LordReed:


https://www.nairaland.com/1412636/non-christian-chatbox-sticky/214#91759275

I could be wrong sir, but I don't think it's because the engagement were bereft of substance, but because you had already made up your mind a priori on what to believe and what not to believe. We all to some degree are guilty of this. Even upto holding onto things we can't necessarily substantiate.

I could be wrong again,but even if God shows up at your doorstop as you want, your mind at this stage would still find a way of rationalizing the experience away.
The human mind is capable of explaining away almost anything; A man can commit the worst atrocities and his mind can still find a way of rationalizing it; In Hitler's mind he thought he was doing his people a service by trying to start a master race. To be clear sir I'm not making a one-to-one relationship between you or anyone and Hitler, I'm just using an extreme example to show how powerful our minds can be in shaping reality even if when we are conscious it.

All in all sir, I truly wish you all the best in your next phase.

OtemAtum:


What part of your body is responsible for the coordinations of all the activities of your body? Do you single out that part when talking about yourself? Also, because I tried explaining God Almighty as a human being doesn't mean that it is a human being, so don't limit your thought to humanlike structures where the brain carries intelligence alone. But in the case of God Almighty, every conscious fragment of it also have intelligence. But the summation of this intelligence is what we call God Almighty. We call it summation of consciousnesses.

You say that the model of the universe has an endpoint, but you don't actually know that God Almighty surpasses the universes. Rather, God Almighty is the TOTALITY of Existence. The universe that is observed by the scientists yet is just one out of uncountable universes within God Almighty(Totality of Existence).

There is actually a model which reveals to us something like this.

What I find is that you propose another god without logical justification neither justifying your disbelief in the other gods.
a.) Your totality of existence god though is a constantly changing and alternating reality with sections of him, like our universe, here today and gone tomorrow asides the fact that parts of him are antagonistic to others unlike the human body which is coordinated to act uniformly in ultimate purpose. Parts of him are responsible for elimination of other parts, and such animosity is logically only sustainable towards an eventual constant state as the laws of thermodynamics suggests. So your god is bound to eventually evolve into a constant state of sustainable aspects of him. It is this that he reaches unto. This is therefore his purpose of existence. Yet the question must arise that how did a god who will end as a constant ever begin except as a constant? It is impossible that there was an unsustainable existence of animosity from the beginning by the impossibility of infinite regress. This should have been responsible for the parent code that led to the current state of existence, this initial should have been god.

b.) Again, you say every part of him is an intelligence yet you deny us any active intelligence, but claim we are only slaves to source codes. We however, strive to get ourselves informed to influence our decisions. You yourself are trying to influence my decision on god believing you can turn me to your way. You have even cursed all other gods and tried to divert us from their worship. This would have been unnecessary if you really believed I can only do according to my inner source codes. Why pick a quarrel with these gods if they are only running according to source codes and why educate men against them if these men are following their divine source codes. You live the contradiction of your belief and are proof of the madness of your god.

DrLiveLogic:


What I find is that you propose another god without logical justification neither justifying your disbelief in the other gods.
a.) Your totality of existence god though is a constantly changing and alternating reality with sections of him, like our universe, here today and gone tomorrow asides the fact that parts of him are antagonistic to others unlike the human body which is coordinated to act uniformly in ultimate purpose. Parts of him are responsible for elimination of other parts, and such animosity is logically only sustainable towards an eventual constant state as the laws of thermodynamics suggests. So your god is bound to eventually evolve into a constant state of sustainable aspects of him. It is this that he reaches unto. This is therefore his purpose of existence. Yet the question must arise that how did a god who will end as a constant ever begin except as a constant? It is impossible that there was an unsustainable existence of animosity from the beginning by the impossibility of infinite regress. This should have been responsible for the parent code that led to the current state of existence, this initial should have been god.

b.) Again, you say every part of him is an intelligence yet you deny us any active intelligence, but claim we are only slaves to source codes. We however, strive to get ourselves informed to influence our decisions. You yourself are trying to influence my decision on god believing you can turn me to your way. You have even cursed all other gods and tried to divert us from their worship. This would have been unnecessary if you really believed I can only do according to my inner source codes. Why pick a quarrel with these gods if they are only running according to source codes and why educate men against them if these men are following their divine source codes. You live the contradiction of your belief and are proof of the madness of your god.

Even in our bodies, we have anitbodies fighting other stuffs in our bodies. We even have worms in our bodies that are parasitic as well as symbiotic in our body. Taking sugar gives us energy, yet it can cause diabetes. Fats in our body is useful and can also lead to obesity. Protein has both good and bad effects in our body. That's exactly what is happening within existence. You say that I'm trying to influence your thoughts, but you don't understand that it is part of the source code. Whether you become eventually influenced or not is also part of the source code. Is your hand a slave to your brain? That we have an overall consciousness doesn't mean that we are slaves to it. We are this consciousness, but we are little little fragments of it. You said that I'm trying to bring another god, but this is untrue. Existence(God) has always been and nothing can surpass existence. Jehovah, Allah, Moloch, Vishnu, Atum, Shiva, Olorun etc have certain times when they began to be made known, but we all met Existence(God) here when we became conscious to the earth reality. So why are you trying to tell me that I'm just bringing another god when Existence has always been.

OtemAtum:
Even in our bodies, we have anitbodies fighting other stuffs in our bodies. We even have worms in our bodies that are parasitic as well as symbiotic in our body. Taking sugar gives us energy, yet it can cause diabetes. Fats in our body is useful and can also lead to obesity. Protein has both good and bad effects in our body. That's exactly what is happening within existence. You say that I'm trying to influence your thoughts, but you don't understand that it is part of the source code. Whether you become eventually influenced or not is also part of the source code. Is your hand a slave to your brain? That we have an overall consciousness doesn't mean that we are slaves to it. We are this consciousness, but we are little little fragments of it. You said that I'm trying to bring another god, but this is untrue. Existence(God) has always been and nothing can surpass existence. Jehovah, Allah, Moloch, Vishnu, Atum, Shiva, Olorun etc have certain times when they began to be made known, but we all met Existence(God) here when we became conscious to the earth reality. So why are you trying to tell me that I'm just bringing another god when Existence has always been.

No. This doesn't follow the logic. Our bodies in the regard you speak are not a closed system. Germs and negative matter continually gets introduced from the external through food, air etc. When these get in, the antibodies eliminate them to return the body to its original state of rest. The point is there is a state of rest where the body isn't annihilating itself before such introduction.
Still goes with the logic that the animosity in the universe cannot be sustained infinitely. As matter gets eliminated, sustainable matter results, which process continues until the sustainable matter which cannot destroy itself. In the end there must be a state of rest.
Also the animosity could not have been from the beginning as there could be no infinite regress, so there was evidently a state of rest in the beginning. It is only this state of rest/constant which was in the beginning, the source of all things and which will be in the end, the remainder after all transients pass that we can define as god.
You make my point and contradict yourself when you say existence is god because we met existence there. This would be said all the way back to the first consciousness that "met" the initial existence. Only this initial never meeting any existence but itself then is god.
All other came from it, becoming conscious only at some point, the earliest occurrence being called the beginning of finite time. This is the only logical position. What we must investigate then is what this god/original existence is rather than the transients that met this existence.
Again on the animosity. It is impossible for a consciousness which existed in a state of rest to initiate an action towards its own destruction even according to laws of mechanics. Meaning the original consciousness could not have initiated the animosity. If then there is animosity at any point in existence, it shows that there was a point of creation of a consciousness free to take a different mould from the original. So the current state of animosity in the universe is proof of a point of creation of consciousness free to oppose original. Both freedom of will, opposed to your enslaved will/source code message, and an initial and final state of rest are easily deductible from the current state of existence.
@ the bolded, you would say it's in "my source code", wouldn't you? Forgetting your own mantra?

DrLiveLogic:

@ the bolded, you would say it's in "my source code", wouldn't you? Forgetting your own mantra?

I'm following your discussion with Otem. Please, use short paragraphs in your posts so they're easy to read.

gensteejay:

I'm following your discussion with Otem. Please, use short paragraphs in your posts so they're easy to read.

Indeed, I get your point. Thanks for pointing out. The last post especially was done in a hurry ina bid to go out for some other business. I've quickly tried to modify though. Still expecting your own questions like I indicated before so we can appreciate all angles.

DrLiveLogic:

Still expecting your own questions like I indicated before so we can appreciate all angles.

I'd try and respond to it as soon as possible.

I have a lot on my plate now and don't have much time to type lengthy posts at this period.

Tamaratonye5 Tantrum, I invite you to this dance.

DrLiveLogic, next time have the common courtesy to give me a fair warning in advance before subjecting me to mindless wall of rant sitting above in your OP! Anyone opening this thread is doing so at his/her own risk. I suspected it will be such anyway, so its a good thing I brought my hard hat and gas mask
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DrLiveLogic:
Share your thoughts and critiques if reasonable

DrLiveLogic:
Technology today has put even the faithless on a most privileged pedestal to appreciate the creator because in tech today, we get to create things that actually work.

The stuff that was created in the past (knives, bow and arrow, reading and writing, etc) didn’t work?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DrLiveLogic:
So when some evolutionist says evolution is proof of no god and then goes on to say natural selection defines evolutionary sequences, he literally becomes the most informed dummy in the school of idiots.

I couldn’t agree with you more; anyone who tells you something like that is proof; doesn’t know what they are talking about:

DrLiveLogic:
it still is proof of an intelligence behind existence and it’s development.

Seems you don’t know what you are talking about.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DrLiveLogic, it appears not even you read your OP. You begin by requesting we work together, then proceed to inject insults and charged words such as the following:

DrLiveLogic:
faithless

DrLiveLogic:
privileged pedestal

DrLiveLogic:
informed dummy in the school of idiots

DrLiveLogic:
stupid, lame thought comes to your mind

DrLiveLogic:
get ashamed

DrLiveLogic:
such dumb thoughts

DrLiveLogic:
confirm your mental health isn’t drastically impaired yet

And you expect me to engage in constructive dialogue?

-----------------------------
Cheers
Tamaraton Tantrum

Tamaratonye5:
DrLiveLogic, next time have the common courtesy to give me a fair warning in advance before subjecting me to mindless wall of rant sitting above in your OP! Anyone opening this thread is doing so at his/her own risk. I suspected it will be such anyway, so its a good thing I brought my hard hat and gas mask
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The stuff that was created in the past (knives, bow and arrow, reading and writing, etc) didn’t work?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I couldn’t agree with you more; anyone who tells you something like that is proof; doesn’t know what they are talking about:

Seems you don’t know what you are talking about.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DrLiveLogic, it appears not even you read your OP. You begin by requesting we work together, then proceed to inject insults and charged words such as the following:








And you expect me to engage in constructive dialogue?

-----------------------------
Cheers
Tamaraton Tantrum

It's all good dear. As long as we know evolutionism remains a theory with all so called objective evidence simply subjective. Take that with you anywhere.

All your highlighted grievances tho. Check well, none was directed on a specific person but on a line of thought only. LMAO.

Plus ma'am, you wearing a 12" and a ball gown? seem to be tripping over yourself. Saying you don't subscribe to faith, you've misconstrued, and then getting offended I called you faithless, by my definition, even as it wasn't directed at anyone specifically on that thread?
Well, it'll do you good to tell you you're faithless, cause that gives you hope that you've not exhausted all possibilities for the security of your soul but you won't find that in the realm you've confined yourself to.

DrLiveLogic:
As long as we know evolution remains a theory

Hahahahahahahahahahaha.

This is the dumbest howler a creatard can make. Priceless.

An accepted scientific theory is the pinnacle of scientific thought. You’ll be implying scientific laws are superior to scientific theories next. It really is sad that creatards are this ignorant of the most basic scientific methodology and terminology.

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses but are reliable accounts of the real world.

You can just Google it ffs. PMLMAO etc etc

DrLiveLogic:
All your highlighted grievances tho. Check well, none was directed on a specific person but on a line of thought only. LMAO.

No, you came out of the gate as an asshole. If you did not like my response, tough. My response was proportional to the level of asshole you portrayed. First impression dude, first impressions.

DrLiveLogic:
Well, it'll do you good to tell you you're faithless

That I genuinely take as a compliment. I am faithless, I revel in that label, I am proud of it if a superstitious religious apologist calls me faithless. As I always strive to reason rationally, and using blind faith, as religious apologists do, is absurdly irrational

DrLiveLogic:
..cause that gives you hope that you’ve not exhausted all possibilities for the security of your soul but you won’t find that in the realm you’ve confined yourself to.

Pascal’s Wager. I reject it.
-----------------------------
Cheers
Tamaraton Trigon Tantrum

Tamaratonye5:

Hahahahahahahahahahaha.

This is the dumbest howler a creatard can make. Priceless.

An accepted scientific theory is the pinnacle of scientific thought. You’ll be implying scientific laws are superior to scientific theories next. It really is sad that creatards are this ignorant of the most basic scientific methodology and terminology.

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses but are reliable accounts of the real world.

You can just Google it ffs. PMLMAO etc etc

No shame in learning so if you've got something to teach me, do graciously. But first, verify it. Only for your sake, I googled it, so you wouldn't be so rash in your ignorance next time. Here.
[url=https://www.lexico.com/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&filter=en_dictionary&dictionary=en&s=t&query=theory] Theory 1[/url], Theory 2
Look at the various definitions above and take a wild guess what I mean when I say evolution is a just a theory, supposition, proposition, which is why it is continually modified with findings.
It seems certain you're not trained in the scientific method SM, though obviously learned, evidenced in verbosity and loquacity. Might make a good journalist too, wonder your field?
Not that you're uninformed about the SM but seem yet to apply it to produce standard scientific material else you would understand the justified arguments against the evo rhetoric.
To help you, a theory looks at findings, you wrongly term proof, proposing reasonable explanations, under established principles. However, this is usually subjective and open to modification and critiquing, as there could still be several unknowns, grey areas and more circumspect perspectives. A law, on the other hand, is not open to modification, nor subjected to perspective as it is constant logically deduced by experimentation. Just google all, not some, differences between a theory and a law and quit your huff and puff of more guff. Your 12" will do you no good on this dancefloor, especially not with your draping ball-gown.

When I said you've thrown out a mind of your own, understand I really meant no insult but that you let others do your thinking, swallowing unfiltered info. It's also true of most but on the path to freedom, you need to subject all information to independent scrutiny using logic. I'm certain you're up to the task, hence my suggestion, sweet Tantrum. If you only try this, you'd see why evolutionism doesn't get "fact" status by "consensus" but until the rhetoric is objectively proven to fit the findings without interpolation.

No, you came out of the gate as an asshole. If you did not like my response, tough. My response was proportional to the level of asshole you portrayed. First impression dude, first impressions

Does it make you feel better with cussing? Very well then. I'm no more guilty than the book I quoted. At least I only called a line of thought what it is and that remains what it is.

That I genuinely take as a compliment. I am faithless, I revel in that label, I am proud of it if a superstitious religious apologist calls me faithless...

The undergirding proof of reality is consciousness from which logic is developed. Learn again, logic projects from intrinsically established realities/axioms to deduced realities based on established laws. There is a self-established reality to develop logic from and not deduced by logic. This is why faith, like matter, cannot be logically determined. It is a self-subsistent reality. A little baby knows mama is real because it's aware of her not because of systematic deductions. We similarly know the universe is real.
Are there laws to be developed from the materiality of faith? Like in the universe, yes, but these must be patiently learnt and is why the man of faith has many unknowns in that school and even his knowledge is not impeccable. But faith is a self-subsistent substrate to be freely contacted by any who wishes.
So the substantiality of faith, like our universe, is in consciousness not in logic. The question must be 'how to contact'. It is not about believing bogus claims but about contacting a tangible substrate. If one weren't and is busy convincing himself of anything, he is still faithless.

Cheers
Tamaraton Trigon Tantrum

And why Trigon, if I may ask?

DrLiveLogic
Try googling the correct words next time, as we were talking a scientific theory, and the dumbest creatard canard of all, that you used above, evolution is just a theory. Bless your heart.

Its painfully simple. Laws tell us what happens. Theories explain how and why something happens. Links eh? I have some too.

One of your links, Dictionary .com, also has this definition: scientific theory

"noun
a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation:
the scientific theory of evolution.”

which is only what I've been telling you forever.

And from [url=https://www.livescience.com/21457-what-is-a-law-in-science-definition-of-scientific-law.html#:~:text=In%20general%2C%20a%20scientific%20law,into%20laws%20with%20enough%20research]Live Science[/url]
What is a law in science?

“Generally scientific law is the description of an observed phenomenon. It doesn’t explain why the phenomenon exists or what causes it. The explanation of a phenomenon is called a scientific theory. It is a misconception that theories turn into laws with enough research.”

And two explanations from the “Understanding Science” site at Berkeley University

Under the section “Vocabulary mix ups.”

“Law: In everyday language, a law is a rule that must be abided or something that can be relied upon to occur in a particular situation. Scientific laws, on the other hand, are less rigid. They may have exceptions, and, like other scientific knowledge, may be modified or rejected based on new evidence and perspectives. In science, the term law usually refers to a generalization about data and is a compact way of describing what we’d expect to happen in a particular situation.”

And just above that entry the heading of “Misunderstandings of the limits of science” comes the following:

"MISCONCEPTION: Science contradicts the existence of God.

CORRECTION: Because of some vocal individuals (both inside and outside of science) stridently declaring their beliefs, it’s easy to get the impression that science and religion are at war. In fact, people of many different faiths and levels of scientific expertise see no contradiction at all between science and religion. Because science deals only with natural phenomena and explanations, it cannot support or contradict the existence of supernatural entities — like God."

Which is what I have also been telling you forever.

Get a literate sane adult to help you. Maybe one of the nurses after she’s done cutting your fruit into your bowl for you?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DrLiveLogic:
Does it make you feel better with cussing?

It is not about what makes me feel better. If you knew me better, I prefer to engage in polite discourse. In fact, even befriending a theist so we can have a healthy exchange of opinions where we learn from each other.

But you immediately set the tone, being toxic, combative, and antagonistic. My response was proportional to your post.

DrLiveLogic:
Look at the various definitions above and take a wild guess what I mean when I say evolution is a just a theory,

No need to guess, I've seen enough creatards make this howler. Nothing you’ve posted suggests any interest in honest rational debate, your arrogant pompous hubris in favour of your unevidenced ignorant superstitious fantasies are to be pitied and laughed at.

From now on I shall act accordingly. If you were capable of integrity or adult politeness maybe I’d torture myself reading the asinine drivel you post, but since you’re being a trolling prick, why would I bother exactly? You came to me to peddle your fantasies sunshine, try and grasp that.

You are an asshole. Henceforth, I will treat you as such.
--------------------------
Cheers
Tamara Thumpitcus Tantrum

Tamaratonye5 Tantrum, you are just not trained in the SM. Laws are putting in words objective facts, hence remain objective. Theories are an attempt to explain the whys and can be offered in multiple plausible ways. This is why laws are immutable commensurate to their facts but theories are not but only subjective.
Again do a thorough study on both and may be try at least one scientific experiment involving both to truly comprehend else you'll keep missing the point.

I also like how you've found a way to escape the thread. It's all good, I'm tired of your circles too. At least you've learnt a few things including the false security of evolutionism. Go back and search for answers.

DrLiveLogic:
Tamaratonye.5 Tantrum, you are just not trained in the SM. Laws are putting in words objective facts, hence remain objective. Theories are an attempt to explain the whys and can be offered in multiple plausible ways. This is why laws are immutable commensurate to their facts but theories are not but only subjective.

Well I hate to say this to you, but you have now produced the two dumbest creatard canards there are.

I have to fucking laugh. How can you be this ignorant of basic scientific methodology and phrases, the mind boggles at such stupidity.

DrLiveLogic:
I also like how you've found a way to escape the thread. It's all good, I'm tired of your circles too. At least you've learnt a few things including the false security of evolutionism. Go back and search for answers.

Did posting that trolling drivel make you feel good? Evolution remains an accepted scientific fact. If you had even a cursory grasp of the scientific methods and processes you’d have some inkling of how embarrassing your creationist rhetoric is, but like all the other creatards I’ve encountered you’re utterly closed minded. Unfortunate.
--------------------------------
Cheers
Tamaraton Tucktrumpet Tantrum

Tamaratonye5:

Well I hate to say this to you, but you have now produced the two dumbest creatard canards there are.

I have to fucking laugh. How can you be this ignorant of basic scientific methodology and phrases, the mind boggles at such stupidity.


Did posting that trolling drivel make you feel good? Evolution remains an accepted scientific fact. If you had even a cursory grasp of the scientific methods and processes you’d have some inkling of how embarrassing your creationist rhetoric is, but like all the other creatards I’ve encountered you’re utterly closed minded. Unfortunate.
--------------------------------
Cheers
Tamaraton Tucktrumpet Tantrum

Ok, you win, if it makes you feel better. The cussing game that is. LMAO.
You trying to save face, with barrage of insults, LMAO, saw that. I wonder how many of your logic laws you break per day, Logic criminal Tantrum.

I would now like to engage others who have keen critiques to offer lest the thread gets derailed. Thanks for stopping by. We meet again somewhere.

DrLiveLogic:

Ok, you win, if it makes you feel better. The cussing game that is. LMAO.
You trying to save face, with barrage of insults, LMAO, saw that. I wonder how many of your logic laws you break per day, Logic criminal Tantrum.

I would now like to engage others who have keen critiques to offer lest the thread gets derailed. Thanks for stopping by. We meet again somewhere.

Butthurt because your canards have been fed into the shredder? Such as your canards about scientific theories and scientific postulates? I was just trying to see if you truly understood what you blundered into going down this route. And you've proven to me that as far as this issue is concerned, you don't even cut the mustard here. Your claim begs the question; why ask scientific questions of me if you think I'm so ignorant? Hmmm?

Don’t slam the door on the way out.

I’ve seen your ilk before, and recognise the aetiology of a shill for the Duplicity Institute. Your post content matches exactly the output of said individuals. Noting the requisite correspondence by reference to observational data isn’t a “cussing game”.

As for logic, you’ve repeatedly demonstrated that you wouldn’t recognise logic if it backed an M1 Abrams main battle tank into your ribcage. Here’s a test you can attempt in order to demonstrate otherwise:

[1] What is the rigorous definition of ‘implication’?

[2] Explain why the material conditional has to be deployed with care and diligence in any properly constructed logical derivation;

[3] Explain why the rules of passage for quantificational schemata work for the material conditional, but not the biconditional.

If you understand logic in the manner you assert, the above three questions should be easy to answer. I’ll enjoy seeing you evade them.
Buh Bye
--------------------------------
Cheers
Tamaraton Tintilattus Tantrum

Tamaratonye5:

Butthurt because your canards have been fed into the shredder? Such as your canards about scientific theories and scientific postulates? I was just trying to see if you truly understood what you blundered into going down this route. And you've proven to me that as far as this issue is concerned, you don't even cut the mustard here.

Aww! my huffy-puffy Tantrum. Take a moment and imagine all this was true. Oooh!, how awesome the feeling! LMAO
You're actually entertaining and funny, I mean your yowling tendencies coupled with feistiness. If you're married, your husband's definitely got a catch, never a dull moment with you.

Your claim begs the question; why ask scientific questions of me if you think I'm so ignorant?

Not ignorant, a bit informed but untrained. Actually, I'm only trying to help you see you can't stand on evolutionism for origins.

Here’s a test you can attempt in order to demonstrate otherwise:

[1] What is the rigorous definition of ‘implication’?

[2] Explain why the material conditional has to be deployed with care and diligence in any properly constructed logical derivation;

[3] Explain why the rules of passage for quantificational schemata work for the material conditional, but not the biconditional.

www.nairaland.com/attachments/12038443_20200630235919_jpegfe0a6db38807f0bac9ae647a3249ed5a
Derailing my thread while trying still to assert your knowledge, are you? Listen Tantrum, really don't need to. I don't consider you unintelligent. Stop trying to prove yourself. We all have our different fields and we all keep learning. Curious as to what yours is but I'm pretty sure you have full capacity to do well in it. Even in S&T, I know you will as well but only after proper training. Isn't that true of any discipline?
Your questions tho. LMAO in many ways. Plus asking me proves you not convinced inside you I lack the skill though you wanna pretend so. LMAO.

www.nairaland.com/attachments/12038444_1163350611329740tmpcam814236070jpeg05edf3a07216b1aadacbd45d8aa3872ajpegb81c4ac1f8c139e93be02de058dd054d_jpeg70f19482d315f47ff4b356b21ba3d1dd

But look, even if you've researched all those, it won't make you a logician. It's in the application of those and all tenets of logic that we test capacity. In designing systems, efficiency of written codes, deriving of formulas and relationships from theoretical concepts, your presentation of arguments and the likes that we test mastery of logic, not really worded explanations.
And what might slow you down tho in that, is your emotional volatility evidenced in unbridled use of cusses to pass your view plus some tendency for digression. You must learn to put those aside and strictly uphold logic protocol in a convo.
You know, If I were to employ you in my company, for now, I'd put you not in operations or R& D (until you're well trained), maybe marketing. You got passion and spark, you're feisty, you've got obvious interest in various themes, your verbosity would entertain prospective big time customers, your never-say-die attitude....,
but I'm actually interested in the security of your soul instead. So let's recap what we gathered in our convo.
[1] You're an atheist because you do not want to investigate the reality of creator for yourself, no man is responsible to determine his existence for you.

[2] You are in reality, an agnostic on origins, because science has not disproved ID nor validated the anti-creationist evo rhetoric on origins.(Natural selection, adaptation... validated). We only have theories not absolute laws on origins. Some go with ID, some Evo. This might interest you too

[3] Should you be willing to investigate origins/creator, you can empirically, using a method I'll suggest but first, try answering in all sincerity my Ten questions, including the last 3, which will not prove faith but open you up for the adventure of my method, when you're done or you can reject. Choice is yours.

[4] Faith will be realised in the same plane your emotions, desire, conscience lie, so don't wait for a scientific paper which is outside such scope.

[5] The general understanding of faith as blind belief by both religionists and non religionists is a misconception, going by the bible. Faith is a substrate which creator wants everyone to possess for themselves. Once you contact it, regardless what you've ever done or not done, you are reconnected to him. We all were nasty, ugly and all but those who've contacted faith, are restored by creator's mercies. He who seeks will find.

[6] Theories can get discarded and overturned with more learning. Laws are immutable in their domain. Some theories may graduate to immutability when necessary conditions are met.

[7] Everyone who thinks for themselves, not dependent on someone else's thoughts can tell that ID is self-evident in the universe. Even our bodies with specific parts each designed according to purpose, also maintaining uniformity, with aesthetic differences across the human race. Males having distinct features from females, each gender with conjugate parts. Also, procreative parts suited to each gender, plug and socket mould for perfect fitting towards procreation. Each cell with a defined function. Internal systems within it designed towards self-sustenamce with a seamless interconnection between each internal system as well as a perfect blending to relate with external matter. Damn! Ask anyone that designs robots and systems. The human body is the height of intelligence. So much so that we now model robots, NN after the human brain.
Asides, of course, the cycles in nature and the intergalactic systems. You'll work really hard and need great dose of denial to convince yourself otherwise, if you're intelligent.

Buh Bye
--------------------------------
Cheers
Tamaraton Tintilattus Tantrum

Wish you the best, my huffy-puffy Tantrum.

DrLiveLogic:

Aww! my huffy-puffy Tantrum. Take a moment and imagine all this was true. Oooh!, how awesome the feeling! LMAO
You're actually entertaining and funny, I mean your yowling tendencies coupled with feistiness. If you're married, your husband's definitely got a catch, never a dull moment with you.

Ah, playground insult. I see we’ve found your level once again, lol.

DrLiveLogic:
Not ignorant, a bit informed but untrained. Actually, I'm only trying to help you see you can't stand on evolutionism for origins.

Speaking about this, it seems the site's anti spambot prevented me from posting papers debunking your fatuous claims on speciation in the other thread. I'll keep trying though, however it would be in your best interest to do the honest thing and make the relevant research yourself.

DrLiveLogic:
Derailing my thread while trying still to assert your knowledge, are you?

You were the one who postured in your previous post, as being in command of logic, so it’s perfectly proper to determine if you actually know what you’re talking about, or whether you’re simply blowing smoke out of your ringpiece. Your failure to understand this points to the palsying effects fo mythology fanboyism.

DrLiveLogic:
Stop trying to prove yourself.

No, what I’m doing, in case you failed to understand this, is ask YOU to demonstrate that your posturing is backed by substance. Your failure either to provide that substance, or understand the challenge presented, speaks volumes here.

DrLiveLogic:
Plus asking me proves you not convinced inside you I lack the skill though you wanna pretend so. LMAO.

Care to re-cast this word salad into recognisable English?

It’s precisely because I suspect strongly, as a result of over a decade dealing with your ilk, that you’re all hot air and bluster, that I present challenges aimed at establishing this. Which, courtesy of your ersatz for a substantive reply thereto, they have successfully established.

DrLiveLogic:
And what might slow you down tho in that, is your emotional volatility evidenced in unbridled use of cusses to pass your view plus some tendency for digression. You must learn to put those aside and strictly uphold logic protocol in a convo.

Oh look. the mythology fanboy postures as being in a position to lecture me on discourse. How cute.

Once again, you keep demonstrating that you wouldn’t recognise genuine logic if it backed an M1 Abrams main battle tank into your ribcage.

Plus, your pathetic attempt at tone policing is merely another duplicitous tactic deployed by your ilk, in an attempt to distract from your complete absence of substance.

DrLiveLogic:
but I'm actually interested in the security of your soul instead.

When evidence is provided for this purported “soul” entity, I promise I will sit up and take notice. Until then, I will treat this as nothing more than typical mythology fanboy passive-aggressive sneering, coupled with hubristic pretension.

DrLiveLogic:
You're an atheist because you do not want to investigate the reality of creator for yourself, no man is responsible to determine his existence for you.

A pathetic lie. I'm atheist because mythology fanboys like you have failed to support your fantasies with genuine evidence for millennia.

DrLiveLogic:
You are in reality, an agnostic on origins, because science has not disproved ID nor validated the Darwinian evo rhetoric on origins.

Ah, yet more hubristic attempts to tell me what I think, without bothering with the inconvenience of actually asking me what I think. How often have I seen this from your ilk over the past decade or so?

Science has flushed IDiot assertions down the toilet, such as Behe’s fatuous attempt to redefine “irreducible complexity” to fit mythology fanboyism.

Plus, in case you failed to learn this, the origin of life is NOT part of evolutionary biology. Evolutionary biology concentrates on explaining organismal diversity once replicating organisms exist. The origin of life is the remit of an entirely different discipline, namely organic chemsitry. Which you would have learned if you hadn’t slept through your science classes, and wasted your time with goat herder mythology.

DrLiveLogic:
The general understanding of faith as blind belief by both religionists and non religionists is a misconception

A large body of observational data provided by your ilk says otherwise. Oh wait, since when did you or any of your ilk have something better to offer than “my mythology says so, therefore it’s true”, or fatuous ex recto apologetic fabrications?

DrLiveLogic:
Everyone who thinks for themselves, not dependent on someone else’s thoughts can tell that ID is self-evident in the universe.

Bullshit. All that IDiocy consists of, at bottom, is “I can’t imagine how a testable natural process could produce X, therefore no testable natural process can produce X, therefore my cartoon magic man from my goat herder mythology did it”. That’s all IDiocy IS at bottom. As was established at the Dover Trial.

Oh, by the way, do explain why several million scientific papers, documenting the evidence for testable natural processes in abundance, never once included within their pages the need for your cartoon magic man? Which has been superfluous to requirements and irrelevant more and more with the advancement of scientific knowledge?

By the way, if you think some piece of apologetics from the Duplicity Institute is worth wasting my time on, I have some timeshare apartments in Syria to rent out to you at $10,000 per month.

Now, how about dropping the duplicitous cant and self-service-break bullshit, and provide something resembling substance?

DrLiveLogic:
You just so love the usual method of trying to justify your unwholesome unbelief by discarding creationist arguments, don’t you?

Creationists don’t have “arguments”, they have made up shit assertions masquerading thereas.

DrLiveLogic:
But with me you find I present you the option of empirical validation

Pull the other one, it’s got bells on.

“Treat my cartoon magic man as real and he will talk to you” … .

Tell that to every altar boy that’s been raped by a Catholic priest.

DrLiveLogic:
that you really don’t want to ever find out that creator is real.

This is so pathetic a bare faced lie on your part, that many here are wringing out their underwear after pissing themselves laughing at your bullshit.

I’m on public record here and elsewhere, as welcoming evidence for any real god type entity that actually exists, because the moment said evidence arises, it’ll flush ALL of our fatuous pre-scientific mythologies down the toilet at a stroke.

DrLiveLogic:
So once again, if you’d stop being so cowardly and face my simple ten questions

Unlike my questions, yours were demonstrable DOAs
----------------------
Cheers
Tamaraton Tetragammatron Tantrum

Tamaratonye5:

When evidence is provided for this purported “soul” entity, I promise I will sit up and take notice.

If you've still not taken notice of your immaterial part you've had all your life, even presented in the questions and rather await a scientific paper, you may never till you leave earth. Denial's that much a bitch.

Tamaratonye1:
A pathetic lie. I'm atheist because mythology fanboys like you have failed to support your fantasies with genuine evidence for millennia.

Pass the buck was always your fav sport. If you live long enough, might end up the G.O.A.T and then 'pass' on to face reality in afterlife.

Science has flushed IDiot assertions down the toilet, such as Behe’s fatuous attempt to redefine “irreducible complexity” to fit mythology fanboyism.

Bullshit. All that IDiocy consists of, at bottom, is “I can’t imagine how a testable natural process could produce X, therefore no testable natural process can produce X, therefore my cartoon magic man from my goat herder mythology did it”. That’s all IDiocy IS at bottom. As was established at the Dover Trial.

Smh. Had you learnt to always adhere strictly to logic than occasional bandwagonism, you'd never have fallen prey to human prejudice in Dover, which btw, has been upset by recent findings covered in Behe's Edge of Evolution and Spencer's latest works as well as since ever. Why I said you've got to develop a mind of your own and stop droning for MSM. Anything handled by humans gets tinged with politics, even science. Only unadulterated logic and science, not scientist's biases, will survive time in this domain. Uphold logic, even if left all alone. Too, understand better the fraudulent trial by Judge Jones' Dover Trial Myths and learn why Behe's work is one of the 100 most important of the 20th century Behe Interview and why there is a growing scientific movement, Revolution
You've also shown quite clearly that asides the ersatz straw man narrative of biased scientists and MSM, you don't understand ID tenets, which btw, you don't get from arguing irrational 'creationists' but from ID institute.
Like I advised then, before arguing against a concept, go to source. Understand Real ID
Point of correction, biased scientists flushed ID down their toilet minds. Logic itself, is always ID's baby which I show at the bottom as well as here. ID in Science . Be bold and look truth in the face, don't shy away from these articles like last time.

Plus, in case you failed to learn this, the origin of life is NOT part of evolutionary biology. Evolutionary biology concentrates on explaining organismal diversity once replicating organisms exist. The origin of life is the remit of an entirely different discipline, namely organic chemsitry. Which you would have learned if you hadn’t slept through your science classes, and wasted your time with goat herder mythology.

LMAO. Try enlightening your crew who try to discard ID, theorising gene origins from RNA world due to unguided chemical evo in the 'primordial soup', LMAO, and consequent GPE, as the setting of bio evo. Without such anti-ID evo rhetoric, there shouldn't be much of a debate and what you've been doing here would be pointless since it does not discard ID.

A large body of observational data provided by your ilk says otherwise.

Always remember - source! - Heb 11:1

“Treat my cartoon magic man as real and he will talk to you” … .

No wonder you never found faith. Smh. You were twiddling with imaginary friends, ignoring realities inside you, waiting for a scientific paper on them. Had you not chickened out on the ten questions, you'd have been dealing with those realities and also seen that science can NEVER be the full body of knowledge in our existence. It is only the inner realities that can guide you to the realisation of their creator.

One other thing, Tantrum, to take to bed tonight. I usually tell y'all who reject ID for not being demonstrable in the lab, Logic is never on your side.
Consider. If the SM and logic, developed by humans, is systematic, principled and purposeful, hence considered intelligent and reliable methods, doesn't that tell of intelligence in humanity that developed them?
Of course, but did we test the claim in a lab?
Likewise shouldn't we determine intelligence in nature from the observation of such systematic, principled existence and relationships in creation with an obvious purpose of sustenance? Do we actually have to take that to a lab?
Equally hypocritical that we'd invest so much intelligence to create a robot after human image and turn around and say there's no ID behind human design. LMAO.
Denial's a bitch and will at some point, deny even her staunchest loyalists. Pray tell, denial can't suck any less even with myriad of fellows riding along in that train.

----------------------

Cheers
Tamaraton Tetragammatron Tantrum

Alright Tantrum, wanted to end the circles before but just felt to leave you a parting gift of a proper understanding of ID, not evolutionist's straw man version. And while Behe or any IDer may speculate the source, ID itself only logically establishes intelligence in creation, not a description of this intelligence and not tied to any religious idea/myth, like I said from the start.
Faith will be known as I've suggested and since you're scared to begin, let's end it there.

DrLiveLogic:

If you've still not taken notice of your immaterial part you've had all your life,

Or so you merely blindly assert, as is always the case with mythology fanboys …

DrLiveLogic:
even presented in the questions and rather await a scientific paper, you may never till you leave earth. Denial's that much a bitch.

Denial would appear to be your speciality here …

DrLiveLogic:
Pass the buck was always your fav sport.

Ah, ad hominem and lies. Which have always been your favourite sport.

DrLiveLogic:
If you live long enough, might end up the G.O.A.T and then 'pass' on to face reality in afterlife.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha.

Always assuming the merely asserted afterlife, is something other than the product of your rectal passage of course …

Plus, I’m still waiting for you to provide something other than blind assertions, duplicitous apologetic fabrications and pompously hubristic bluster, to support the idea that your cartoon magic man from your sad little goat herder mythology, is something other than the product of the rectal passage of piss-stained Bronze Age incels, who were too stupid to count correctly the number of legs that an insect possesses, and who thought genetics was controlled by coloured sticks. Oh wait, why was your cartoon magic man incapable of correcting these manifest and risible errors?

DrLiveLogic:
Smh. Had you learnt to always adhere strictly to logic than occasional bandwagonism, you'd never have fallen prey to human prejudice in Dover,

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!

The only “prejudice” on display there, was that of the IDiots. Or did you fail to notice Behe having his arse cheeks handed to him, stir fried in rationalist napalm and garnished with a large spicing of scientific pawnage?

What was it the cross-examining attorney said at one point? “I’m taking this deposition in the 21st century, not the 15th?”

As for bandwagons, ID is the mother of all fucking bandwagons, cobbled together in order to try and slip creationist bullshit into science classes under the radar, which it failed to do because of such embarrassments as the leaking of the Wedge Strategy document, and the hilarity known as “cdesign proponentsists”, an example of a transitional fossil created by creationists.

Don’t even bother trying to lie about the Dover Trial, because I have all the transcripts, including the 127 page summing up by Judge Jones, who, as a church-going conservative Republican, found the lies of the IDiots too much to stomach. Or did you forget that little detail before launching into your tedious little diatribe? By the way, posting links from Dumbski’s blog and other disreputable sources merely informs those of us who paid attention in class, about your agenda, which is to be a shill for the Duplicity Institute.

DrLiveLogic:
which btw, has been upset by recent findings covered in Behe's Edge of Evolution

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

Fucking dream on.

Behe’s bullshit was dissected and shredded by actual knowledgeable biologists within a week of the publication of that fatuous little tome.

DrLiveLogic:
Why I said you've got to develop a mind of your own

Wow, just when I thought your hubris couldn’t be any more gigantic in scale, you post this. Which is fucking rich coming from someone who manifestly never had a mind of his own, and whose possession of a mind in itself is debatable.

DrLiveLogic:
Anything handled by humans gets tinged with politics, even science.

In the latter case, only when duplicitous stormtroopers for mythology-based masturbation fantasies play mendacious apologetics with science.

As for your pompous and bombastic posturings about “logic”, you manifestly wouldn’t know what logic was if it dropped a fucking MOAB on your head from 40,000 feet. Oh wait, when I attended classes in this, the curriculum was taken straight from Methods of Logic by Willard Van Ormand Quine, one of the finest analytical minds in the business.

Meanwhile, reading the Wedge Strategy document told me all I needed to know about the IDiot agenda, an agenda based upon lies and deception in order to sneak creotard fantasies into American science classrooms.

Once again , you’re a lightweight and a dilettante here.

DrLiveLogic:
Try enlightening your crew who try to discard ID, theorising gene origins from RNA world due to unguided chemical evo in the ‘primordial soup’,

And the fact that the scientific papers in this field are published in organic chemistry journals, is an elementary fact that flew right over your head?

DrLiveLogic:

No wonder you never found faith. Smh.

Do Bleep off with your worthless “faith”. If “faith” produces lying sacks of shit like you, I’m glad I never had it.

DrLiveLogic:
You were twiddling with imaginary friends, ignoring realities inside you, waiting for a scientific paper on them.

Actually, the entities and interactions in the scientific papers I’ve read aren’t imaginary, unlike your sad little cartoon Donald Trump in the sky, invented as a political “justification” for bloody Lebensraum wars by piss-stained goat herders. Along with at least one instance of kidnapping underage girls as sex slaves, which your cartoon magic man, if it ever existed, was apparently quite happy with.

Indeed, given the number of “megachurch pastors” I’ve seen reported in the news, being arrested for playing “Hide the Sausage” with 12 year old girls, and having read the account of the mythology fanboy known as Dennis Rader, who used parts of your mythology to “justify” his sickening torture and sex murder of an 11 year old girl, I’m tempted to ask if fantasies involving fucking and torturing underage girls are the real motivation behind your brand of mythology fanboyism. Is that why you cling to this shitty little mythology and its mixture of farcical and iniquitous assertions? Because you’re a Torquemada wannabee who can’t wait to start pursuing his own anachronistic Inquisition, with a side salad of de Sade’s Justine for good measure?

DrLiveLogic:
Had you not chickened out on the ten questions

Your questions were demonstrable DOAs

Bleep off.

DrLiveLogic:
you’d have been dealing with those realities

You’ve never deal in realities since you began your sordid posting career here.

DrLiveLogic:
and also seen that science can NEVER be the full body of knowledge in our existence.

As opposed to masturbation fantasies derived from goat herder mythologies, which will NEVER be a body of knowledge at all …

DrLiveLogic:
It is only the inner realities that can guide you to the realisation of their creator.

Like pissing in the wind do you?

Your “creator” is fucking fiction. It’s a toddler security blanket for inadequates. Trying to deal with your impotent rage, by harbouring creepy theocratic fantasies that should be of interest to law enforcement, are you?

DrLiveLogic:
One other thing, Tantrum, to take to bed tonight. I usually tell those who reject ID for not being demonstrable in the lab, Logic is never on your side.

Bullshit. Both logic AND empirical data are on our side. Keep pretending that your self-service fantasy is something other than a self-service fantasy though …

DrLiveLogic:
Consider. If the SM and logic, developed by humans, is systematic, principled and purposeful, hence considered intelligent and reliable methods, doesn’t that tell of intelligence in humanity that developed them?

Of course, but did we test the claim in a lab?

Likewise shouldn’t we determine intelligence in nature from the observation of such systematic, principled existence and relationships in creation with an obvious purpose of sustenance? Do we actually have to take that to a lab?

Oh look, it’s self-service break apologetics time again, and a rehash of Dumbski’s “we don’t need that pathetic level of detail” piece of drivel.

What part of “Just because the behaviour of physical systems requires intellectual effort to deduce, doesn’t mean that those systems are themselves intelligent” are you too stupid to understand? Gravity is as mindless a force as one could wish for, but it made you possible. Which is probably yet more testament to the mindlessness thereof.

Grow the Bleep up.
-------------------------
Cheers
Tamaratonye Trendy Tantrum

Tamaratonye1:

Plus,I’m still waiting for you to provide something other than blind assertions, duplicitous apologetic fabrications and pompously hubristic bluster, to support the idea that your cartoon magic man

C'mon Tantrum dear, quit already with the disingenuous presentation of yourself as the keen seeker of this knowledge. You've taken your stand that you will never go through the path offered to know faith so let's give it a rest.

Don’t even bother trying to lie about the Dover Trial, because I have all the transcripts, including the 127 page summing up by Judge Jones

LMAO. And having the 127 page transcript automatically makes you a qualified analyst. You obviously don't know what to do with it. I dare you to invalidate the points in the given review of the trial. That's how to logically make your case.

Behe’s bullshit was dissected and shredded by actual knowledgeable biologists within a week of the publication of that fatuous little tome.

Amateur Tantrum and her usual huff-puff, LMAO. Always skimming through materials on sites without any in-depth understanding of subjects. Science ain't politics but is objective. Critiques don't invalidate a position, not even by larger numbers. Both theory and critiques are thoroughly analysed, with back and forths and in the end, only the more logical stand. You ought to have learnt that by now from the theory vs theory lesson. After all back and forths, Behe has successfully challenged a pillar of Darwinism, random mutation by demonstrating its impracticability. FYI, that upholds ID and deals a huge blow to Darwinism.

Actually, the entities and interactions in the scientific papers I’ve read aren’t imaginary,

Not all are. Neither is any of your immaterial part though never to be found in scientific papers. You've often investigated one but refused doing the other.

unlike your sad little cartoon Donald Trump in the sky, invented as a political “justification” for bloody Lebensraum wars by piss-stained goat herders. Along with at least one instance of kidnapping underage girls as sex slaves, which your cartoon magic man, if it ever existed, was apparently quite happy with.

I have no idea about this imaginary friend of yours. My advice: investigate your real immaterial parts accessible to you and forget the imaginary.

Indeed, given the number of “megachurch pastors” I’ve seen reported in the news, being arrested for playing “Hide the Sausage” with 12 year old girls, and having read the account of the mythology fanboy known as Dennis Rader, who used parts of your mythology to “justify” his sickening torture and sex murder of an 11 year old girl, I’m tempted to ask if fantasies involving fucking and torturing underage girls are the real motivation behind your brand of mythology fanboyism. Is that why you cling to this shitty little mythology and its mixture of farcical and iniquitous assertions? Because you’re a Torquemada wannabee who can’t wait to start pursuing his own anachronistic Inquisition, with a side salad of de Sade’s Justine for good measure?

Had you faith, you'd know to distinguish creator's ways from religious dogmas and manipulations and concupiscent passions of professors. He demands faith, justice, mercy...only. Learn from the life of Jesus Christ, creator-incarnate, the divine mind and its antagonism to even religious sects derived from his own constitution for not meeting his standards and you could guess his disposition towards today's vile christianity.
And if you're doing dirty linen, you've only scratched the surface. Even more base and vile atrocities than you know are committed under 'christianity'. This is nothing new, men muddy everything given to them, even pure science, for their unquantifiable frailties and selfish interests. Any wolf can put on Episcopal regalia and any can be an assembly. Also the sheep can fall into error ignorantly or rebel altogether but creator knows his own by his standards 2Tim 2:19-20 and he's not the least bothered that His name is dragged in the mud by any category of men.
He set the world under laws of equilibrium, the immutability and perfection of which proves his faithfulness. Newton states it as "action and reaction are equal and opposite" and in his appointed time to judge the whole world, all brutes and faithless will get served while his repentant sheep will get mercy for he is no respecter of persons nor of even christianity. Think then, only of your standing for justice will uphold itself.

What part of “Just because the behaviour of physical systems requires intellectual effort to deduce, doesn’t mean that those systems are themselves intelligent” are you too stupid to understand? Gravity is as mindless a force as one could wish for, but it made you possible. Which is probably yet more testament to the mindlessness thereof.

Though you've demonstrated logical ineptitude by claiming evolutionism is an irrevocable absolute in spite of its loopholes and gaps and also lumping ID with religion and deities though having naught to do with it, here I assume you didn't understand my argument and is particularly why I deemed it courteous to you to reply your post.
Let's break it down. Objects themselves don't have to be intelligent, but relationships between them are principled and structured rather than haphazard. A gem may not be intelligent, but the formation of gems under constant and defined pattern is where lies the intelligence as it always takes the same set of conditions to produce them. The planetary bodies may not be intelligent but being sustained under defined order e.g. gravity and interplanetary laws, there lies the intelligence. Even the molecular structure of each object is very organised and structured, nothing haphazard and all this order has the purpose of sustaining their existence.
Science is the study of these universal laws and order. Order towards purpose is hallmark of intelligence. Each time we identify this, we automatically admit ID, even if an evolutionist. The only question ID asks is can we identify order, laws, principles? Just like if principles undergird logic and SM, it's because we who created the structure think in a structured way i.e. intelligently.
It's also by these identified principles that we build robots to execute our intentions and in hypocrisy, we call that AI, fcol. Funny how you avoided the part of AI being designed after human body systems. What better way for the scientists to admit intelligence in the design of the human entity? all proving ID. If intelligence is found in human design, equally in other creation, then the creator possesses intelligence and coordinated thought.

Cheers
Tamaratonye Trendy Tantrum

Why is it you come off as really embittered throughout your post only to end with "cheers"?
Tbh, I only intend a cordial exchange between us regardless what we disagree on. Remember our "tango" should've been "romantic" but you seem always bitter like a really sinister dancer who keeps pricking feet with her heels, for pleasure.