It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
No prob, I was just having fun schooling Stranerous in our debate (at least I'd like to think I was) when you came along and totally decemated him/her. I'm young yet and have much to learn so I though me Vs. strangerous was a fair fight. You coming in is like hunting rabbits with nuclear weapons.
Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
Surely only the foolish, the gullible or those with bible-addled brains would deny that the basic principles of Evolution are correct.
really, only someone who has a major beef with religion would make such a harsh and uninformed judgment. ToE has its holes as well. Maybe you would like to explain to me how life came into being. I would love to hear it.
On the one hand we have well over a hundred years of scientific study on a global basis that supports Evolution.
again, how did it start? How does something that is not alive become alive?
the conversation had changed due to Strangerous coming in and attacking ID, in a vary disrespectful way. So I asked him/her some questions.
How life was originally formed from its chemical precursor has no bearing on the Theory of Evolution. The ToE only describes how life has changed during its march through history, not how it came to be.
I know that thank you. I have been watching this discussion develop, I only really stepped in to ask Strangerous questions because they had kind of cheesed me off how they came in and degraded a intellagent conversation.
I know it seems like a small deal, but it's actually a major distinction and it's one that IDers, YECers and OECers need to realize before they step into a debate on the subject.
I fully agree with you. I would not have broached abiogenesis had Strangerous not come in and said what he/she said.
For all the ranting about how much one side doesn't know the other's argument, it's a road that runs both ways and, in my opinion, isn't patrolled heavily enough.
Originally posted by Strangerous
For 'intelligent' people you all seem to be very lacking in the spelling department!
Perhaps your English skills reflect your intellectual capacities?
I'll just leave you lightweights to your little fairy story debate then!
You all seem happy telling yourselves it's all true. FWIW ID is clearly rubbish and until some evidence is provided to back up this creator nonsense that's what I and the vast majority of educated people will continue to believe.
The mutual self-delusion of the foolish IMO (read Marx).
S. Out
Originally posted by Strangerous
For 'intelligent' people you all seem to be very lacking in the spelling department!
Perhaps your English skills reflect your intellectual capacities?
I'll just leave you lightweights to your little fairy story debate then!
You all seem happy telling yourselves it's all true. FWIW ID is clearly rubbish and until some evidence is provided to back up this creator nonsense that's what I and the vast majority of educated people will continue to believe.
The mutual self-delusion of the foolish IMO (read Marx).
Originally posted by Prot0n
I personally don't understand IDism ... Irriducibly Complex, Specified Complexity etc .. The SC is a new one for me, I don't dwell on idiocy issues much. They come up with this argument recently or something? They finally given up on getting B-ed slapped with their IC claims? What give's? The SC link was somewhat an interesting read, but the analogies ... wtf man, are people really that stupid? Do they really think using idiocy analogies on the stupid will "prove" IDism? Or did they just come up with SC as a joke?
Sorry if I'm not knowledgable in this subject, but I would really like to know if that site you linked to is just a joke site or if it's something people actually think is true.
Atleast provide some links that are abit more serious about Specified Complexity.
Dembski's calculations show how a simple smooth function (such as y = x?) cannot gain information, he therefore concludes that there must be a designer to obtain CSI. However, natural selection has a branching mapping from one to many (replication) followed by pruning mapping of the many back down to a few (selection). These increasing and reductional mappings were not modeled by Dembski. In other words, Dembski's calculations do not model birth and death. This basic flaw in his modeling renders all of Dembski's subsequent calculations and reasoning in No Free Lunch irrelevant because his basic model does not reflect reality. Since the basis of No Free Lunch relies on this flawed argument, the entire thesis of the book collapses.[21]
Hmm a bunch of people who can't spell, quoting obscure sources to justify a made-up theory created to make a fairy-story book fit the known facts.
Not a question of 'spine' or my intellectual capacity just that you guys aren't interested in debate, but are convinced by a theory that just doesn't stand up to examination.
ID has been destroyed numerous times by scientists and academics and is generally recognised as complete BS
It's only viewed as valid in parts of the USofA (strangely the same place they refuse to allow true debate about global warming [of which there is masses of evidence] they support & promote a theory of some mythical creator for which there is no empirical evidence at all.
You're all convinced that this crazy load of nonsense has more validity than a theory supported by 95%+ of the World's scientists; therefore there's no point in discussing it with you.
Then please disprove God.
Originally posted by Prot0n
Then please disprove God.
Start a thread, pick a god. Any god.
Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
Hmm a bunch of people who can't spell, quoting obscure sources to justify a made-up theory created to make a fairy-story book fit the known facts.
What obscure source have I quoted?
Not a question of 'spine' or my intellectual capacity just that you guys aren't interested in debate, but are convinced by a theory that just doesn't stand up to examination.
Then please disprove God.
ID has been destroyed numerous times by scientists and academics and is generally recognised as complete BS
Really? Then show me some links for that. BTW it's “recognized” just so you know for the future, don't want anyone disregarding your argument due to spelling errors.
It's only viewed as valid in parts of the USofA (strangely the same place they refuse to allow true debate about global warming [of which there is masses of evidence] they support & promote a theory of some mythical creator for which there is no empirical evidence at all.
This proves that you don't know what you are talking about. I think that you think that I think (try saying that five times fast) the world was created in seven days. I don't think that.
You're all convinced that this crazy load of nonsense has more validity than a theory supported by 95%+ of the World's scientists; therefore there's no point in discussing it with you.
Yes they believe in evolution, but now I want you to prove that 95% of that 95% don't believe in god.
No mate you prove our version of God exists and I'll look at the evidence (Easter Bunny and Father Christmas too while you're at it).
It's 'Recognise' in England, you know where English comes from! I wouldn't presume to pick up on your crazy colonial spelling of our language,that would be rude and frankly 'unchristian'.
Why do Americans always forget that the rest of the World is a different country, with different ways of doing things - we spell differently, write dates differently - it's really not that difficult a theory to grasp.
Hmm a bunch of people who can't spell,
'I think that you think that I think' ... Que? this is spurious, circular, nit-picking.
ID was invented in the US, no-one else takes it all seriously, no-one else is so gullible / bible-addled.
It's only fundamentalists who can't achieve this balance - hence its popularity in the US - where I believe it's illegal to teach evolution as a valid theory in certain parts.