Intelligent Design is not creationism

Shoe:
>But, you see, I brought that up to show
>another example where you immediately
>dismiss everything as false.

Stop with the strawman ... I haven't dismissed any of them as "false" (as proof, note I referenced Reagan's sighting as "possible"). However, due to 100% failure rate *so far*, without further evidence, I'm dismissing the entire "I saw" category as unreliable.

A police officer once testified under oath and on the stand that he "saw" me dealing drugs -- never happened, haven't dealt/sold drugs once in my entire life. "Saw" better have something more behind it or I'm unimpressed.

>In the case of the Phoenix Lights Incident, I brought
>up a respected neurosurgeon who lived in Phoenix and
>described how (I believe it was 3) lights moved slowly
>in front of her window, etc.

"Respected" isn't a valid qualification for explaining what a person saw or didn't see. Respected people see the virgin mary in a Twinkie -- doesn't mean she's there.

>Now, regardless of your impression, note that
>you immediately dismissed what she wrote. Why?

Dude - in addition to upgrading your BS meter, you need to read what I've written. In two previous posts, I've said EXACTLY why.

PEOPLE SAY ALL KINDS OF THINGS. "SAY", OR "WROTE" IS NOT ENOUGH. IF ONE ACCEPTS EVERYTHING THAT PEOPLE SAY, DEEP TROUBLE FOLLOWS. WITH SO MANY CRACKPOTS CLAIMING SO MANY THINGS (911 for example), WHY WOULDN'T ONE DEMAND JUST A BIT MORE? EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS REQUIRE EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE -- PERIOD.

So, I'm predictable ... you can "tell me" over and over that 2 + 2 = 5 if you wish. Since I've added it up quite a few times myself and it always totaled "4", you're going to have to do more than SAY it equals "5" for me to pay attention. Perhaps you can make it add up to 5 or 6 or whatever, but you better be prepared to do more than just "say" it.

Need you ask why again, or is it clear this third time?

JB
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Man, the asylum is filled to the brim with intellectuals spiraling out of control with their feelings of certainty based on a belief of uncertainty.
More...
Really? Do tell...
 
No "do tell" as I already did tell...




Drunk driver before Judge:

"Judge, it wasn't my fault."

Judge:

"Do tell."

Drunk:

"I was fine till all of a sudden. I was driving properly, I didn't drink that much at all, I even checked my blood alcohol level before I got in the car. Then suddenly I control of the car. I have a high tech device that I blow into that is attached to my car, that prohibits the car from starting if the levels are above the legal limit. The device documents the results and automatically sends them to the black box in the car, as well as sending them to "On Star" service that tracks what happens in my car. So it must have been something wrong with the device that allowed the car to start."

Judge:

"Really? The police checked the car and found no mechanical problems. Our lab checked the device installed in your car and found it working properly. The tests we took on the device provided exact results repeatedly. We found nothing abnormal or defective with the device. You seem to be suggesting some random mechanical event that caused the unit to not work properly, as if some evil spirits or gremlins were at work here. I simply see no scientific explanation for what happened to the device."

Drunk:

"Yes your Honor, it was a random event, and as a result it was not my fault. The black box in the car and On Star both confirmed via the device that I was not above the legal limit. This type of thing just happens with mechanical devices."

Judge:

"Really? It didn't happen in any of our testing, we found no mechanical flaws."

Drunk:

"Well, it was something more profound than a gross mechanical flaw, or electronic flaw, or computer programming bug. The error was the result of an extremely subtle event, one that was following the uncertainty principle, it was a quantum mechanical event that caused a random false reading, so I am not to blame...I am a victim of quantum mechanical forces that randomly cause mischief like this. You just never know when they will trigger such events and cause such problems. I even thought about suing the manufacturer for product liability, but some brilliant lawyer said I had no case, as the malfunction which was random and completely unpredictable was the result of a spontaneous unpredictable act of quantum mechanics and there fore the company was not liable. He said these quantum mechanical events are more powerful than acts of God. Frankly this understanding of how powerful and unpredictable these quantum mechanical events are have really rocked my world. I now live in constant fear that the wheels will fall off my car due to these quantum mechanical forces."

Judge:

"My God, what a defense...I can't wait for some kid to say "No the dog didn't eat my homework, it was a quantum mechanical event that is to blame."



Quote from kjkent1:

Really? Do tell...
More...
 
>
>
>
>
>
>
"PEOPLE SAY ALL KINDS OF THINGS. "SAY", OR "WROTE" IS NOT ENOUGH. IF ONE ACCEPTS EVERYTHING THAT PEOPLE SAY, DEEP TROUBLE FOLLOWS. WITH SO MANY CRACKPOTS CLAIMING SO MANY THINGS (911 for example), WHY WOULDN'T ONE DEMAND JUST A BIT MORE? EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS REQUIRE EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE -- PERIOD.
>
>
>
>
>

All caps eh? Very rational screaming there Turdick...

Quote from Turok:

Shoe:
>But, you see, I brought that up to show
>another example where you immediately
>dismiss everything as false.

Stop with the strawman ... I haven't dismissed any of them as "false" (as proof, note I referenced Reagan's sighting as "possible"). However, due to 100% failure rate *so far*, without further evidence, I'm dismissing the entire "I saw" category as unreliable.

A police officer once testified under oath and on the stand that he "saw" me dealing drugs -- never happened, haven't dealt/sold drugs once in my entire life. "Saw" better have something more behind it or I'm unimpressed.

>In the case of the Phoenix Lights Incident, I brought
>up a respected neurosurgeon who lived in Phoenix and
>described how (I believe it was 3) lights moved slowly
>in front of her window, etc.

"Respected" isn't a valid qualification for explaining what a person saw or didn't see. Respected people see the virgin mary in a Twinkie -- doesn't mean she's there.

>Now, regardless of your impression, note that
>you immediately dismissed what she wrote. Why?

Dude - in addition to upgrading your BS meter, you need to read what I've written. In two previous posts, I've said EXACTLY why.

PEOPLE SAY ALL KINDS OF THINGS. "SAY", OR "WROTE" IS NOT ENOUGH. IF ONE ACCEPTS EVERYTHING THAT PEOPLE SAY, DEEP TROUBLE FOLLOWS. WITH SO MANY CRACKPOTS CLAIMING SO MANY THINGS (911 for example), WHY WOULDN'T ONE DEMAND JUST A BIT MORE? EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS REQUIRE EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE -- PERIOD.

So, I'm predictable ... you can "tell me" over and over that 2 + 2 = 5 if you wish. Since I've added it up quite a few times myself and it always totaled "4", you're going to have to do more than SAY it equals "5" for me to pay attention. Perhaps you can make it add up to 5 or 6 or whatever, but you better be prepared to do more than just "say" it.

Need you ask why again, or is it clear this third time?

JB
More...
 
Quote from Turok:

Shoe:
>But, you see, I brought that up to show
>another example where you immediately
>dismiss everything as false.

Stop with the strawman ... I haven't dismissed any of them as "false" (as proof, note I referenced Reagan's sighting as "possible"). However, due to 100% failure rate *so far*, without further evidence, I'm dismissing the entire "I saw" category as unreliable.
More...

C'mon don't use the logic stuff to avoid the conclusion. Here's what I'm getting at: you always dismiss every supernatural argument no matter how straightforward. It's not a strawman. That's what you do. Your knee jerk reaction is, "There's got to be a nonsupernatural reaction" and you ignore it.

If I'm wrong about you, forgive me. But you attack me so much when I present a supernatural argument that I cannot help to come to that conclusion.

If you'll look into the supernatural research books, you'll find example after example of well-researched things that are very, very difficult to explain. Here's one example:

"She reports him as appearing as solid and objective as in real life and she was able to describe the clothes he was wearing. The only part of her description that did not fit Arthur was that he was no longer limping and appeared free of the hip problem that had affected him towards the end of his life...There was no television switcdhed on in the lounge at the time, no ptets in the houselhold and no object in the line of sight that could conceivably have been mistaken for a human being. "

Here is an example of a young woman that literally saw one of her relatives post-mortem. The woman was described as "an intelligent, practical with good vision and a skeptic of the paranormal before the event." Furthermore, the researchers did a good job and pointed out "she was shaken afterwards so was not exagerrating was and she described it right after so it was not a memory issue."

Now here's a good solid case. Now what I want you to say, "Well, it could be real, but I doubt it." But you can't even say that. You automatically dismiss it. That's what I'm getting at: you immediately reject because it doesn't satisfy your criterion for proof.

Now am I wrong? Are you actually open to the idea that this may be true? Am I missing something here?
 
Quote from Turok:


"Respected" isn't a valid qualification for explaining what a person saw or didn't see. Respected people see the virgin mary in a Twinkie -- doesn't mean she's there.


Dude - in addition to upgrading your BS meter, you need to read what I've written. In two previous posts, I've said EXACTLY why.

PEOPLE SAY ALL KINDS OF THINGS. "SAY", OR "WROTE" IS NOT ENOUGH. IF ONE ACCEPTS EVERYTHING THAT PEOPLE SAY, DEEP TROUBLE FOLLOWS. WITH SO MANY CRACKPOTS CLAIMING SO MANY THINGS (911 for example), WHY WOULDN'T ONE DEMAND JUST A BIT MORE? EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS REQUIRE EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE -- PERIOD.

So, I'm predictable ... you can "tell me" over and over that 2 + 2 = 5 if you wish. Since I've added it up quite a few times myself and it always totaled "4", you're going to have to do more than SAY it equals "5" for me to pay attention. Perhaps you can make it add up to 5 or 6 or whatever, but you better be prepared to do more than just "say" it.

Need you ask why again, or is it clear this third time?

JB
More...

I'm not trying to annoy, btw. But look at what you wrote above: the neurosurgeon is probably a crackpot. People lie. People "say all kinds of things".

If you'll recall, I told you that the surgeon actually kept this all to herself and did not come out with it for years. Furthermore, the lights in Phoenix were seen by hundreds of people. Why would you automatically assume there's a non-supernatural explanation?

Again, the assumption is that there has to be a "material, non-supernatural" explanation.

Well, I'll ask it again: "why"?
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

No "do tell" as I already did tell...

Drunk driver before Judge:

"Judge, it wasn't my fault."

Judge:

"Do tell."

Drunk:

"I was fine till all of a sudden. I was driving properly, I didn't drink that much at all, I even checked my blood alcohol level before I got in the car. Then suddenly I control of the car. I have a high tech device that I blow into that is attached to my car, that prohibits the car from starting if the levels are above the legal limit. The device documents the results and automatically sends them to the black box in the car, as well as sending them to "On Star" service that tracks what happens in my car. So it must have been something wrong with the device that allowed the car to start."

Judge:

"Really? The police checked the car and found no mechanical problems. Our lab checked the device installed in your car and found it working properly. The tests we took on the device provided exact results repeatedly. We found nothing abnormal or defective with the device. You seem to be suggesting some random mechanical event that caused the unit to not work properly, as if some evil spirits or gremlins were at work here. I simply see no scientific explanation for what happened to the device."

Drunk:

"Yes your Honor, it was a random event, and as a result it was not my fault. The black box in the car and On Star both confirmed via the device that I was not above the legal limit. This type of thing just happens with mechanical devices."

Judge:

"Really? It didn't happen in any of our testing, we found no mechanical flaws."

Drunk:

"Well, it was something more profound than a gross mechanical flaw, or electronic flaw, or computer programming bug. The error was the result of an extremely subtle event, one that was following the uncertainty principle, it was a quantum mechanical event that caused a random false reading, so I am not to blame...I am a victim of quantum mechanical forces that randomly cause mischief like this. You just never know when they will trigger such events and cause such problems. I even thought about suing the manufacturer for product liability, but some brilliant lawyer said I had no case, as the malfunction which was random and completely unpredictable was the result of a spontaneous unpredictable act of quantum mechanics and there fore the company was not liable. He said these quantum mechanical events are more powerful than acts of God. Frankly this understanding of how powerful and unpredictable these quantum mechanical events are have really rocked my world. I now live in constant fear that the wheels will fall off my car due to these quantum mechanical forces."

Judge:

"My God, what a defense...I can't wait for some kid to say "No the dog didn't eat my homework, it was a quantum mechanical event that is to blame."
More...
WTF…

Ah, just another TrollZzz moribund analogy.

This time Divinity Drunk is trying to blind a Judge with pseudo science to wiggle his way out of a mess. Sounds familiar, Divinity Drunk will be an ID'ist then.
The Judge uses technology to show Divinity Drunk that technology was working correctly.
It is decided it was ignored or switched off. Much like Divinity Drunk's brain when peddling Intelligent Design .

As usual TrollZzz presents a brilliant argument that technology is no good because technology can prove that it is no good…oh dear god.
 
Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

4. Man pops out of all of this with a brain that makes any IT subsystem on planet earth quite embarassing.
More...

"Pops out" . Over nearly 4 billion years? What on earth is your definition of a long time ?
Just how do you come to use that measure anyway shoe.? The same notion could suggest man with a brain will seem quite embarrassing compared to himself , never mind an IT subsystem, after another 4 billion years.


Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

Now if this is so easy, then I want you to get yourself a team of top level scientists and build yourself a cherry bomb with a bag filled with one elements and, shortly after lighting the fuse and watching the explosion, come and show me the supercomputer that pops out. [/B]
More...

And from where do you imagine the equivalent singularity event along with the "VERY short time frame" of 14 billion years of 'accidents' to incorporate into this cherry bomb will become available?

Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

When you do this, I'll believe it was all just an accident, okay?

If it's so easy, then just do it and make me a believer...
More...
You mean you would become a believer of natural accidents over super-natural accidents? I am not so sure.

With the ability to observe test examine vast numbers of those 'natural accidents' through science on earth , you still appear to prefer to believe in supernatural accidents..

Ones which you cannot know anything about, for as soon as you do, they become natural. As so many have over the ages.
 
If your conclusion was that I said technology was no good, you are indeed blinded by something that appears incurable...fully ripened with reactionary emotional baggage.


Quote from stu:

WTF…

Ah, just another TrollZzz moribund analogy.

This time Divinity Drunk is trying to blind a Judge with pseudo science to wiggle his way out of a mess. Sounds familiar, Divinity Drunk will be an ID'ist then.
The Judge uses technology to show Divinity Drunk that technology was working correctly.
It is decided it was ignored or switched off. Much like Divinity Drunk's brain when peddling Intelligent Design .

As usual TrollZzz presents a brilliant argument that technology is no good because technology can prove that it is no good…oh dear god.
More...
 
Strange thread title. Shouldn't it read something like, "Intelligent Design can also be non-creationist based?" Why make a blanket statement about something that is predominately creationist based? Most of the players of ID are of some brand of creationism. Basically believe that "God did it."

Or am I missing some key fact? The first post of this thread makes a poor explanation in support the thread title IMO.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who noticed this. Probably why this thread is soooo loooong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top