Let me get this straight. The purveyors of Intelligent Design argue that evolution can't account for the incredibly complexity of life--ergo (Latin for duh) there has to be some intelligence (religious twinkie code word for God) that designed life.…
"A sinister cabal of superior writers."
Article comments
— go to most recent comments76 - Tevita
Well Have you ever thought how the world was ever created, as some Scientist would say it began as a big boom, yeah right a boom which created earth,come on, a boom of some how, a boom which created all things on earth, how was the plants and living things like us being created,a boom won't create a single living thing but to only destroy,well you have it all in the bible, well ever thought of reading the bible Genesis, these acient words were prophesized onto the bible thousands of years ago before Christ, and that was even before scientists of being so political of nowadays, stop it I know you fight for stuff that you can't even prove of any evidence.
But I would ask you this question, Have you seen your own brain?
nope, but you know you have a brain
yes that is like God, we haven't seen him but we know he lives and he is the creator of all things, he has all the answers,to all our questions.
Bye you all!
77 - Luke
responding to moses post no.9:
"You have a good arguement point."
"However, do you not agree that altghough the design can be great, it may not withstand misuse. e.g. using the brain to conclude there is no God."
you're saying that thinking is bad, unless it confirms god? We should all think less then, so that we don't misuse our brains, it's safer to not use them at all.
"I wish to add also that the human language can never give a name for something that does not exist. How come then there is a word for "God" in all human languages throughout history."
You've contradicted yourself, by your logic if evolution doesn't exist, we could never have given it that name.
There's a wod for god in every language because ppl are generally the same, we all need to believe there're powers greater than us that have some clue as to what's going on, and it gives us a warm fuzzy feeling inside.
"Why ancient civilization recognized the existence of upper powers and we can not see this in the 21st century?"
The obvious answer is that we're smarter than they were, ancient civilization believed that disease was caused by evil spirits, why can we not see this in the 21st century? Because we're not ignorant, we know that disease is caused by germs, the tiny invisible creatures that get inside you and make you sick.
"Thanx!"
You're welcome
78 - willcodfish
~3 knocks of the gavel~
Gentlemen, I rest my case.
79 - island
Purposeful design in nature doesn't prove intelligent cause.
An arrogant leap of faith to presume that cause for a purpose requires an "intelligent" designer, or even a designer if "design" is perpetually inherent, which is all that we actually have evidence for.
The best that you could get out of this star-trek episode is a very powerful NATURAL entity.
Figure the odds... makes the implausibility far outweigh any realistic hope of being fairly compared to evolutionary theory.
Makes it null and void to science without some seriously hard evidence, like an alien space craft with the blueprints for human design hanging on their drawing board.
Goal oriented design in nature only proves that there is method to nature's apparent madness.
80 - island
LMAO@ BIGBOOM!!!
81 - Luke
Tevita,
the big bang didn't create the earth and all things as they exist now, the big bang only created physical matter, it's really silly the way you simplify scientific theories about how the universe came into existance, there's supposedly 10,000,000,000 years universe construction happening before the first life ever appeared on earth, it wasn't simply BOOM, you can't generalize 10,000,000,000 years of the universes history into one sentence.
82 - island
You can, but it's a very LOOOOOONNNNNGGGGGGG sentence.
She said:
Bye you all!
So low-blows are legal... ;)
83 - willcodfish
My apologies - LADIES and Gentlemen.
84 - cr33py
island-forget it, point missed....
it would require a couple pints to get my point across.
85 - island
You're saying that you could identify an intelligent designer by comparison to human intelligent design.
I say, so what?
Because it takes mega-proof, which you ain't got.
So, all the booze in the world isn't going to make your point anymore realistically plausible to science.
86 - cr33py
Im not trying to prove there is an "intelligent designer"
im tryin to reappropriate the term to actual forensic science. with no god.
87 - troll
Cod - please study up on the proper use of personal pronouns...you've a PhD for Christ’s sake and you're giving higher education a bad name
and while you’re reviewing your comments for improper grammar learn to read - my objection was to (what I considered to be) your snide attitude of superiority not to your insults
troll
88 - willcodfish
". . . if you feel the need to be insulting . . .."
Your quote, not mine. Please attempt to read your own writing before criticizing mine.
89 - cr33py
i find 1480 Codpiece's reactions as the digital equivalent of "the compensator"
....we have all seen em....
big truck, little di....,
sports car, no hair,
big mouth, no brain,
90 - island
Okay, so then you can say that you have a means for detecting intelligent design by humans, but just to cover my bases... that doesn't justify the leap of faith beyond purposeful natural causes to assume that:
certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause
nor that:
In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection -- how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose.
Nor does it justify speculation that there could be "one intelligent designer"
I'm good now, you?... ;)
91 - cr33py
Understood, your points were correct, i didnt write that crap...
"one designer" is silly musings...
all good here...
92 - cr33py
although "certain features of the universe" could mean a house, we could prove it did not evolve.
and "the science of design detection"....well is there allready a term for genetic forensics?
93 - willcodfish
Cr33py - hey think want you want my friend, here are the stats - 8.5, nice thickness, I drive a Nissan even though I make in excess of $200,000.00USD per year - who gives a fuck what your or my car is ??
I'm sure someone in your life told you you were clever, maybe 2 people. The fact is that you are embarrasing yourself on this page. I know you don't think so and the reason is because you can't absorb what it is you're missing. You're not alone - you're among the large, very average mass - you've made that ubundantly clear.
In response, and I suppose out of your frustration, you stoop to sophomoric personal attacks. Guess you didn't take that advice regarding the logic class, or much other advice it seems.
Save your debating skills for something like The proper way to make a grilled cheese sandwich or perhaps How to wash a shirt - things more suitable to your intellect.
94 - island
Yeah, I'd recognize the DI's illogic anywhere.
My bitch is that they get away with it.
Neodarwinists would rather deny that goal oriented design in nature can even exist, than to simply shoot down the plausibility of the science as simply as I did, and be done with it.
Thanks to Dembski and company, they "BELIEVE" that purpose in nature necessarily proves god's existence, so they deny its existence to the point that the mainstream laughs in their face. ID is necessary because extremist creationists carry an extremely vital feature of science in their agenda that gets lost otherwise, and this will remain the case, until Einstein is vindicated.
95 - cr33py
good stuff codpiece...
but you havent proved you are smarter than anyone here, including me.
In response, and I suppose out of your frustration, you stoop to sophomoric personal attacks.
96 - willcodfish
I don't need to prove something that is clear to anyone who will read this page. The word you're looking for is "proven" - not proved.
Again, I thank you for confirming my initial and subsequent comments and observations. You're apparently too much of a forward fumbling fool to realize what those are, but that's ok - people like you are the reason I make so much damm money !
97 - cr33py
hmmmm.....
you think 200k is a lot of money?
98 - willcodfish
Much, much more than you make, that's clear.
And yes, it is a lot - statistically and otherwise.
99 - Blue State
"yes that is like God, we haven't seen him but we know he lives and he is the creator of all things, he has all the answers,to all our questions"
My wife and I drove by a church that had a sign in front reading "Jesus is the Answer." My wife laughed and said, "hey look, a big cheet sheet for an Intelligent Design Science Test!"
100 - Duane
Oh yeah? Well, how much can you bench press? Let's get to the really important stuff.
101 - cr33py
thats like ID science....
lets see....he is not an evolution expert, therefore he makes less money.
we should teach that in highschool math.
102 - willcodfish
Well, unless you've inherited millions or are among the less than 1% worldwide that is in athletics or entertainment - then the conclusion is simple.
Again, and for the last time, you've revealed yourself. If you need advanced explanation to that you'll have to resolve that yourself - I'm not a hand-holder.
103 - cr33py
island
My bitch is that they get away with it.
I here that, thats why i suggest twisting their marketing campaign and throwing it back in their face. evolutionary/genetic science is not my area of expertise as 1480 pointed out but...
if they say that ID is "the science of design detection", this has science fiction level implications, with respect to genetic engineering....ie does DNA evidence become useless in crime investigation when we clone human tissue? or does it leave a trace?
104 - nugget
hahaha!
willcodfish is lame.
"look at me 200k nananana! i'm so smert! "
105 - cr33py
codpiece
i understand that you just like to get a rise outta people and show off....but
ignorance is being uneducated in a subject, and i will confess my ignorance in the case of ID and related science that it ignores, and im not embarrassed....thats why im here, we lose our ingnorance through discovery and discussion. I work in science/engineering and yet you still attack, childishly. I consider many here intelligent and they have engaged and taught me many things. I have learned nothing from you, other than your claimed stats, that you are not nice, and that you have no interest in making the world better through open dialogue. Scientific arogance is actually a big problem in the US today, and it contributes to educational difficulties, we need to open doors for those raised with religion so that they may understand that the two are not in conflict, they are just different things...shuting the inquisitive out will only perpetuate the problem.
another idiotic remark will only result in silence, add to the discussion or piss off.
106 - Temple Stark
So at this point in the "conversation" can we say Intelligent Design failed?
107 - willcodfish
I haven't shut anyone out or closed any doors - quite the contrary. You attempt to debate on my comments, yet you can't even put together a coherent and relevant thought - that's not my problem if you can't handle that or accept it. I've made several positive recommendations on your behalf, yet you've chosen to ignore those. They're still on this page for you and for everyone else to see. Therefore, once again, your argument holds no water.
I'll posit the same question to you that I did to your friend Troll. Please cut and paste the insult I made BEFORE I was insulted first.
108 - willcodfish
Here's the first piece where you directly mention my name and make insulting comments: Log # 47
wiltcodfish - your attack also "is not science" and may be one reason for the growing chasm between science and religion. science rejects pretentious religion, and visa versa - and it IS education that suffers. It is true, my point is more appropriate at a cocktail party than in programmed school education....but your remark is more appropriate on the playground.
I'd like you to show me where it is - before that - that I first insulted you ??
109 - troll
#19 *you need to go back to high school and pay attention this time ! *
#32 *you will be able to emerge from the mire of such staggering ignorance.
*
your snarkhood began with you first comment
So what's your point - ?...get on with it
troll
110 - willcodfish
Not insults - please read the entire bodies of each - these are recommendations.
If you felt they didn't apply to you, then you should have disregarded them, and moved on - yet you did not, you personally attacked.
Big difference
111 - troll
I don't object to your insults - it's your humorlessness and snide attitude that drew my attention
see *69
Do you have any objection to ID that goes beyond *Intelligent Design is not a theory and is not science. *
troll
112 - willcodfish
I don't object to your insults - it's your humorlessness and snide attitude that drew my attention
Oh, sure - you seem to have a big problem. I've read 69 before and commented on it once earlier - and it clearly states that you DO have some sort of problem. And, you chose to jump in on the question posed above to CR33. You can say what you want in 111, but your earlier comments and your action don't match up.
Nor did I begin with a snide attitude. You may CHOOSE to read my text as such - that's your issue, not mine.
As far as my humor goes, you know nothing about it and I don't really care if you do - unfortunately, there isn't anything funny about the original issues and their ramifications.
113 - troll
You are perseverating...
your analysis of *69 is incorrect and your question about insults is nonsensical
true - I don't know you and only respond to your tired comments which strike me as being humorless and snide and which offend my palate
our little exchange has been fulfilling though -yummy
what have you got to say except that people who think that ID is a scientific theory are stupid and/or uneducated - you've made that most edifying point
troll
114 - willcodfish
Not an error of analysis - that seems to be your forte:
My question is not nonsense -you have twice made claims of my insults - I asked you to validate your claims - and you have failed to do so. My question was in response to your INITIAL, personal, direct attack on me.
Cod - feel free to stop wasting time on this ‘ignorance’ any time
snide plays poorly - if you feel the need to be INSULTING (a feeling with which I empathize) try to be a bit humorous in the process
take your academic arrogance off my bridge
troll
Once again, as I mentioned earlier - please do your research and be specific.
115 - troll
*My question was in response to your INITIAL, personal, direct attack on me.*
*69 was a 'recommendation' (as you would say) concerning your writing style...self-aggrandizing arrogance is a dull read
personally insulting - ? that's a matter of choice
*87 on the other hand was intended as a personal insult
troll
116 - willcodfish
No, you're wrong again. The fact that you can't even comprehend your own writing is a bit lame:
They're your words, not mine - to anyone with a mild comprehension of English, they're clear. But, a nice try on your part.
Fact is, you seem to feel you can apply any standard or any label to whatever you like and that then that becomes law. Too bad, but the world doesn't work that way.
For example: Your use of perseverating in 113 is incorrect in terms of both meaning and usage, and demonstrates an inability on your part to be accurate in both the manner you think, reason and relay said thoughts.
If anyone is closer to "perseverating" as you would like it to mean, it is you. You have yet to demonstrate anything remotely substantive regarding your initial claim, yet you continue to pursue a course of floundering, unintelligible shortsightedness.
117 - MSchannon
>Temple asked, "So at this point in the "conversation" can we say Intelligent Design failed?"
The discussion is degenerating badly, but my take is that ID fails as science but has value as a metaphysical discussion--which I add for the nth time is not a bad thing. And it sure seems to me that ID deals with creation while evolution deals with how things change after creation.
Just as physicists will admit they can only speculate as to what happened before the "big bang" (a term many dislike because they're not sure it was one or many explosions)evolutionary scientists will free admit they can only speculate about the creation of life...except to say that people weren't created in 4004 BC...
118 - troll
sorry Mark
troll
119 - Timmy
Fishboy,
Nobody likes a bragger with a thesaurus.
TIMMY!
120 - willcodfish
Didn't brag - I was answering questions earlier - if your reference is to SAT's, cars or income - just stating the simple statistics.
Thesaurus is not the term you're looking for and I didn't use one - or a dictionary (the term you imply).
Braggart is also another word you're looking for.
These things can usually be found in most respectable high school English classrooms.
121 - troll
true - I take liberties with the language when meaning seems clear - not always successful though
and yes - I do enjoy interacting with bottom feeders
with apologies to all who would prefer to read a thread about ID:
questions for Cod - were your comments throughout the thread concerning the stupid the ignorant and the uneducated really sincere recommendations or were they general insults...was it really so unreasonable to interpret them as insults...was I really so off base in pointing out to you that I found them to be snide arrogant and humorless
just wondering
troll
122 - willcodfish
If you notice my initial posts - there are two of them - they were general comments - directed at no one in particular only at the greater theme.
Your first message to me was directed TO me.
Both of my items do end in a recommendation. It's not simply good enough to say, because I want it so, it should be so (in the case of ID). There are procedures, rules and laws, etc, etc that govern the conduct of science. Maybe I'd like to say that 2+2=7. I'd like that to be taught in high school math. Problem is, things don't work that way. The word "theory" has taken on a bit of a casual meaning over time that may confuse people - as in "I think Tiger Woods is the greatest golfer of all time." - and the reply - "Well, that's your theory, not mine." - Meaning: - Opinion. In the world of science-again in all true forms - theory has a wholly different meaning.
So, yes - I would recommend one or two high school science classes - of any discipline.
123 - Timmy
No, you're wrong. I meant "thesaurus" and "bragger." But wouldn't a PhD know that?
124 - troll
*There are procedures, rules and laws, etc, etc that govern the conduct of science. Maybe I'd like to say that 2+2=7. I'd like that to be taught in high school math. Problem is, things don't work that way. The word "theory" has taken on a bit of a casual meaning over time that may confuse people - as in "I think Tiger Woods is the greatest golfer of all time." - and the reply - "Well, that's your theory, not mine." - Meaning: - Opinion. In the world of science-again in all true forms - theory has a wholly different meaning.*
no argument here - ID is a notion - belief - idea - and explanation (metaphysically speaking) but not a scientific theory
troll
125 - cr33py
well allright big boy, you actually stepped up with statement...
calling ID a theory is interesting, i have been trying to figure out exactly what the ID proponents are saying, because everything i read from them defines it more like a movement, they call it a "science"...which is even more troubling. After which they support their "science" with theories...and these opinions (you are correct) are much farther from the scientific method then the mission of the "movement".
I would personally describe ID more as Lobbyists, political special interest.