Intelligent Design struck down in Federal Court

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from dgabriel:

See what I mean.

After defending evolution, dismantling the opposition arguments, what is left is to examine the belief systems of the anti evolutionists. Because faith is inextricably bound to the IDer's stance on evolution, and ID as a science is lacking, the issue becomes the personal, political and religious motivations of the ID proponent.

Good night and Merry Christmas to all!

I missed this post the first time through, but it basically describes where we are at in this thread. That's the most interesting aspect of this exchange - the abillity for someone who sounds 'normal' to indulge in the kind of illogic and apparently willful obfuscation that we have seen here.

I know Z won't believe this, but I assume in all people a certain amount of intelligence. When they exhibit behaviour that belies that assumption, my first instinct is to suspect that the person actually understands their own problem or misbehaviour but is somehow unwilling or unable to change (while making my worst mistakes, I almost always knew I was making them, on some level). Some psychological mechanism exists which stands in the way. But what? Faith? This is the only reason I can come up with. We have seen Z's argument torn apart and his credibility shattered as he repeatedly refuses to respond to direct challenges to his stated position. I can't imagine it's possible that he really doesn't believe in all of this, but is such an opponent of the scientific method that he is using this as a way of 'talking his position'.

The only other explanation is some sort of psychopathology.

Once again, as roberk said, ID can surely be argued much more cogently than it has been here. In the end though, it is obviously a matter of faith.

 

[traderob]

Quote from traderNik:

I.

Once again, as roberk said, ID can surely be argued much more cogently than it has been here. In the end though, it is obviously a matter of faith.

Nik
I have been following this debate for over 10 years.
Part of the reason the ID campaign took the path it has was that the 'scientists' said *you cannot debate with us because you have no counter theory*.
So ID took this route - knowing full well that they had a metaphysical assumption behind their theory. The evolution eggheads genuinely think they have no agenda- but any objective observer can see they are promoting full blown materialism, which is just as much a worldview as Christianity or Hinduism or Islam.
Now I personally do not buy the idea of a creator behind anything. However the idea of chemcials coming together and mixing by chance to make bacteria and then fish to man - all directed by nothing more than natural selection is equally far fetched. So I think it is fair that this crucial cultural split be explained and discussed in the classroom.
A good primer on this from the ID viewpoint is a book by Phillip Johnson, (I can't think of its name). It might annoy because he is speaking mainly to christians but it does show why Christians feel they are been unfairly handicapped in this cultural war.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

"Oh well, you lose again..."

I see you are back to not only providing a point of view, but then assuming the role of a judge who determines who wins the "contest."

I forgot exactly when you had been elevated to the status of judge of this debate.

Once again, assuming the position of attorney, judge, and jury....a habit that has been perpetual by you from the beginning....

Of course it is completely illogical and self absorbed to take such a position as defender of only one side and then to sit in judgment of both sides of the argument, but perhaps that is the nature of either the ego or the training of attorneys, who constantly are not only trying to make a case, but perpetually telling others that they have won the case.

Quote from kjkent1:

God forbid you would provide any specifics -- someone might actually demonstrate that you don't know what you're talking about.

And, there isn't a shred of evidence other than your personal opinion that the probability of design is greater than evolution.

If there were, I'm sure you would provide those specifics, but as you say, your argument doesn't require any, so that would leave the design side of the scale empty, no matter what was on the evolution side.

No, the fact is that I did not lose anything, and you did not win anything....a fact that I am sure you find extremely difficult to deal with.

That makes evolution the winner by default.

Oh well, you lose again...Merry Christmas.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Design theory doesn't require specifics in the same way as logical deduction, as it is the result of a logical induction process. The specifics themselves and their behavior are the facts, and the fact that species are born, they have a lifespan, and they all die is the necessary observation that has been repeated and verified. The level of complexity or simplicity of the biological organism of this pattern of birth, lifespan, then death is not a factor, it is seen in every single species.

We see a species born, live, then die. They produce offspring that then live beyond the time of death. These offspring then do the same as their parents.

So it is not as if the environment could not support life, if this were the case then future generations would not survive even a moment, or we would see gradually decreasing lifespan. Taht is not what we see, we see consistency of lifespan.

The species are able to overcome the 2nd law of thermodynamics by cell regeneration and other mechanism of renewal during the lifespan, but the process of renewal and regeneration loses its efficacy. The biological parts beging to get old and wear out. The environment didn't change, it is an internal programming that causes the regeneration process to degrade. It is a programming, a design. You might call it a design flaw, but if true that it is a design flaw on the basis of just a random chance development, then it would follow that all the evolution in the world, all the possible random spontaneous mutations would have been able to overcome this design eventually by more chance evolution.

There fore is it entirely logical to conclude that all biological organisms are designed to be born, have a lifespan, then die....and this unbroken pattern is by design, not by chance, as if it were by chance, then it is logical to assume that another chance mutation would have produced a different pattern.

The environment is not he cause of death for biological organisms for the most part, it is the internal programming of the organism to no longer regenerate. The regeneration that happens in an organism from birth goes along smashing, then for some unknown reason, the power of regeneration begins to degrade, eventually leading to a weakening of the system that can no longer overcome the environment. The species gets old and dies. The basic building blocks of nutrition from the environment are available to continue the process of regeneration, but for some programming reason, the biological unit no longer regenerates and then dies.

Not one time has a species "evolved" out of this cycle of birth, lifespan, then death. Not one species has been shown to overcome this programming.

Were the species to develop the ability to simply perpetually regenerate itself, it would live forever barring termination of life from some external factor. But death comes for the vast majority of species due to internal programming....the aging process.

We don't see species evolving out of the aging process. That has not happened. In fact, we don't even see natural improvement in this area. We don't see animals after thousands and thousands of years of so called "evolution" extend their lives through some random mutations. We don't see them decrease their lifespan through some random mutations.

It is quite illogical to think that there are these random mutations that lead to new species, yet once the new species is created, and a lifespan determined, that neither the lifespan, or a lifespan at all goes unaltered forever.

If the development of species is purely by ignorant chance and no planning, with a spontaneous mutation waiting around the corner of that species, it would only make sense that at least one species would suddenly and miraculously mutate to a longer lifespan.

Observing all the facts, it is much more logical to conclude that this cycle of birth, lifespan, and death which has never changed is by design and plan.

There are no random chance cycles of birth, lifespan, and death in species.

Quote from kjkent1:

God forbid you would provide any specifics -- someone might actually demonstrate that you don't know what you're talking about.

And, there isn't a shred of evidence other than your personal opinion that the probability of design is greater than evolution.

If there were, I'm sure you would provide those specifics, but as you say, your argument doesn't require any, so that would leave the design side of the scale empty, no matter what was on the evolution side.

That makes evolution the winner by default.

Oh well, you lose again...Merry Christmas.

 

[kjkent1]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Design theory doesn't require specifics in the same way as logical deduction, as it is the result of a logical induction process. The specifics themselves and their behavior are the facts, and the fact that species are born, they have a lifespan, and they all die is the necessary observation that has been repeated and verified. The level of complexity or simplicity of the biological organism of this pattern of birth, lifespan, then death is not a factor, it is seen in every single species.

We see a species born, live, then die. They produce offspring that then live beyond the time of death. These offspring then do the same as their parents.

So it is not as if the environment could not support life, if this were the case then future generations would not survive even a moment, or we would see gradually decreasing lifespan. Taht is not what we see, we see consistency of lifespan.

The species are able to overcome the 2nd law of thermodynamics by cell regeneration and other mechanism of renewal during the lifespan, but the process of renewal and regeneration loses its efficacy. The biological parts beging to get old and wear out. The environment didn't change, it is an internal programming that causes the regeneration process to degrade. It is a programming, a design. You might call it a design flaw, but if true that it is a design flaw on the basis of just a random chance development, then it would follow that all the evolution in the world, all the possible random spontaneous mutations would have been able to overcome this design eventually by more chance evolution.

There fore is it entirely logical to conclude that all biological organisms are designed to be born, have a lifespan, then die....and this unbroken pattern is by design, not by chance, as if it were by chance, then it is logical to assume that another chance mutation would have produced a different pattern.

The environment is not he cause of death for biological organisms for the most part, it is the internal programming of the organism to no longer regenerate. The regeneration that happens in an organism from birth goes along smashing, then for some unknown reason, the power of regeneration begins to degrade, eventually leading to a weakening of the system that can no longer overcome the environment. The species gets old and dies. The basic building blocks of nutrition from the environment are available to continue the process of regeneration, but for some programming reason, the biological unit no longer regenerates and then dies.

Not one time has a species "evolved" out of this cycle of birth, lifespan, then death. Not one species has been shown to overcome this programming.

Were the species to develop the ability to simply perpetually regenerate itself, it would live forever barring termination of life from some external factor. But death comes for the vast majority of species due to internal programming....the aging process.

We don't see species evolving out of the aging process. That has not happened. In fact, we don't even see natural improvement in this area. We don't see animals after thousands and thousands of years of so called "evolution" extend their lives through some random mutations. We don't see them decrease their lifespan through some random mutations.

It is quite illogical to think that there are these random mutations that lead to new species, yet once the new species is created, and a lifespan determined, that neither the lifespan, or a lifespan at all goes unaltered forever.

If the development of species is purely by ignorant chance and no planning, with a spontaneous mutation waiting around the corner of that species, it would only make sense that at least one species would suddenly and miraculously mutate to a longer lifespan.

Observing all the facts, it is much more logical to conclude that this cycle of birth, lifespan, and death which has never changed is by design and plan.

There are no random chance cycles of birth, lifespan, and death in species.

Not a shred of either logic or fact in your post. Your position is simply that you believe in magic and fairy tales.

When you come up with a fact based argument, let us all in on it, ok?

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Now you have appointed yourself as "judge of logic."

Your self appointed position is of course, laughable.

Quote from kjkent1:

Not a shred of either logic or fact in your post. Your position is simply that you believe in magic and fairy tales.

When you come up with a fact based argument, let us all in on it, ok?

 

[weirdscience]

c'mon,

say smthg else, then you say smthg else, then you say smthg, then you say smthg else, then you say smthg, then you say smthg else, then you say smthg, then you say smthg else, then you say smthg, then you say smthg else, then you say smthg, then you say smthg else, then you say smthg, then you say smthg else, then you say smthg, then you say smthg else, then you say smthg, then you say smthg else, then you say smthg, then you say smthg else, then you say smthg, then you say smthg else, then you say smthg, then you say smthg else, then you say smthg, then you say smthg else, then you say smthg, then you say smthg else, then you say smthg, then you say smthg else, then you say smthg, then you say smthg else, then you say smthg, then you say smthg else, then you say smthg, then you say smthg else, then you say smthg, then you say smthg else, then you say smthg, then you say smthg else, then you say smthg, then you say smthg else, then you say smthg, then you say smthg else, then you say smthg, then you say smthg else, then you say smthg, then you say smthg else, then you say smthg, then you say smthg else, then you say smthg, then you say smthg else, then you say smthg...

i think we're really getting somewhere!

besides we got plenty of LIFE-TIME to squander !

 

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Design theory doesn't require specifics in the same way as logical deduction, as it is the result of a logical induction process. The specifics themselves and their behavior are the facts, and the fact that species are born, they have a lifespan, and they all die is the necessary observation that has been repeated and verified. The level of complexity or simplicity of the biological organism of this pattern of birth, lifespan, then death is not a factor, it is seen in every single species.

We see a species born, live, then die. They produce offspring that then live beyond the time of death. These offspring then do the same as their parents.

So it is not as if the environment could not support life, if this were the case then future generations would not survive even a moment, or we would see gradually decreasing lifespan. Taht is not what we see, we see consistency of lifespan.

The species are able to overcome the 2nd law of thermodynamics by cell regeneration and other mechanism of renewal during the lifespan, but the process of renewal and regeneration loses its efficacy. The biological parts beging to get old and wear out. The environment didn't change, it is an internal programming that causes the regeneration process to degrade. It is a programming, a design. You might call it a design flaw, but if true that it is a design flaw on the basis of just a random chance development, then it would follow that all the evolution in the world, all the possible random spontaneous mutations would have been able to overcome this design eventually by more chance evolution.

There fore is it entirely logical to conclude that all biological organisms are designed to be born, have a lifespan, then die....and this unbroken pattern is by design, not by chance, as if it were by chance, then it is logical to assume that another chance mutation would have produced a different pattern.

The environment is not he cause of death for biological organisms for the most part, it is the internal programming of the organism to no longer regenerate. The regeneration that happens in an organism from birth goes along smashing, then for some unknown reason, the power of regeneration begins to degrade, eventually leading to a weakening of the system that can no longer overcome the environment. The species gets old and dies. The basic building blocks of nutrition from the environment are available to continue the process of regeneration, but for some programming reason, the biological unit no longer regenerates and then dies.

Not one time has a species "evolved" out of this cycle of birth, lifespan, then death. Not one species has been shown to overcome this programming.

Were the species to develop the ability to simply perpetually regenerate itself, it would live forever barring termination of life from some external factor. But death comes for the vast majority of species due to internal programming....the aging process.

We don't see species evolving out of the aging process. That has not happened. In fact, we don't even see natural improvement in this area. We don't see animals after thousands and thousands of years of so called "evolution" extend their lives through some random mutations. We don't see them decrease their lifespan through some random mutations.

It is quite illogical to think that there are these random mutations that lead to new species, yet once the new species is created, and a lifespan determined, that neither the lifespan, or a lifespan at all goes unaltered forever.

If the development of species is purely by ignorant chance and no planning, with a spontaneous mutation waiting around the corner of that species, it would only make sense that at least one species would suddenly and miraculously mutate to a longer lifespan.

Observing all the facts, it is much more logical to conclude that this cycle of birth, lifespan, and death which has never changed is by design and plan.

There are no random chance cycles of birth, lifespan, and death in species.

I actually like this post, because in it we find the distillation of everything we have been pointing out. There is nothing here except 'I think it is reasonable to believe'. Not one shred of evidence, proof, reasoned argument, nothing. Just superstition and faith in ghosts.

Z, you may wonder why we persist in trying to get you to admit that your reasoning is sloppy and that your conclusions are invalid. Do you really think it is because we care what you think? You are too far gone for us to ever be able to help you.

The point is we do not want to teach this rubbish to our kids. I am speaking of your 'method', if one can be said to exist. Your method, the one in which you make a claim and then when someone asks you for reasoning or evidence for your statements, you say

"I think it is reasonable to believe it" and

"There is no proof to the contrary" and

"My theory doesn't require specifics"

!!!!!!

(Wow - this is my new favourite - my old favourite was "I refuse to answer that question") and

"It is entirely logical to conclude...(this on no evidence whatsoever) and, when a question comes up that makes you really uncomfortable,

"That is a personal attack"

 

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

We don't see species evolving out of the aging process. That has not happened. In fact, we don't even see natural improvement in this area. We don't see animals after thousands and thousands of years of so called "evolution" extend their lives through some random mutations. We don't see them decrease their lifespan through some random mutations.

How do you know? Is it because you think it's reasonable to assume it?

This is actually untrue. We have seen dramatic changes in human lifespan over the past 20,000 years. Who is to say that all of it is because of technology?

Z, has it occurred to you that we have only been observing these processes in a codified way for a short period of time, in terms of the development of the myriad species that have populated the earth since the beginning of time? How many species have lived and died since life began? Were you there to observe their lifespans to make sure that mutations didn't cause changes in life span?

I said earlier that the lifespan of humans is bound to change over extremely long time frames. I mentioned 200,000 years. What about 1,000,000 years Z? Are you saying that you know that in 1,000,000 years, human lifespan will not have changed significantly through genetic mutation?

Is that what you are saying? If so, why do you believe this?

I asked you this once before. but for some reason we didn't get an answer...

 

[daliddleguy]

I don't get it.

Who cares what others believe?

I'm French, I believe all kinds of crap, and I really do believe it, but I don't give a tinkers what anyone else thinks and wouldn't think of trying to prove or disprove their bs or lack of bs.

I was wondering if this was a cultural phenomena of English speakers, but then I had to add Catholics, and then I had to add socialists and capitalists, and then I had to add Germans, and then......................