone that loves to "crunch" the numbers to see if something is improbable, why have you not done that for this? Hell, if you prove that Dollo's Law is incorrect you could publish on that and make a lot of money. Not to mention you would become the world's most famous scientist overnight.

About design detection.

No shit. Design in what than? I guess this is not worth asking now since you will never see this.

LOL, no. I claimed that design inference was used in general in biology. Not CSI.

However, it is not used in biology and you have claimed it was used in archaeology and forensics. If you did not ignore me, I would have taken the time to find your posts where you state that.

Those are possible evolutionary pathways. That does not mean that evolution actually could take that pathway. But not only that, even if it did, it had no probabilistic resources to produce those features. Which means that if evolution took place it was designed to produce them. Evolution by itself ahs no designing capacity.

You already tried this argument on this forum, and it was knocked down almost as soon as you posted it. If I were not on ignore, I would find who did it and quote it back to you. Clinging to an argument once it has been refuted is pointless and only exposes that you are unwilling to accept facts.

One last thing:

Now this is a prediction made by a creation scientist Russel Humphreys. I pretty much do not care what he predicted, or if he is correct or not, that's not my point. My point is rather to show you what a prediction is. He actually wrote a paper in 1984 and predicted magnetic fields of few planets in the Solar system. He predicted that before we knew their magnetic fields. NASA has also made some predictions based on their models. In 1986 they actually sent some probes to one of the planets in question. And Huphrey's predictions were shown to be right, NASA was shown wrong. In 1989, there was second probe sent. Again, Humphreys was right, NASA was almost wrong on all predictions.

The point of this example is to show you that you have to make predictions before the event happens. And after it happens, you see how well you predicted it. If it was withinn the error bars, then you predicted well, if not your prediction and the hypothesis fails. That's how you test predictions.

If you are able to understand how this is a prediction than now I know you were being extremely obtuse when it came to my example of Tiktaalik being predicted using evolutionary theory.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

In case Rex is on ignore.

:shock: WoW! Look at all the love. I guess I must be doing something right. You guys are going to give me an ego.

Thanks Duvelthehobbit666 ​

 

[Squawk]

In case Rex is on ignore.

:shock: WoW! Look at all the love. I guess I must be doing something right. You guys are going to give me an ego.

Thanks Duvelthehobbit666 ​

Never fear, we can take that away in a heartbeat ;-)

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Царь Славян[/b]"]

Greetings,

With all due respect, ???? ??????, your claim that ID does not imply "God" is sophistry - as was proven at the Dover Trial.

The ID textbook was a reprint of the Creationist textbook where the word "Creator" was replaced by "Designer", and "Creation" was replaced by "Intelligent Design".

Kindest regards,

James

Hi, I have no time for your political arguments. If you have something scientific to say, you can, otherwise don't or you are landing on my ignore list.

Firstly, thank you, Rumraket and Duvelthehobbit666 for your tacit support.

Царь Славян, my post was not a political argument.

The trial proved that ID was simply Creationism under another name - and, as Creationism is not science, neither was ID. QED.

Given the title of this topic, you could lay the same accusation at yourself - to use your logic, anyone who explicitly states, or attempts to imply, that ID is a scientific theory could be accused of making a "political argument".

Dr. Miller wrote a book on his experience of the trial - Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul - which is worth reading.

[For those interested, you could also try Robert Pennock's Tower of Babel, Kenneth Miller's Finding Darwin's God, and Philip Kitcher's Abusing Science - all of which critique Creationism/ID and its advocates. Pennock's tome does a particularly excellent job pointing out the close intellectual kinship between traditional YEC and Intelligent Design.]

Your claim that "all things are possible" - to use the famous phrase - according to the theory of evolution is false. As others have pointed out, centaurs/chimaerae/etc, are not possible due to how evolution works.

These variations of "croco-duck" are little different than mediaeval Europeans' ideas of what inhabitants of foreign lands might look like... a foot with eyes, etc.

They are equally impossible.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[TheFlyingBastard]

Quite unrelated, but just putting something ironic out there I found when I watched Expelled. One of the ID proponents said it's totally not about any god whatsoever, but when an opponent was interviewed and said: 'Who knows, it might even be an extraterrestrial life form' (as a gesture of reaching out) 'but that species would have to evolve themselves', he was mocked. "Aliens?!"

So it's not a physical intelligence (aliens) and it's not a non-physical intelligence (god). What then, is it? Really, the ID movement betrays itself in stuff like this.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Indeed. That was Dawkins, and of course the headlines ran and ran that Dawkins believed in directed panspermia all of a sudden. All bollocks, of course.

 

[lrkun]

The "Intelligent Design" Hoax

Editor's Introduction -- Among the various frauds that creationists have used in their attacks on science education, the newest is a body of woo-woo known as "intelligent design." The creationists depict "intelligent design" as a scientific construct and as an alternative to the theory of organic evolution, though it is neither. They insist that it must be included in biology curricula and biology textbooks, though its essential assertions revolve around supernaturalism, not biology. Sometimes they even call it "intelligent design theory" or "the theory of intelligent design" to imply that it is intellectually comparable to the theory of organic evolution, though it isn't comparable at all. Nor is it a theory. It is a hoax.

"Intelligent design" is a derivative of "creation-science," the religious pseudoscience by which creationists, during the 1970s and the early 1980s, purported to show that the concept of organic evolution was false and that there was no genealogical connection between man and any other species. After "creation-science" was thoroughly discredited by scientists and was barred from public schools by federal judges, the creationists modified it, disguised it by wrapping it in some new pseudoscientific double-talk, and presented it under the name "intelligent design." Since then, "intelligent design" has figured prominently in many of the creationists' campaigns to undermine science education -- indeed, it has become the creationists' favorite device for deceiving state education agencies, for tricking local school boards, for gulling classroom teachers, and for inducing schoolbook-publishers to pervert and falsify the treatment of organic evolution in biology books.

State boards of education, officers of local school districts, science educators, and the public at large need information about the origin and features of the "intelligent design" hoax, but such information isn't easy to find. It surely can't be found in newspaper or newsmagazine articles about the creationists' campaigns, because such articles fail to provide any substantive information at all: They display the phrase "intelligent design" a few times, in throwaway lines, but they don't tell what it signifies, they don't describe the fantasies that the devotees of "intelligent design" try to peddle, and they don't explain that "intelligent design" has already been discredited by scientists, just as "creation-science" was. Many of the newspaper articles are worse than worthless because they parrot the creationists' rhetoric and mislead the public by falsely referring to "intelligent design" as a "theory."

With these points in mind, we present here a historical and scientific exposition of the "intelligent design" hoax. This material was published originally in The Textbook Letter as a part of William J. Bennetta's review of Taking Religion Seriously Across the Curriculum, a book written by Warren A. Nord and Charles C. Haynes. In their book, Nord and Haynes proposed a scheme for converting America's public schools into agencies for propagating biblical religion -- and as a part of their proposal, they endorsed two books that promoted "intelligent design." In his review, "A Pair of Common Tricksters," Bennetta responded with the detailed commentary that appears below.

 

[Duvelthehobbit666]

Why hasn't this video been posted? I partly blame myself for realizing this video is a good argument against ID.

 

[ProcInc]

If anybody is interested, Царь Славян means "King of the Slavs"

Quite unrelated, but just putting something ironic out there I found when I watched Expelled. One of the ID proponents said it's totally not about any god whatsoever, but when an opponent was interviewed and said: 'Who knows, it might even be an extraterrestrial life form' (as a gesture of reaching out) 'but that species would have to evolve themselves', he was mocked. "Aliens?!"

So it's not a physical intelligence (aliens) and it's not a non-physical intelligence (god). What then, is it? Really, the ID movement betrays itself in stuff like this.

"Possible candidates for the role of designer include: the God of Christianity; an angel--fallen or not; Plato's demi-urge; some mystical new age force; space aliens from Alpha Centauri; time travelers; or some utterly unknown intelligent being"-Michael Behe

Basically, the designer can be anything as long as it is pseudoscientific, absurd and the tracable product of a fertile imagination.

 

[Andiferous]

Baseless paranoia. There was a report on you, and only you, in the reports inbox. And Squawk only read the message that had the report. It's as simple as that.

Joke's on you.

The fact remains that he didn't read his point that I was replying to. If he did, hew would have seen what the guy said. Anyway, the reason there was only one report is because I'm not a pussy. I don't go around reporting people.

I wasn't laughing at him for recieving a warning. I was laughing at YOU for giving him a warning after it was obvious that you only intended to give me a warning. Yet you were not about to give him one, even though he called me a dumb ass first. You should not have bothered giving him the warning after I pointed this fact out.

Graaah!

Reports are great for a non feudal forum system, feel free to report any of us. If not, I'd call you a pussy, but it sounds much too insulting, so I will not.

I will now exercise overload powers and lock you all for a day.

 

[Andiferous]

I kinda changed my mind. I'm not sure there's much to go here and I do think it can only go into wank. So, if you would like to pick one of the many various random topics here it may be better to start a new thread. I found it funny in places and read it twice, but ino one is going to read 27 pages, and because this, no one is going to know what's going on. Except for me, I was the one percent who enjoyed Samuel Becket's Watt, so I have a defective gene.

II'm totally confused and looked in the rules. It took a while to find ;the troll rule. I'm very worried I may be breaking it but I have no idea what a troll is? I don't understand the rule either? We need to establish this so i can try not to be one or feel guilty, about it. I am not sure I can wave it around like a magnet on a pop can,. I need more info. I lack troll sensors.

Oh yes, go have fun, locked forever.

Thanks for reading.