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.

 

Proof of ID the World is Looking For

page: 4
12
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD

They ask members to help with information only to belittle those who reply while using thick sarcasm. Again, there is a stark contrast between the gentleman thread hosting style of The Redneck and his evidence of evolution thread versus this one.

Then something was asked of you only to have you verbally belittled and told you were off topic once you were answering the question. Looks like they're trying to set you up to get you in trouble. Pretty obvious.

[edit on 4/30/2008 by AshleyD]


Well it seems to be the signature stylings of what is fast becoming the typical atheist tactic and one made mention of in the movie expelled.

It isn't just a coincedence you see so many threads around the internet mentioning so called myths about atheism. When invariably the myths and very stereotypes they are trying to overcome, they only make patent those same claims made by others perpetuating the myth as a bona fide fact.

I have seen them fall apart the same way here on ATS before my very eyes and proved it in one.

they set up threads in a damn mine field they make as unpleasant to engage as they can and when no one puts up with it they call it a victory.

If what they got is so full of mountains of so called evidence as I have seen it referred to by virtually every Atheist who just happens to be a Scientist or speaks as if they are, than I would expect they could be more confident in thier actions, more civil in thier demeanor and more courageous in their character but we don't see that coming from this camp.

What we see is exactly what Ben Stein was talking about and John Lennons wife suing them is typical of the same Atheist tactics to destroy a work while not putting a dent in the central message of what that work is trying to convey.


If only they had the same tools to back up their bravado we have with the Bible where like the comparison you give in the above post the example of Rednecks Gracious invitation giving everyone inspite of there position a measure of respect.

THAT tells me more about who has the truth

then any cocky attitude or childish

Ridicule.

- Con


[edit on 30-4-2008 by Conspiriology]




posted on May, 1 2008 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


We're asking you to be specific in what it would take for you to accept something as evidence for a design.

Please see the OP, Ashley. It's all laid out there, quite clearly.


We're answering your questions, contributing to your thread, and asking you for clarification regarding what you would consider suitable evidence.

Thank you for contributing. The answers you and others have provided so far do not meet the criteria of falsifying (or verifying, if we accommodate Conspiriology's worries about falsifiability -- but see below) the hypothesis in question -- the hypothesis of intelligent design.

By the way, the technical distinction between creationism and intelligent design is of importance only to people who believe in these things. As far as the rest of us are concerned, the latter is just an attempt to disguise the former in the habiliments of science.



posted on May, 1 2008 @ 12:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Conspiriology
 

Well done, sir! No, you haven't actually posted any proof of intelligent design, but you have at least managed to call into question the criterion of falsifiability as a test for hypotheses. It is true that Pierre Duhem died in 1916 and that Quine never doubted the veracity of the empiricist/scientific worldview;


For my part I do, qua lay physicist, believe in physical objects and not in Homer's gods; and I consider it a scientific error to believe otherwise.

- Quine, Two Dogmas of Empiricism, quoted in Wikipedia

still, full marks for trying.

But have you succeeded? Does the Duhem-Quine thesis undermine the whole edifice of science? Or does it simply mean that hypotheses need to be devised with a high degree or exclusiveness and specificity in order to be testable experimentally?

Andrew Lewthwaites's essay, which you quote, includes the following sentence (which you also quote):


What will come to light in this paper is that falsification withstands most of the damage done by the Duhem-Quine thesis on the methodological level if certain modifications are made...

Oops!

Here are a few more relevant extracts from the same essay by Lewthwaites.


To return to the problem associated with the circumstances under which a scientist might reject a theoretical system as a result of its being falsified, (we) turn to a distinction made by Imre Lakatos in his article "Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programs". He coins the terms naive falsificationist and sophisticated falsificationist, in order to separate what will be called a theoretical acceptance of falsification, and a practical acceptance of it (my emphasis).

The naive falsificationist operates on the simple basis that if an observation statement contradicts the hypothesis that is being tested, then the hypothesis is rejected. Given the Duhem-Quine thesis, this procedure is not possible. Lakatos argues that the sophisticated falsificationist provides a much better delineation, outlined here:

"The sophisticated falsificationist regards a scientific theory T as falsified if and only if another theory T' has been proposed with the following characteristics: (1) T' has excess empirical content over T: that is, it predicts novel facts, that is, facts improbable in the light of, or even forbidden, by T; (2) T' explains the previous success of T, that is, all the unrefuted content of T is contained (within the limits of observational error) in the content of T'; and (3) some of the excess content of T' is corroborated."

Basically, Lakatos is elaborating on the earlier suggestion that a theory will not normally be falsified unless there is another theory that can explain, along with the actual falsifying instance, everything that was contained in the old theory.

Some might think intelligent design is a good example of a theory T'. I encourage any who do to examine their arguments very carefully indeed.

Lewthwaites concludes his essay as follows.


To sum up, in light of the problematic Duhem-Quine thesis, Popper's falsification still stands up as a method, and to some degree, as a demarcation criterion...* The brand of sophisticated falsification put forth by Lakatos protects the scientific method from falling into the trap created by experimental redefinition, that of a brand of conventional or pragmatic science...Thus, if anything, falsification is a defender of tentative objective scientific knowledge.


The philosophy of science is an interesting and quarrelsome field, but the arguments therein have not, thus far, come close to invalidating the scientific method. The Duhem-Quine thesis is a bit esoteric; I'm surprised you did not use the far more accessible and entertaining ammunition provided by Martin Gardner in this essay.

Coals of fire, my friend, coals of fire.
 

*Here Lewthwaites mentions certain nonfatal reservations, which I have omitted for the sake of brevity. Follow the link above for more information.



posted on May, 1 2008 @ 02:25 AM
link   
Of course proof for ID is falsifiable. Elementary, ID is inherently false.



posted on May, 1 2008 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 




Originally posted by Bigwhammy
No it's not experimental proof its even better real world proof.


...experimental proof would be real world proof
verifiable, real world proof


The language of DNA is verified, that's how we mapped he genome. The fact we can read it and understand it is proof it is a "code".




Originally posted by Bigwhammy
The fact that DNA is written in a symbolic language and language implies intelligence is evidence not speculation.

...
there's 0 causation in there.


So if you see a set of paper blueprints but didn't witness the draftsman who drew them up in the act of drawing them - there would be zero causation there as well. But obviously the blueprints didn't appear by magic... or maybe you would believe that?

Just like Ashley said, unless God comes down and taps you on the shoulder you will refuse the evidence of design. As the biochemist I quoted earlier said "from the desperate desire to exclude God from lives and consciences."



It sounds to me like you are saying the following (and please correct me if I'm wrong here...)

If an Intelligent Designer exists, then he would leave blueprints.

We have found blueprints (ie. DNA), therefore an Intelligent Designer exists.

This is a propositional fallacy known as Affirming the Consequent.

Wiki
Affirming the Consequent

Another problem I have is with your use of the term language when describing the genetic code. The "Language" of DNA is nothing more than an analogy used to describe the genetic code. It was probably coined by a scientist trying to explain a complicated subject to the masses in a way they could understand. DNA is a nucleic acid which contains genetic instructions. These instructions can be damaged by many forms of mutagens. Wiki

So, as a Designer, I would be a bit upset if all my hard work were to get changed by random events in nature. Unless, of course, you propose that all the changes were part of the "grand master plan" of the Designer. In which case, that sounds a lot like everything is pre-destined and governed by the Will of the Designer. Which leaves little room for things like prayer (what if you pray for something that isn't in the master plan?) or free will (not too free if it's been pre-destined.)

I'll stop now before I get bonked by the OP for being too far off topic.

[edit on 1-5-2008 by Evil Genius]



posted on May, 1 2008 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Evil Genius
 



Originally posted by Evil Genius
If an Intelligent Designer exists, then he would leave blueprints.


Nope never said that.


Originally posted by Evil Genius
The "Language" of DNA is nothing more than an analogy used to describe the genetic code.


Sure its an analogy, that doesn't diminish the argument. But a code it still is, written in the language of chemistry. Now if you look back to this post you will see I refer to it correctly,



Moreover the fact that DNA is coded in a common "language" of sugars, phosphates and bases. This common language or way of coding the life form is the strongest evidence in and of it self. If you saw a scratched cave wall, with a letter 'A' you would recognize the letter from the alphabet and realize it had an intelligent source. The language of DNA implies the same.



Originally posted by Evil Genius
So, as a Designer, I would be a bit upset if all my hard work were to get changed by random events in nature.


Yes he was upset when sin and death entered the world. You have a misunderstanding of theology just because God is sovereign and all things are with in his will doesn't mean he approves of all things. He merely allows them as part of free will.



[edit on 5/1/2008 by Bigwhammy]



posted on May, 1 2008 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
reply to post by Evil Genius
 



Originally posted by Evil Genius
If an Intelligent Designer exists, then he would leave blueprints.


Nope never said that.


Originally posted by Evil Genius
The "Language" of DNA is nothing more than an analogy used to describe the genetic code.


Sure its an analogy, that doesn't diminish the argument. But a code it still is, written in the language of chemistry. Now if you look back to this post you will see I refer to it correctly,



Moreover the fact that DNA is coded in a common "language" of sugars, phosphates and bases. This common language or way of coding the life form is the strongest evidence in and of it self. If you saw a scratched cave wall, with a letter 'A' you would recognize the letter from the alphabet and realize it had an intelligent source. The language of DNA implies the same.



Originally posted by Evil Genius
So, as a Designer, I would be a bit upset if all my hard work were to get changed by random events in nature.


Yes he was upset when sin and death entered the world. You have a misunderstanding of theology just because God is sovereign and all things are with in his will doesn't mean he approves of all things. He merely allows them as part of free will.



[edit on 5/1/2008 by Bigwhammy]


You might not have come out and said that, but there are things you have implied which would form an argument in that structure. Here's another argument we could infer from your statements...

If a language of life exists (dna), then there must be an Intelligent Designer.
God is an Intelligent Designer.
Therefore, God must have designed the language of life.

I hope you see how you can't use God in an argument such as this to prove his existence. If you just take the first line of the argument and assume it's true (which you already have), then where is your evidence to support that it was God who was the designer? With a multitude of religions presently and in the past (yes, even prior to the idea of God), claiming the same thing, what makes you so confident you have the correct Designer? (and please don't say your faith)



posted on May, 1 2008 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
By the way, the technical distinction between creationism and intelligent design is of importance only to people who believe in these things. As far as the rest of us are concerned, the latter is just an attempt to disguise the former in the habiliments of science.


Oh, ok. So you're admitting your close mindedness from the start and that you do not care about those pesky little things called 'the details' when dealing with the parameters of our definitions. 'The details' only matter when they are to your benefit. I get it.

Anyways, Yes. There is a difference between the two and you are again implying our complete stupidity when really the blurred lines are coming from yourself if you truly cannot separate the definition of creationism and intelligent design. You also seemed to have completely missed (or willingly ignored) the fact I already pointed out what were you implying by bringing up the Wedge Document.

I'll spare you from reading the technical definitions of each and instead allow you the benefit of the doubt as to where their differences rest. As for your 'eight steps,' a reply is in the works.

 


Here is a link for now:

www.ideacenter.org...

 


I still stand by original statement: You cannot win an argument regarding intelligent design against someone who does not believe in any type of designer without proving the existence of a desinger. To compare, you could show me a million pieces of evidence as to how we were created by the FSM but since I do not believe in the FSM, nothing you show me would ever get me to believe we were created by the FSM. So is the same with an atheistic evolutionist- they will not consider the concept of a designer and they certainly don't want 'God' in science.

Tying that back into what we were talking about before: That is why defining the parameters of this discussion (that keep getting moved to suit you it seems) needs to be done. You specify 'intelligent design' then try to mesh it in with creationism, then try to mesh it in with God. All we really need to do is show evidence of a 'design' or take into consideration the information in the link above. Christians will define that 'designer' as Jehovah, Muslims will define it as Allah, Raelians will define it as aliens, etc.

And that should give you a clue as to why I do not support the scientific definition of intelligent design- I believe the Judeo-Christian God did it and would rather not 'prove' the design of some generic designer although this is a fascinating subject nonetheless.

[edit on 5/1/2008 by AshleyD]



posted on May, 1 2008 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
reply to post by LDragonFire
 


That just proves Ben Steins thesis in Expelled. Evolutionists have a strangle hold on the universities to the exclusion of any real debate.


When only 5% of scientist believe in Creation/ID, is what hinders this "real" debate you speak of. Science is based in facts and observable things to come to conclusions. So you watch something, and it does this and then it does that then you are able to prove theories that then make these theories fact.
"
Everyone of us use the fruits of science everyday, the computer you use, the internet, the lights in your home, the method of transportation you use to go back and forth to work, possibly the very work you do the medicine you use when you get sick. Science is fact and the practical application we all use everyday supports this. In a nutshell science is real you can touch, taste and smell it.

You can't observe God, instead you look at things and you cry here it is the proof that God exists, this is not science. I do not want religion to even attempt to take over science like they are trying to do. Science has no room for faith, just facts and right now there is more facts that support Evolution than supports Creation.

Personally being agnostic, I believe in a God, and I do believe in Creation, but I also believe in Evolution, these are my beliefs and not scientific fact. As a father I have had babies born only to watch them grow and learn and to become something they were not in the beginning and I'm proud to have watch my kids do this

When humans are able to put non living things into a beaker and do things to it to create life, perhaps my beliefs will change.

Just a side note
The behavior of Christians and some Atheists on this site for a while now really puts a bad taste in my mouth towards them, not all of them but a certain group on here, I do not want to be like them. The pride, the judgmental self-righteousness, does far more harm to your religion than any science could ever do. The song "this little light of mine" comes to mind. if your a Christian, you should study what Jesus preached, and follow his example, most Christians have no clue in this area. And by all means do not lecture others in how to act, when it's obvious you yourself needs to but look in a mirror first and see if you have acted in a way that would inspire others to want what you have discovered.



posted on May, 1 2008 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Evil Genius
 



If a language of life exists (dna), then there must be an Intelligent Designer.
God is an Intelligent Designer.
Therefore, God must have designed the language of life.


Sophistry is fun huh? Again you just created a straw man to burn down. I didn't say any thing of the sort. Let me spell it out for in terms you can understand. This is not a proof of God it is a thread about ID.

Codes have a designer.
DNA is written in a code.
DNA has a designer.

[edit on 5/1/2008 by Bigwhammy]



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 03:43 AM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 

From your link:


Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if objects were designed, they will contain CSI.

In other words:

  • Complex and specificed information is produced by intelligent agents.

  • Living things contain complex and specified information.

  • Therefore living things are produced by intelligent agents.

This is yet another example of the logical fallacy already committed by BigWhammy and pointed out by Evil Genius: affirming the consequent.

You can't present what we are looking for in this thread, falsifiable proof of intelligent design, based on illogical arguments. Sorry.



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Ah, but you see I'm already fully aware of that which should be obvious by now with as many times as I have said in order to prove intelligent design to an atheist evolutionist who denies a designer we would have to first...

PROVE A DESIGNER

PROVE A DESIGNER

PROVE A DESIGNER

PROVE A DESIGNER

PROVE A DESIGNER

We have already shown the existence of a design, a code, irreducible complexity, fossil record support, etc. However, without the Designer, atheistic evolutionists will still be like children with their fingers stuck in their ears while loudly saying, 'Lalala I'm not listening!'

 


Now, bear with me for a moment. I know this thread is not about evolution or refuting evolution. For one, it's already been done to death on ATS. Secondly, I understand disproving one method of our origins does not automatically prove the other theory or hypothesis is correct.

However, I do ask you to follow me a long on this as there is a reason I am asking you to do this for me. I'm working on answering your list as defined in the OP but need you to explain some things as if you were answering your OP with answers targeted to evolution. I'm not going to debate or argue anything you say since, again, I understand evolution is not the topic of this thread. I'm simply trying to set a foundation with what I am about to do. So without further ado...

 


1). Intelligent Design, though believed by various people throughout centuries in the form of different accounts concerning our origins, has never been able satisfactorily to explain the following phenomenon...

2). This is because... (scientifically valid argument here)

3). Instead, we contend that the phenomenon can best be explained as the result of evolution because... (another scientifically valid argument here).

4). This can be tested by means of the following experiment... (Exhaustive description of experiment, including an explanation of how it addresses the problem. Note that the experiment will have to be ingeniously designed to eliminate all other explanations for the phenomenon apart from only 'evolution did it').

5). If our hypothesis is true -- and only if it is true -- the following results may be expected from the experiment.

6). We ran the experiment. Here are the results. They tally well with our expectations (see #5 above).

7). Therefore we conclude that evolution did it.

8). We invite others to assess our arguments, repeat our experiment, and verify the results for themselves.

 


Again, I understand the burden of proof is not on you in this thread but I promise I am going somewhere with this. Also, since we all accept micrevolution (genetics), I need you to target your above answers by focusing strictly on the aspect of macroevolution especially when answering the questions concerning experiments. No need to go in depth or get lengthy.

If you can do this, it will help me close up the holes in what I have been working on for submission and to show some of the double standards taking place in your list of expectations. Thanks.



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
reply to post by Evil Genius
 



If a language of life exists (dna), then there must be an Intelligent Designer.
God is an Intelligent Designer.
Therefore, God must have designed the language of life.


Sophistry is fun huh? Again you just created a straw man to burn down. I didn't say any thing of the sort. Let me spell it out for in terms you can understand. This is not a proof of God it is a thread about ID.

Codes have a designer.
DNA is written in a code.
DNA has a designer.

[edit on 5/1/2008 by Bigwhammy]


Ok, back to ID then (even though you bring up God earlier in the thread and how you know he exists).

So far the main point of your argument to prove that DNA was designed centers around the Cave Wall Test. And on the surface, the Cave Wall Test seems like valid proof. But for it to be valid it has to stand up under different circumstances in my mind. First let's recap your earlier response.


Moreover the fact that DNA is coded in a common "language" of sugars, phosphates and bases. This common language or way of coding the life form is the strongest evidence in and of it self. If you saw a scratched cave wall, with a letter 'A' you would recognize the letter from the alphabet and realize it had an intelligent source. The language of DNA implies the same.


So, I propose a test of the Cave Wall Test. In this proposal we'll look at the clock as a timekeeping device. First, we'll need to go back in time to the 1930's. If you walked into a cave and saw a clock hanging on the wall, you would recognize it as a description of time for one day here on Earth and realize it had come from an intelligent source. This is how we've determined the level of intelligence of ancient cultures in fact. Ancient stone monoliths, pyramids, long count calenders, etc., all point to civilizations with intelligence who designed devices to keep track of time.

Clocks seem to pass the Cave Wall Test and arguably are coded as well as they convey information in the language of mathematics. Fast forward to the 1940's and 50's and we start to see things break down however. As we entered the Atomic Age we were able to see clocks appear in nature.

The Atomic Age


The cesium atom's natural frequency was formally recognized as the new international unit of time in 1967


Another clock example in nature appeared in the news just the other day. This clock had a countdown and at the end of the countdown something goes Boom! Prior to reading this article, if I were to ask someone what i just described they would reply "a bomb." And where do bombs with ticking counters come from? Well, they had to be designed intelligently right? I mean, if you walked into a cave and saw a ticking device hanging on the wall you would recognize it as intelligent correct? Well, this bomb is found in nature and you can read about it in this article.

NASA Predicts Huge Cosmic Explosions

So, how does this relate to the genetic code. The Cave Wall Test showed that in earlier history (in fact for thousands of years) clocks would have been thought of as intelligently designed. But in reality there are examples in nature that act as the most precise clocks in the universe. And these have occurred naturally through the laws of physics. So, can we reliably use the Cave Wall Test as a test for intelligence? IMO, no we can't.

DNA might be a code, but it is found in nature with a sample size of 1 planet. Just think what we might find out if we get a bigger sample size. We can't just assume that something is true based on twisted logic like the Cave Wall Test.



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD
I still stand by original statement: You cannot win an argument regarding intelligent design against someone who does not believe in any type of designer without proving the existence of a desinger. To compare, you could show me a million pieces of evidence as to how we were created by the FSM but since I do not believe in the FSM, nothing you show me would ever get me to believe we were created by the FSM. So is the same with an atheistic evolutionist- they will not consider the concept of a designer and they certainly don't want 'God' in science.



[edit on 5/1/2008 by AshleyD]


You are absolutley correct Ashley. If this were a court of law the person judging such arguments whether a member of the jury or even the judge himself would either have to excuse himself from such a jury or recuse himself from the bench. Asty has already established a bona fide prejudice on these matters and one so full of his own resentment towards those people who would support such ideas with ridicule and harsh criticism.

In effect, he can't possibly make an honest and accurate distinction between what is right on these matters and what is wrong. He even goes back to my post using my opening arguments of falsefiable theory and concludes the end of it as though I was mistaken (again) not knowing a damn thing about my argument after he successfully disgusted me enough to withdraw my original propostion.

Now you see that? If I were to continue tio think "Oh he wants to go at it with me on falsifiable theory again!" Oh yeah baby lets do it! As soon as I would rip his arguments from hell to highwater he would charge me with derailing the thread again or pick something out of it that is off topic.

Hey when you can't fight fair, "cheat" right?

It is like I said before, they make it so unpleasant an atmosphere to engage in such debates that when you announce you are leaving it

They yell VICTORY or as maddness would say Hooray!

Basically I see this as a childish act one being done

out of fear and a lack of conviction

because they got

"Johnson"

- Con



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


Ha ha ah Ashley,, Give this up, you see Asty isn't being honest with you here and it isn't because he believes evolution as a superior theory, hell lets be drop dead honest here. He doesn't believe in evolution because it is a a better theory,

he believes it because why?

He is an ATHEIST.

simple isn't it

- Con



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by AshleyD
 

From your link:


Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if objects were designed, they will contain CSI.

In other words:

  • Complex and specificed information is produced by intelligent agents.

  • Living things contain complex and specified information.

  • Therefore living things are produced by intelligent agents.

This is yet another example of the logical fallacy already committed by BigWhammy and pointed out by Evil Genius: affirming the consequent.

You can't present what we are looking for in this thread, falsifiable proof of intelligent design, based on illogical arguments. Sorry.



Lets get one thing straight here asty if you are going to keep vascillating between two differen't standards of what is burden of proof then NAME which one and stick to it! You know damn well there are two kinds and if you are going to use standards for logical fallacy where the burden of proof is predicated on the scientific method when it suits you then switch back to the burden of proof established for juris prudence, you can't have it both ways.


Use one or the other.

- Con



[edit on 2-5-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


reply to post by Conspiriology
 


Thanks. I will.

You noticed the same goal shifting occurring in this thread it seems. When the OP asked to prove intelligent design, we told him we first need to prove a designer (as we actually are aware of the logical fallacy he later mentioned known as affirming the consequent). After pointing this out, he assured us it could be done. So, we did only to have him bring up the logical fallacy we were trying to avoid from the beginning of this debate: Affirming the consequent.

You also picked up on the shift back and forth between 'court of law' and 'scientific method' standards. Kudos to you. Those atheistic evolutionists are more slippery than a buttered eel.

Not to mention the fact the full theory of evolution couldn't even stand up to the eight steps mentioned in the OP. Maybe one day they will realize their religion requires some faith as well.

Take care.



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by pieman
 


i don't have much time, so here are a bunch of links relating to the false argument pertaining to the second law of thermodynamics

www.talkorigins.org...
www.talkorigins.org...
www.talkorigins.org...
www.talkorigins.org...
www.talkorigins.org...
www.talkorigins.org...
www.talkorigins.org...
www.talkorigins.org...
www.talkorigins.org...
www.talkorigins.org...



Pieman don't bother, he doesn't have time for you so don't have time for him it's that simple. It ain't like your post was going anywhere soon that madd couldn't have posted to it when he DID have time.

Besides that, I know from experience when a person doesn't know what the word "kind" means he won't know what the word "species" means either and on that score he would still disagree. The only time he doesn't seem to get it is when it has biblical implications and THAT

is obvious

- Con



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD

Thanks. I will.

You noticed the same goal shifting occurring in this thread it seems. When the OP asked to prove intelligent design, we told him we first need to prove a designer (as we actually are aware of the logical fallacy he later mentioned known as affirming the consequent). After pointing this out, he assured us it could be done. So, we did only to have him bring up the logical fallacy we were trying to avoid from the beginning of this debate: Affirming the consequent.

Take care.


Yeah or a strawman argument. I noticed Maddness has been dabbling into the protcols for logical fallacy a lot these days even making up his own lol I loved the ad-hitlerum one he made ha ha in dickie dee's thread. I have studied that crap in the military and in college and as I said it isn't that hard to grasp and I HIGHLY doubt asty would have been any match for me in the debate,. He must know it else he wouldn't have discounted my proposal with a threat I was derailing the thread. Than he proved he isn't worthy of the debate because he simply cannot be honest about it and has proven his prejudice. According to the same protocols for the burden of proof, that lifts the burden off your shoulders entirely. In this case however, no matter what he says now it is made moot by his own signs he cannot be impartially responsible. (as if)

Yep it's just like the Bible says in genesis when it talks about "kinds" no seed of any other "kind" and that is observable and testable and Maddness KNOWS it and thats why he plays dumb understanding it.

Unless of course he can prove Appleman can ever exist,, but not in ten billion years would that happen, he knows it and I know it.


Evolutionary theory has got what??

You got it babe

JOHNSON

- Con







[edit on 2-5-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiriology
Pieman don't bother, he doesn't have time for you so don't have time for him it's that simple. It ain't like your post was going anywhere soon that madd couldn't have posted to it when he DID have time.


pieman, ignore this poster as he is someone who is simply engaging in a discussion of me



Besides that, I know from experience when a person doesn't know what the word "kind" means he won't know what the word "species" means either and on that score he would still disagree.


ugh, you just keep pumping out the ignorance

kind is a very vague word, especially since it's not a scientific term
species is a very, very specific, scientific term



The only time he doesn't seem to get it is when it has biblical implications and THAT

is obvious

- Con


only as obvious as the lack of argument you have.

did you even bother to read a single one of those links?
have you read a single link i've ever provided?
i just didn't have the time to put any sort of humor with those links, they tend to stand for themselves

[edit on 5/2/08 by madnessinmysoul]



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join