Proof of ID the World is Looking For

Originally posted by Clearskies

Fossils and rock layers do not speak for themselves—they must be interpreted. The way that you interpret evidence depends on the presuppositions you accept. The Bible offers a different set of presuppositions than naturalistic evolution.

The fact that the age of the oldest known trees corresponds to the biblical date of Noah’s Flood cannot be easily explained by evolution. There is no reason that trees much older than 4,500 years should not be found on earth—unless a global catastrophe wiped them out.

These layers have been interpreted and peer reviewed by countless scientists over the past couple hundred years I would guess. The funny part is when people with a religious agenda try to make the data fit their theory. Why do they feel the need to do this in the first place? Because people have figured out that the Bible doesn't appear to be 100% correct and they started to question things. Why else would there even be a need for a magazine called Answers. Religion doesn't want people to question authority, it never has. But the rise of discovery has forced them to address these issues or lose even more people (ie. more money in the collection plate). It is a desperate attempt, but at least it isn't as harmful as burning someone at the stake for saying the Earth wasn't the center of the universe.

As far as finding trees older than 4500 years, I agree we should be able to find them. Oh wait, we have. You might want to update your sources...

Oldest Living Tree Found in Sweden

The world's oldest known living tree, a conifer that first took root at the end of the last Ice Age, has been discovered in Sweden, researchers say. The visible portion of the 13-foot-tall (4-meter-tall) "Christmas tree" isn't ancient, but its root system has been growing for 9,550 years, according to a team led by Leif Kullman, professor at Umeå University's department of ecology and environmental science in Sweden.

Research suggests that stands of Huon pines on the Australian island of Tasmania possibly date back more than 10,000 years.

One other thing I have to say about the big flood. The site you referenced used sea creature fossils on the top of mountains as proof the flood waters reached that high. Well, there are sea bed fossils in the Himalayas, but it has been shown quite clearly that the elevation of those fossils are explained by continental drift and the impact between India and Asia. One question I have...if the waters really did reach that high (roughly 7200 METERS!!!), then where did all that water go? And why aren't all mountaintops filled with these same sea fossils? Sorry, that's two questions...I guess that's what happens when you pull the thread and it starts to unravel.

Himalayas

Just one (or two or...)more question that Answers will have to try and make fit.

Anyway, getting off of that rabbit trail and back to the subject. (Proof of ID the World is Looking For). Has anyone asked the following?

1. The theory of evolution and speciation by natural selection, though widely accepted, has never been able satisfactorily to explain the following phenomenon... How did the Big Bang, complete and utter chaos, result in the creation of life?
   
2. This is because... Order always (as a whole) drifts towards disorder.
   
3. Instead, we contend that the phenomenon can best be explained as the result of Divine Fiat, because... There is no other explanation as to how entropy worked in reverse for a period of time, yet now it seems to be working correctly. To have order and organization there must be an organizer of some sort. This entity would need to be able to work on a cosmic level.
   
4. This can be tested by means of the following experiment... Explode anything and see of order arises. Perform task an infinite number of times if necessary.
   
5. If our hypothesis is true -- An explosion will never result in a more organized system.
   

Originally posted by Evil Genius

Peer review. As in 'every fellow evolutionist looked at it and saw no conflict'. Yeah,......

That link to N.G. has something wrong with it.
Not just the allegation that a scrawny, 13 ft tree is almost 10,000 years old.

Besides, many of us KNOW how biased towards evolution Sweden, Norway, etc. are.

The funny part is when people with a religious agenda try to make the data fit their theory. Why do they feel the need to do this in the first place?

We KNOW God, Jesus and the Bible are real FIRST.
Evidence has been interpreted by science , falsely so called to fit Non-creationism! Evolutionists look at data and think 'How did this form only given the matter, time and environment?"
We look at data and think, "how did God form this matter, time and environment."
Different ways.

Research suggests that stands of Huon pines on the Australian island of Tasmania possibly date back more than 10,000 years.

'suggested', hmmm.......'possibly'........

One other thing I have to say about the big flood. The site you referenced used sea creature fossils on the top of mountains as proof the flood waters reached that high. Well, there are sea bed fossils in the Himalayas, but it has been shown quite clearly that the elevation of those fossils are explained by continental drift and the impact between India and Asia. One question I have...if the waters really did reach that high (roughly 7200 METERS!!!), then where did all that water go?

The water went underground and seeped into lower valleys....
Underground seas, water tables, fissures.......

And why aren't all mountaintops filled with these same sea fossils?

Suppose the Flood happened.
Sea-life would only be carried so far by the rushing water and would settle as the torrents ceased.
It wouldn't necessarily have to distribute everything evenly.......







[edit on 8-5-2008 by Clearskies]

It's good to see you pass right over the important information and go right to a word like "suggests". Nothing to say on the trees they did find? Other than to attack the scientists based on where they are from? You sound quite enlightened.

Your article explains in great detail how sedementary layers were layed down during this flood over the distance of continents and how it trapped fossils. The part I liked is when it says this happens at the bottom of the ocean when currents are 3-5 MPH. Not really a description we would expect from a torrent of water which reached as high as 20,000+ feet. As far as the water going underground, any evidence to back that up? I mean, I see water go down the drain in my shower every day and it forms a nice little whirlpool. Surely an amount of water, such as the flood describes, would leave incredibly large openings where all this water went rushing down into.

This will be my last question to you, regardless of your reply (which I'm sure you'll have), because I really don't want this to get off topic. So, say what you will, I'll let you have the last word.

Quick Edit to your Edit and then I'm done...

Yeah, Peer Review. Who was there to review the selections of the priests who originally put the Bible together 300+ years after the fact? I KNOW that books were left out when the Bible was compiled during the reign of Constantine. Would have been nice to have a peer review at that point, but alas, there was just the PTB determining what's in and what's out.

[edit on 8-5-2008 by Evil Genius]

Hello again, Evil Genius. I'm going to help CS out really fast and I hope she doesn't mind although I do agree with the both of you in that the discussion of a world wide flood is somewhat off topic.

Originally posted by Evil Genius
As far as the water going underground, any evidence to back that up?

A couple of things that may help answer your questions although the flood is not my area of expertise and this will just be off the top of my head. Several massive underground water deposits have been found (and even some news articles have been posted on ATS discussing this matter). Second, many flood geologists believe the oceans as they exist today far exceed the size of the oceans in antediluvian times. Both of those explanations offer plausible explanations.

One question I have...if the waters really did reach that high (roughly 7200 METERS!!!)

Not really a description we would expect from a torrent of water which reached as high as 20,000+ feet.

Again, this is all off the top of my head and if you want to see sources about the underground water deposits or the verse I am about to cite, just u2u me and I will look everything up for you.

Anyways, in Psalms we are told the mountains were actually raised up during or shortly after (I cannot remember which) the flood. The mountain peaks were said to not have been as high at that time. It was a passage I remembered seeing in passing and found it interesting as I was also curious to know how a global flood would have been possible due to the problem concerning mountain height. The Psalms passage helped clarify it for me.

This explanation would also make sense since mountain ranges are believed to have been formed through the crashing of tectonic plates. The division of the earth mentioned in Genesis (where great tectonic shifts could have occurred), is written as occurring after the flood. So, if this is all correct, then we're good to go. However, not all flood geologists agree on this theory. It's just one way to look at it.

[edit on 5/9/2008 by AshleyD]

reply to post by dbates

The theory of evolution and speciation by natural selection, though widely accepted, has never been able satisfactorily to explain the following phenomenon... How did the Big Bang, complete and utter chaos, result in the creation of life?

The theory of evolution and speciation by natural selection does not say anything about the origins of life, only abouts its elaboration and variety.

This has already been established very clearly in the present thread.

This is because... Order always (as a whole) drifts towards disorder... there is no other explanation as to how entropy worked in reverse...

The appeal to the Second Law of Thermodynamics was presented on the first page of the thread and debunked on the second page.

I would have thought a moderator, especially a Super one, would take the trouble to read a thread before posting on it.

Originally posted by Astyanax


The theory of evolution and speciation by natural selection does not say anything about the origins of life, only abouts its elaboration and variety.

Asty, forgive the abreviated name if you would, I really don't care one whether you do or not, two I am in no mood for your multi-syllabic slippery shifting showmanship nor your silly sensitivities when ever it suits to assualt one of us. Consider it a term of endearment

The title of this thread is Proof of Intelligent Design the world is looking for and all you have done throughout this thread is attempt to make fools out of those who have tried damn hard to provide it for you as it has become pretty obvious to me just what kind of JOKE you have been playing on Ashley and Whammy. As soon as I saw you using the logical fallacy for assuming the consequent against ashley I had remembered a similar stunt done on a gaming forum.

Going by the title of this thread one would expect you had more to offer than say .,,, mmm your own proof for intellingent design the world is looking for ! What do WE see you really have to offer? See what I mean?

We see you using that same logical fallacy for assuming the conesquent when it is you who must eat that argument because YOU SET the precedent as an allowable construct of the debate in the title of your thread.

Proof of ID the world is looking for should be say, "Watch the atheist make fools out of everyone attempting to provide the very information the thread assumes as a consequent in its very title.

While you insist on denying the consequent over and over using the same logical fallacy.

If you are going to use the same standards for evolution to test the theory of intelligent design than why don't you at least be honest about it?

The whole thing is misleading don't you see?

Without this sounding like I am insulting you asty, DO YOU know what intelligence IS? Do you know it when you see it? Becareful your answer as I have searched so many of your posts in this regard and will not hesistate to have them rotate in successsion of their judgemental self serving puffery while you have compared ours to yours and your highly esteemed colleagues who are "lucid" using "comprhensible" english.

Having said that and giving you the credit to at least agree I think you believe you know intelligence when you think you see it. I think it is fair to assume ashley was NOT assuming the consequent unless of course you are denying the same.

Her argument STANDS astyanax, furthermore I think this thread was nothing but a cheap shot for you to get off on watching them spin their wheels on a treadmill. Why would I get that idea?

YOU already knew they could never reach the destination of "Proof of ID the world is looking for" you know as well as I do the reason the protocols for inductive arguments of logical fallacy will never allow anyone to prove intelligent design. This is one of the reasons I have not offered any.

I saw you incriminate the argument with prejudice several times by saying quite as a matter of fact "No one has proven it" but then "no one CAN prove it" If it were me doing all that work ashley as tirelessly been researching like a damn trooper while not "offending" you with her own brand of faith based beliefs, I'd have given you what for but I can already see in some of your answers to her, you like her enough you should be ashamed of yourself. I guess you didn't imagine it would be her you would be playing this sick joke of a thread on. It was funny when I see threads like this on other forums but please tell me, it isn't so. That doesn't mean you have to concede, just allow the terms for assuming the consequent in light of what I am saying.

Yeah I don't know what else you can call it and once it gets this far you either hope she just gets tired of it or you admit the truth and apologise by telling her like it is because I tried and didn't have the heart to do it.

By the way, dbates questions ARE relevant for the same reason, as evolution cannot use that argument it doesn't try to explain the origin of species because it most certainly DOES and Darwin himself titled a book named after it! The Origin of Species by Chuck Darwin.

It goes BACKWARDS and attempts to explain what?

Speciation thats what.

from where?

From Current Conclusion to Origin, that's where.

Just because they cannot work back far enough in the fractal is no excuse until someone like dbates poses the question "what started the fractal"

You can't use it like you can't use assuming the consequent but I know you will argue nevertheless. You either know what intelligence IS or you don't but if you don't than you arent the one to say it is not then. Sorry, you see us Christians have this quirky belief that even logic and intelligence are things that were and are created.

My admitting you were right in an email the other night trying to explain why caused a huge blowup between whamy myself and ashley and may have cost me my best friends on here.

Apologies for that not withstanding I will always feel like you owe them one too for not being drop dead honest about this area of logical fallacy.

If you want to make fools out of people using that against them who do not know any better is one thing but if you are not and I am giving you the benefit of the doubt here, as I believe you are incredibly smart, (even for an atheist) than at least allow all that work to be tested as the babylonians did. SEE BELOW

Respectfully

- Con

Assuming The Consequent

Babylonian scientists always assumed the consequent. They began their
observations with their assumption; confirmed it with precise
measurements and mathematics; and ended with explanations confirming
their assumption. A Babylonian tablet explains their assumption. "The
signs on earth just as those in heaven give us signals. Sky and earth
both produce portents; though appearing separately, they are not
separate (because) sky and earth are related." Every important event
was explainable with planet god influences deduced from omen lists.
What happened when an omen failed? They used magic! The gods were
appeased by incantations and sacrifices! Why did the great priesthood
of knowledge, measurement, mathematics and record keeping fail? It
failed because their basic assumption was false. The planets were not
gods.

Do modern scientists also assume the consequent? The Bible predicted
that in the last days mockers would say "all things remain the same in
being." The next verse explains that they will use this idea to
obfuscate the age of the stars and the watery geology of earth.
Indeed, history shows that Western science was founded on Aristotle's
assumption that the properties of matter are not emergent. Modern
scientists even use Aristotle's assumption in their measurements.
Their most accurate instrument, the atomic clock, depends on the
concept of perpetual motion atoms. Almost everything they measure,
their mathematics, their methodologies, their laws and theories depend
on Aristotle's assumption. What would the universe look like if this
assumption is false? It would look like our universe. We can see the
past with sight. When we compare the light from billions of
primordial galaxies with modern ones, no perpetual motion atoms are
visible. In fact, the properties of matter are observed to always change.

What if our sight is valid, and all matter everywhere is always
changing relationally? We could not invent a local form of
measurement, mathematical constants or methodologies that would not
change with the changes in matter. We could, however, invent a
practical science that works in nearby spaces and times because all
the units and mathematical definitions would shift as matter changed
relationally. However, we could not invent a valid earth history
because primordial matter would have vastly different properties than
modern matter.

What do scientists do with the visible evidence that ancient matter
had vastly different properties than modern matter? They invent
magic, just like the priests of Marduk. They claim that the universe
is 99% invisible. Every one of the magical things they populate the
universe with was contrived to protect their basic assumption. The
vacuum of space supposedly stretches light, accelerates galaxies and
contains more phantom matter than visible stuff. They even claim that
the universe came to be when a tiny bit of vacuum exploded and created
everything out of nothing. Their vacuum even replenishes itself with
self-produced energies. The Bible states that the earth stretches out
in unbroken continuity. Indeed, the continents only fit together on a
tiny planet and a global expansion seam continually creates new
abyssal crust. So scientists claim subduction swallowed the earth's
crust to keep the planet from growing. Yet the soft, layered,
undisturbed sediments in the ocean trenches show that this is a
scientific myth. We observe in billions of galaxies the visible
history of the universe. Biblical physics and biblical cosmic history
are supported with simple visible evidence. Yet scientists, to
preserve their dogma, invent more unsupported myths than the
Babylonian priests ever imagined. Scientific rationality was
constructed on the assumption that matter does not change itself. Do
you accept unsupported scientific magic because you never question
your historical, elementary assumption?

[edit on 9-5-2008 by Conspiriology]

[edit on 9-5-2008 by Keeper of Kheb]

reply to post by Conspiriology

That was a very long post -- nearly 10,000 characters, the limit for a single post.

And how much of it was the proof of ID that the world is looking for?

Zilch -- as usual.

Instead, it contained nothing but insults, character assassination and futile insistence that what has already been proved false is nevertheless, somehow, true, just because you say so. Which pretty much sums up your contribution to the thread so far.

Don't you have better things to do with your time, Conspiriology?

reply to post by Conspiriology




You are absolutely correct, Con. That is something I didn't notice before. Although Whammy and I noticed ID was a logical fallacy in itself of assuming the consequent and were told to continue regardless, it was astute of you to notice how the actual steps in the OP were set up in the way to assume the consequent. Therefore, as you said, Asty implied it was a valid process in the way he himself set up the steps and posed the questions. So it is a little too late for him to be crying about ATC now.

Good catch.

reply to post by Astyanax


Asty, Asty, Asty. Before you even replied to Dbates, I knew that is exactly how you were going to respond to him. And that is, complaining about how evolution doesn't even try to account for abiogenesis. Of course that is a cop out of all cop outs. It's not remotely surprising to see evolutionary theory not include something so difficult to explain at this point although it is such a very important relation to the TOE.

Your OP states a phenomenon evolution has never been able to explain. Well, being that such an important onset is not even explained in TOE, I would have to say then it looks like that is a good starting point for an unexplainable phenomenon. I guarantee you though, if science ever figures it out, TOE will be the first to hijack the evidence and tie it into its theory.

Anyways, this goes back to what I have already said: Since you laid down the foundation to hold ID against the standards of evolution (false dichotomy), then we will only have to prove ID as far back as evolution goes. And that is, once life is in existence. You set that level for the playing field. You put it within the boundaries of speciation once life already existed. Therefore, evolution has an easy out: NSDI.

Yes, yes. You will say NS had evidence. So does ID. We've already discussed this already but neither of us will budge.

You can't have it both ways. Keep the goal posts still. Our legs are tired. You can't say 'START HERE' and then gripe when others don't. But when they do start where you want them to, get irritated when they point out the excuse of NSDI. Lame.

What you should have done is not have contrasted evolution and ID in your OP. That was your downfall.



False dichotomy, assuming the consequent, circular logic, ad hominem, etc. So many logical fallacies in this thread it makes my head hurt. Not to mention the arrogance, goal post shifting, hostile thread hosting, and who knows what other insane nonsense occurred throughout the process in this thread.

But you know what? In spite of it all, I had an absolute blast, changed my opinion on a few things, and learned a ton... even from you, Asty. So in the end, it is always worth the headaches when you get to learn something new.

Best wishes to everyone. I don't see the purpose of this thread anymore. It has been much been decimated.

reply to post by Astyanax


Put a sock in it, Asty. Seriously. Con exposed you and your thread for what it is. He didn't want to waste his time giving you the evidence you are so desperately begging for yet reject and belittle at every turn.

He was pointing out the 'heads I win, tails you lose' way you set up this thread.

He is not hashing out personal insults- he is responding to your attacks of ANYONE who has set foot in this thread as an advocate of ID. So quit trying to entrap him when it has been you who has shown nothing but hostility, rudeness, and arrogance throughout the thread that grew progressively worse and more attitudinal. Sorry it wounds your ego to be called out on it now.

Con owned you by cracking the inanity of your thread wide opened.

End of story.

[edit on 5/10/2008 by AshleyD]

Originally posted by Astyanax
And how much of it was the proof of ID that the world is looking for?

Zilch -- as usual.

It's the new technique. Any pretensions of science have been long relinquished, so they are now attempting to bore people to death.

Normal stuff now. The Cormac Murphy dude applied the same approach in a non-science realm t'other day, he can only do 5000 words of tedious vacuity, so he has some work to do.

At least db made an effort at science. I'd give it an E. Maybe D- to be kind, as I actually like db.

[edit on 10-5-2008 by melatonin]

When the Smoke Has Blown Away

I requested proposals for a scientific experiment to prove a scientifically tenable hypothesis confirming intelligent design in at least one case.

I got back most of the common arguments for intelligent design, all long-disproved and entirely unsupported by experiment.

When I pointed out that these arguments failed to provide the proof requested in the OP, I provoked a storm of character assassination, unjustified accusations of deceit and unfairness, and insults such as 'reptile'. All this ugly static was generated, in the end, by just two members: Bigwhammy and Conspiriology. A third member of that team, AshleyD, has been more moderate in her writing, though equally keen to misrepresent my statements and try to make me look like a liar. Her attempt backfired, making it quite easy for readers of the thread to determine just who was telling the truth and who was not.

Well... these unedifying examples of Christian behaviour may have been instructive, but I fear they leave the OP proposition unanswered.

It is plain, these several pages in, that AshleyD, Bigwhammy and Conspiriology have no proof of intelligent design to offer. Thus the smokescreen; it is nothing but a frantic attempt to conceal their inability to meet this challenge. With every further gout of noxious verbiage, the intellectual bankruptcy of 'intelligent design' is made clearer.

As I said, all the way back on Page Three,

Spamming the thread with creationist shibboleths and resentful complaints will not answer, I'm afraid. There will always be sensible folk around to bring the discussion back on topic.

So here we are, eight pages later, sensibly back on topic:

Can anyone suggest a scientific procedure to prove intelligent design?

Still waiting...

[edit on 10-5-2008 by Astyanax]

reply to post by Astyanax


It now feels as though it was a forum in a parallel universe, but there was a time when such a request would have been met by at least one user in here.

Mattison. An IDer, and actually a scientist. Someone who I did (and still do) have respect for. He did actually propose a proper experiment to supposedly test ID. I think it did no such thing, but it was actually based in real science. From what I gather, he has become disillusioned with the ID crusade. Over 10 years after Behe's book - nothing. Zilch. Nada. And now the facade of science has fell away from the contemporary ID to leave the rotten propped-up corpse of creationism.

So don't give up your search, astyanax, people who can come close to meeting your challenge do (or at least did) exist. You'll be lucky to get a coherent answer here (or even from someone like Dr^2 Dembski).

[edit on 10-5-2008 by melatonin]

reply to post by Astyanax


Ok, Asty. I'll give you what you want and what I wasn't going to submit due to already showing how your OP is fundamentally flawed on so many levels. I'll ignore your sock 'em then fall back and play the victim tactic for now but will take the time to address one point: I agree with you in that I, too, encourage all members and lurkers to read this entire thread so they will see what all preceded what I am about to write below.



Moving on to better things. Here you go. My commentaries to these steps have already given HERE to show the flaws in the OP. However, I am forced to ignore them for now in order to make a point.

The Way to Prove A Designer Did It

1). The theory of evolution and speciation by natural selection, though widely accepted, has never been able satisfactorily to explain:

How inorganic matter made the spontaneous transformation into organic matter.

2). This is because:

The theory of evolution does not even attempt to explain or include abiogenesis into its theory. Instead, evolution skips this extremely important beginning and only explains how more complex organisms evolved from simple singe celled organisms once life was already in existence. Although abiogenesis is not included within the realms of evolutionary science, secular science as a whole has never been able to explain how organic matter transformed from inorganic matter spontaneously [read: without a source of intelligence] in spite of numerous tests and experiments.

3). Instead, we contend that the phenomenon can best be explained as the result of Intelligent Design [and interference] because:

Of the intelligent complex code in the design of DNA that we believe to be the blueprints of an intelligent designer and 2) the fact life has never been observed to have occurred spontaneously in spite of various experiments. However, due to 'intelligent interference' on the part of scientists, some interesting things have occurred...

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 DDI):

I already provided links to some examples of experiments and their results on previous pages. Numerous experiments have been set up in the hopes of showing how life was spontaneously formed (including but not limited to replicating the atmosphere and conditions of the earth in prehistoric times). The results were poor.

On the other hand, once scientists (intelligent designers) began to get involved in the process and take a proactive part in the attempts to create organic matter, Shazam!. We're finally making headway.

Spontaneous: No success. Intelligent Interference/Design: Progress.

5). If our hypothesis is true -- and only if it is true -- the following results may be expected from the experiment: & 6). We [As in scientists: I don't have a lab in my back bathroom or anything] ran the experiment. Here are the results. They tally well with our expectations (see #5 above).

Spontaneous life from inorganic matter will never occur even if experiments are executed an infinite amount of times. Furthermore, the experiments that have had intelligent interference linked to on previous pages have been able to make progress in both manipulating and creating the code for the desired outcome.

7). Therefore we conclude that DDI. & We invite others to assess our arguments, repeat our experiment, and verify the results for themselves.

I will happily accept my 'F' that Asty will inevitably give me as I fully understand F stands for Fantastic.

Toodles.

[edit on 5/10/2008 by AshleyD]

reply to post by AshleyD

Sorry, that will not answer. In order to prove intelligent design (though it's more like 'intelligent creation' in this case) you will have to prove that life cannot evolve from non-life. A lack of successful attempts to create life from non-life does not prove that it cannot occur. You have to eliminate the possibility of abiogenesis. You experiment does not meet -- does not come anywhere near meeting -- the necessary standards of falsifiability and scientific rigour.

Once again, you are assuming what you need to prove: that life cannot have evolved from non-life. Once again, you are assuming the consequent. Once again, you are invoking the God of the Gaps.

Still no proof of ID on this thread. Back to the drawing board, eh?

* * *

Note to melatonin

I remember Mattison. He put up a good fight -- a lot better than anything you see round here nowadays. I guess being a scientist helped. Though (being a scientist) it was clear that he would eventually get cheesed off with intellgent design and get on with real life.

For the inquisitive lurkers and users, the now missing post (ABE: which has now reappeared) could be distilled down to this old chestnut:

Science can't explain x, therefore goddidit.

Substitute 'abiogenesis' for x, add two heaped teaspoons of complexity, a pinch of diced DNA, and the possibility of incompetent IDers ever actually doing any cooking science, add righteous theology liberally, oven cook at 200'C for 12 years, and we have the rotten 'argument from ignorance' pie.

ABE:

I remember Mattison. He put up a good fight -- a lot better than anything you see round here nowadays. I guess being a scientist helped. Though (being a scientist) it was clear that he would eventually get cheesed off with intellgent design and get on with real life.

Heh, aye. Any scientist with the capability for reason and the foundation of good schooling would soon become sick of the escapades of Dembski et al.

He was a loss to the forum. We rarely agreed on ID, but at least he could put together a coherent answer to such requests.

[edit on 10-5-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
Science can't explain x, therefore goddidit.

You must be referring to assuming the consequent. It is also interesting you word it as 'science can't explain x' when... *drum roll* the OP asked for something science could not explain. Oops! God of the Gaps.

Originally posted by Astyanax
Sorry, that will not answer. In order to prove intelligent design (though it's more like 'intelligent creation' in this case) you will have to prove that life cannot evolve from non-life.

Asty, no we do not. Again, that is a false dichotomy and proving the impossibility of spontaneous life sure does sound unfalsifiable. You are saying only one view can be correct and I have already answered that argument repeatedly. Not even evolution completely and utterly rules out all other possibilities. Evolutionary theory is simply one explanation for our origins. ID is another. They are not necessarily mutually exclusive although you are trying like the Dickens to make them so.

A lack of successful attempts to create life from non-life does not prove that it cannot occur. You have to eliminate the possibility of abiogenesis. You experiment does not meet -- does not come anywhere near meeting -- the necessary standards of falsifiability and scientific rigour.

Again, false dichotomy (let me know when you are tired of me saying that). I agree with you: No, we cannot eliminate the possibility. But you keep trying to force us to eliminate the alternative regardless. This is why I said both ID and evolution need to stand alone: not disprove one in an effort to prove the other. Remember, you are the one who made this test and pitted evolution against ID.

Once again, you are assuming what you need to prove: that life cannot have evolved from non-life. Once again, you are assuming the consequent. Once again, you are invoking the God of the Gaps.

And, 'once again,' that is how you set up game. You assumed the consequent with how you proposed the test. Not me. Furthermore, you know as well as I do that what you are proposing in regards to proving organic matter being impossible to spring from organic matter is impossible. We can try to prove that it can but we cannot prove than it cannot.

You should have taken Con up on the falsifiability debate.

Point made. The end.

[edit on 5/11/2008 by AshleyD]

reply to post by AshleyD

He was pointing out the 'heads I win, tails you lose' way you set up this thread.

Congratulations to Conspiriology for exposing the ruse for what it was.

Con owned you by cracking the inanity of your thread wide opened.

He did didn't he. Considering the source of the OP we suspected it was nothing more than a bait attempt from the get go. We still established a wonderful case for design and exposed the antiscience atheist hypocrisy for what it is.

Originally posted by Astyanax


That was a very long post -- nearly 10,000 characters, the limit for a single post.

At the risk of being accused of going off topic asty, I am going to speak my mind especially in light of how you answered my post. Yeah it was a long one as I had a lot on my mind but I can assure you this one will be shorter.

And how much of it was the proof of ID that the world is looking for?
Zilch -- as usual.

No asty that is my point but as usual rather than do the right thing an apologise for your blatent dishonesty as it is YOU who made this thread it is YOU who titled "Proof of ID the world is looking for and it is YOU who has failed to offer any. Don't make me responsible for what YOU failed to do. Next time I would suggest you make a thread ASKING for proof not OFFERING any then wait for everyone else to do the proving for you while you setup protocols and ground rules for the proof so unfair from the start I wasn't about to even try. All I wanted to do is keep you honest about it.

Besides the misleading title and the misleading rules and the numerous times you have asked question that whenever we answered them you would cry foul for having nothing to do with topic I even stood up for you which got me in a lot of hot water but I call it like I see it and even called you incredibly smart. You were not smart enough to see all that though. You just see what your eyes want you to see and that is all the Christians that have stepped in the trap to call them on this or that playing the victim. It was YOU making those statements incriminating your own impartiality having an impenetrable Bias towards any evidence at all when you said it can't be proven. Then WHY offer any! More than that,, WHY waste anyones time asking to show any when you of all people are the last one to be making judgements for same when they can only be done with prejudice and that is where the dis honesty is and even THAT you would argue as you already have.

I would advise you never to accept a position on the bench as a Judge nor even Jury duty for that matter.

You simply just don't get it.

After making those statements you can only be a facilitator of this thread from that point but who do you think you are to state your own self serving prejudice THEN expect us to think you are being above board about anything we say or do.

I don't see you calling mel on doing the same thing with his pom poms supporting you while he has never offered a lick of proof for ID the world is looking for either HAS HE?

Nope.

When you are acting in the capacity of a facilitator for a debate such as this you have to at least TRY to be impartial you have to at least TRY astyanax. You done nothing of the sort.

It seems the double standards for dishonesty and bias are only for those who, like me happen to be Christians or supporting them.

The commentary by mel adds nothing to this thread either and only seeks to accomplish what this entire thread was obviously created to do.

Again you only see through your own prejudice and again you refuse to admit it much less be honest about it or cry foul when Mel or Dave has spoken. Like I said, you have to at least try to be fair and honest when setting up such formal ground rules.

You know, for a while, you had me thinking you were going to be fair.

We all joined in excited about what we thought would be a good debate even when we knew your atheism might add a slight Bias, we really DID think we were going to see you rise to the occasion nevertheless.

Like I said I won't give you the benfit of that doubt again I can assure you.

I misjudged you in my plea, that I know now and won't make the mistake again giving you the benefit of the doubt you would have enough integrity to correct the now obvious slick trick you were playing the whole time.

You got style asty, but

ya got no class

Don't you have better things to do with your time, Conspiriology?

Yep thanks to you asty, I can see what a waste of time your thread has been. I can only regret I won't get that time back.

I wouldn't waste another key press on your thread "the Proof of ID the world is looking for" only those that are in the world and not of it, will ever really see it.

Ill just always wonder, what it is

you're so afraid of GOD?

Asta la vista

Astyanax

- Con















[edit on 10-5-2008 by Conspiriology]