UyiIredia:


ID is a well-established fact given the evidence available. In fact it's the best game in town.

Declaring your beliefs as true does not make them true. Show me the peer-reviewed journal. Hell, show me a single peer-reviewed research paper. Show me a science textbook still in use that even mentions ID as anything other than a fancy creation myth.

UyiIredia:


Your opinion doesn't count as fact and rightly so. Just because intelligent design can't give specifics of design doesn't make it useless and doesn't eliminate the fact that intelligent agency is a mechanism for effecting design. There simply isn't enough data for us to know how design was done. And we are not evolutionists, we don't paint up fanciful imaginary scenarios. Sometimes one must satisfy oneself with the fact that some things may never be known.

This reply sucks so much.

ID is very useless. It doesn't tell us anything about anything. Everything we know about genetics, reproduction, biological mechanisms, fits neatly into an evolutionary model. We DO know how reproduction works, how genetic codes are altered and read, what gives rise to certain phenotypic features, what types of mutations are possible, and which ones can lead to disease. The ID hypothesis, to even grant it that, has not played any role in discovering any of this, and it doesn't even help explain some of the simplest established biological theories (like the germ theory of disease & cell theory) talk less of the unifying theory of all biology.

It's a very sad case of projection when you can sit there and say this: "we are not evolutionists, we don't paint up fanciful imaginary scenarios" when ID and all forms of creationism are nothing but human imagination, inspired by equally useless religious ideas - no evidence or effort necessary. While evolution has nearly 200 years worth of exponentially growing evidence backing it up (which does indeed exist, whether or not you choose to ignore it).

At least evolution gets us something. Like medicines, and better food. At least it gives us something tangible, applicable, and useful. At the very least, evolution has something to show for, whether or not you accept all of it's premises. Intelligent design, however, is absolutely devoid of any productive impact. It does nothing at all, except give the religious something to cling to that doesn't look as foolish as regular old creationism, but still comes pretty close. Classifying ID as science would be like classifying bushmeat as a gourmet dish.

cloudgoddess:

Declaring your beliefs as true does not make them true. Show me the peer-reviewed journal. Hell, show me a single peer-reviewed research paper. Show me a science textbook still in use that even mentions ID as anything other than a fancy creation myth.

Google Douglas Axe and Ann Gauger. They both released ID research in peer-reviewed journals. Then again, I should say peer review doesn't make a theory true. Darwin's work wasn't peer reviewed was it.

cloudgoddess:

This reply sucks so much.

Your brain is all mushy if you think so.

cloudgoddess:

ID is very useless. It doesn't tell us anything about anything. Everything we know about genetics, reproduction, biological mechanisms, fits neatly into an evolutionary model. We DO know how reproduction works, how genetic codes are altered and read, what gives rise to certain phenotypic features, what types of mutations are possible, and which ones can lead to disease. The ID hypothesis, to even grant it that, has not played any role in discovering any of this, and it doesn't even help explain some of the simplest established biological theories (like the germ theory of disease & cell theory) talk less of the unifying theory of all biology.

Evolution had nothing to do with the discoveries you mentioned.

cloudgoddess:

It's a very sad case of projection when you can sit there and say this: "we are not evolutionists, we don't paint up fanciful imaginary scenarios" when ID and all forms of creationism are nothing but human imagination, inspired by equally useless religious ideas - no evidence or effort necessary. While evolution has nearly 200 years worth of exponentially growing evidence backing it up (which does indeed exist, whether or not you choose to ignore it).

Posting without substance. Insult without reasoning. Typical of fools.

cloudgoddess:

At least evolution gets us something. Like medicines, and better food. At least it gives us something tangible, applicable, and useful. At the very least, evolution has something to show for, whether or not you accept all of it's premises. Intelligent design, however, is absolutely devoid of any productive impact. It does nothing at all, except give the religious something to cling to that doesn't look as foolish as regular old creationism, but still comes pretty close. Classifying ID as science would be like classifying bushmeat as a gourmet dish.

State the evidence of your theory and get schooled about how it doesn't stand. ID gave us food and medicines not your beloved evolution.

UyiIredia:


Intelligent design may not give you a step-by-step of how design took place but we do know intelligent agents acting on matter can make systems similar to those found in nature. In that sense, intelligent design is a mechanism even if we don't know the specifics.

Do you have examples of undesigned materials to which we can readily compare with designed materials in order to grasp the chasm between both?

UyiIredia:


Your opinion doesn't count as fact and rightly so. Just because intelligent design can't give specifics of design doesn't make it useless and doesn't eliminate the fact that intelligent agency is a mechanism for effecting design. There simply isn't enough data for us to know how design was done. And we are not evolutionists, we don't paint up fanciful imaginary scenarios. Sometimes one must satisfy oneself with the fact that some things may never be known.

You see yourself?!! There is no data but hey, why let that stop us, let's just paint up a fanciful imaginary scenario instead.

Kay17:


Do you have examples of undesigned materials to which we can readily compare with designed materials in order to grasp the chasm between both?

The oceans.

PastorAIO:


You see yourself?!! There is no data but hey, why let that stop us, let's just paint up a fanciful imaginary scenario instead.

Wetin dis one dey talk

UyiIredia:


The oceans.

By oceans, do you also mean its constitutual part -- water -- oxygen hydrogen?!

Kay17:


By oceans, do you also mean its constitutual part -- water -- oxygen hydrogen?!

Get on with it for Christ's sake. You're fond of complicating simple things.

UyiIredia:


The oceans.

I just want to get you straight. Are you saying that the Oceans are undesigned?

PastorAIO:


I just want to get you straight. Are you saying that the Oceans are undesigned?

Sure. Undesigned doesn't mean they weren't created though. The difference is in the intellectual effort required to make them.

UyiIredia:


Sure. Undesigned doesn't mean they weren't created though. The difference is in the intellectual effort required to make them.

Do you think that there could be human beings that God didn't put too much intellectual effort when he was making them?

PastorAIO:


Do you think that there could be human beings that God didn't put too much intellectual effort when he was making them?

You are the first one that comes to mind. Jack Bizzle is another one.

UyiIredia:


Get on with it for Christ's sake. You're fond of complicating simple things.

It's better to ask because I'm led to believe that God created and designed the Universe from Nothingness, except water oceans oxygen and hydrogen who decided to come on their own from Nothingness.

UyiIredia:


Sure. Undesigned doesn't mean they weren't created though. The difference is in the intellectual effort required to make them.

I thought creation itself was an intellectual effort in itself.

UyiIredia:


You are the first one that comes to mind. Jack Bizzle is another one.

Great! My daddy used to tell me that, Anything worth doing is worth doing well.

I wonder what kind of a useless Miscreant of a God this your God is that goes to work yet fails to apply himself with appropriate thoroughness to his work. He is a very Worthless stupid God, this god of yours.

Kay17:


I thought creation itself was an intellectual effort in itself.

True. The effort required to make some things surpasses other things. The more complex a thing is the more effort required to make it.

PastorAIO:


Great! My daddy used to tell me that, Anything worth doing is worth doing well.

I wonder what kind of a useless Miscreant of a God this your God is that goes to work yet fails to apply himself with appropriate thoroughness to his work. He is a very Worthless stupid God, this god of yours.

A so-called pastor yabbing God. You must be a fake one.

Kay17:


It's better to ask because I'm led to believe that God created and designed the Universe from Nothingness, except water oceans oxygen and hydrogen who decided to come on their own from Nothingness.

Water was created too. This is just a classic case of how you shift from a statement without really tackling anything substantiative.

UyiIredia:


True. The effort required to make some things surpasses other things. The more complex a thing is the more effort required to make it.

The truth is you can not produce an undesigned material when you have a basic premise stating God created everything. And the absence of an undesigned material undermines your design argument since you cannot distinguish between a design and non design.

Furthermore since you agree creation is an intellectual effort, the absence of intellectual effort implies the absence of creation itself!

Kay17:


The truth is you can not produce an undesigned material when you have a basic premise stating God created everything. And the absence of an undesigned material undermines your design argument since you cannot distinguish between a design and non design.

Furthermore since you agree creation is an intellectual effort, the absence of intellectual effort implies the absence of creation itself!

The guy is so utterly confused. People should follow their natural inclinations. if one is not naturally inclined to philosophical or intellectual issues it is better to just leave it, rather than stress oneself with pretentious pseudo-intellectuallism. lol.

Degrees of Effort means that there is some resistance to the efforts. Where there is more resistance you need more effort. What was resisting against God when god was putting sometimes more effort and sometimes less effort to his creations?

UyiIredia:


A so-called pastor yabbing God. You must be a fake one.

Without a doubt. As fake as your daft God.

UyiIredia:


Wetin dis one dey talk

I nor think say you go fit understand lai lai.

Kay17:


The truth is you can not produce an undesigned material when you have a basic premise stating God created everything. And the absence of an undesigned material undermines your design argument since you cannot distinguish between a design and non design.

Furthermore since you agree creation is an intellectual effort, the absence of intellectual effort implies the absence of creation itself!

But this doesn't fly as one only needs to identify the hallmarks of design to know if a thing is designed. Information and functional complexity being 2 hallmarks of design.

UyiIredia:


Water was created too. This is just a classic case of how you shift from a statement without really tackling anything substantiative.

This proves how necessary my earlier question was.

How is there an undesigned ocean without water?!

Kay17:

This proves how necessary my earlier question was.
How is there an undesigned ocean without water?!

Again with the needless questions.

PastorAIO:

Without a doubt. As fake as your daft God.

Take pastor with poor reasoning. A perfect combo.

PastorAIO:

Without a doubt. As fake as your daft God.

Fake pastor with poor reasoning. A perfect combo.

UyiIredia:


Fake pastor with poor reasoning. A perfect combo.

You can yabb me from morning to night it is still not going to make the nonsense you are spewing valid, neither is it going to make your daft god viable.

Kay17:


This proves how necessary my earlier question was.

How is there an undesigned ocean without water?!

Am I getting you right? If water is designed… and water is a key component of the ocean… then the ocean cannot be undesigned.

Is this the query that some are calling needless questions, just because they want to win an argument and pass themselves off as being intellectual?

UyiIredia:


But this doesn't fly as one only needs to identify the hallmarks of design to know if a thing is designed. Information and functional complexity being 2 hallmarks of design.

How is it possible to know that the particulars information and functional complexity are hallmarks when there is lack of non designs whose lack of information and functional complexity would have clearly demonstrated the efficacy of your argument!

At the end of the day, we both have to realize that some of these functional complexity is organized by Nature and probably God is the ultimate conductor, but you must concede that Nature is indeed or at least an agent of the ultimate conductor.