Should intelligent design be taught in the classroom?

IntelligentAnimation wrote:

<quoted text>
AM, we definitely can point to evidence that an intelligent cause exists, of that there is no question. It is the most certain fact in all science.

So certain in fact you've avoided presenting the evidence for 40 pages now.

IntelligentAnimation wrote:

If you are looking for a name, call ir what you want. It is there, nonetheless. Whatever it is, it is intelligent, capable of moving both matter and energy

What specific elements and energies is it capable of "moving" and how?

IntelligentAnimation wrote:

and it has the intention of life sustenence.

It does? As there is plenty of food, that doesn't seem to be a problem, so now life is here it seems its role (whatever that is) is somewhat superfluous.(shrug)

IntelligentAnimation wrote:

Does a fire investigator rule out arson just because he/she doesnt know who started the fire? No, they detect signs of intelligent intent and then search for an arsonist they may never find

But if they know it's an arsonist then they know the mechanism. They can tell you if it's matches, faulty/sabotaged wiring, petroleum or other conglomerate of flammables, as opposed to something accidental/carelessness or simple rise in temperature causing burny materials to go burny. From the examination of the mechanisms used, if deliberate, we can then usually narrow it down to humans as opposed to most other animal life forms. But it could have been aliens.

Or an act of The Designer.

IntelligentAnimation wrote:

We will learn more only by explorng it,

How?

IntelligentAnimation wrote:

not by pretending that life is an ongoing comedy of errors in which we just keep getting lucky enough to be functional and self-aware. That vapid stupidity will never get us anywhere because there is no hope of it being even somewhat true.

Since this line of caricature reasoning has already been addressed on this thread by myself and others NUMEROUS times over, I can only conclude you're being dishonest. Again.

IntelligentAnimation wrote:

Subduction Zone, I've already explained in detail many ways in which the scientific method is applied to prove ID and I have yet to read anyone's evidence to the contrary. Mainly because there is none.

Lie. The most you've done is tried to take evolution and credit it to your enigmatic designer, for which you've yet to demonstrate its existence. But so far we are all still in the dark as to who or what it is, where it is, what it did, how it did it, where it did it and when it did it.

IntelligentAnimation wrote:

The entire materialist concept is nothing but a religious belief and an extremely foolish one at that.

Your consistent avoidance of dealing with the fact that all science is based on methodological (not philosophical) materialism is nothing but a religious belief and an extremely foolish one at that.

IntelligentAnimation wrote:

There is no evidence of randomness in evolution and if there were any randomness at all, it would be devastating and deadly as any randomness can only be. Name one of your "very important other factors" besides rank luck in your so-called theory. Name one thing that can cause a BENEIFICIAL change in a 3 billion base pair code. No, I mean besides luck, Darwinist.

Mutations are random with respect to fitness. Period. ERV's are known to have function, but due to their nature they are random by definition. This is the point where you give your designer credit but never say when or how or what it did. Also 'luck' and 'random' are not pseudonyms.'Luck' is subjective,'random' is not.

IntelligentAnimation wrote:

There is NO pressure in the materialist catechism. What, do tell, is applying pressure toward anything positive? This is nothing more than the usual tired and repeatedly rebuked selection fallacy. Lets see... things live because if they didnt live they would die, right? Thats the pressure. Or is it,,, IF something happens to form by luck and it can survive, then it will survive, right? Gee, that really explains a lot.

The local environment applies pressure.

IntelligentAnimation wrote:

Your own example of living fossils proves you wrong. If Darwinist random chaos was causing the changes, you would see all sorts of genetic and phenotypical alterations of every kind, EXCEPT functional ones, and we would see as many of them on creatures suited to their environment as we do to those not suited.

False. If they are not suited they will not survive long.

IntelligentAnimation wrote:

But that is not what we see. We ONLY see the phenotypical modifications when they are needed. Darwin's owm Galapagos finches are as good an example as any. They change their beak sizes back and forth with the changing weather. Nothing random in the slightest. Out of billions of possible genetic changes (and a few hundred birds) that a Darwinist would predict, only one specific set of genes change back and forth. Quite predictably.
Darwinism is nonsense. Intelligent cause is certain. The scientific evidence says so unequivocally.

Baseless claim, you're setting ID up as the "must be" alternative because you think "Darwinism" is wrong. You're also neglecting to deal with the fact that species can and do go extinct. And many have. Meaning if they were "suited" they would have survived. Unless the designer decided to arbitrarily kill some species, meaning "best suited" is irrelevant. Also if organisms are suited to their environments it makes no sense for them to continually evolve, as we observe. Your arguments are fraught with the subjective whims of a non-observable designer.

IntelligentAnimation wrote:

<quoted text>
You must really lack confidence in your theory to be so easily reduced to insults and religious hate speech.
Sad.

Except he's not the only one to notice you repeat mistakes after they've been addressed. Which is why for someone who claimed to be a biologist, you don't seem to know a whole lot about evolution, or science in general even.

If you rejected "Darwinism" for "scientific reasons" you would at least be able to make cogent arguments without having to rely on IDCreationist caricatures of scientific concepts. It is these mistakes you consistently make which makes your dishonesty stand out a mile.

At any time you are free to openly admit that ID is BS and you don't really know much about science. But in our experience on this forum, the fundies who stick around find much more enjoyment in informing the entire world of their ignorance.

The Advocate wrote:

<quoted text>
Yeah.
Evolution is the one that explains the response to stimulus.
So.
Where is the "intelligence" in the stimulus coming from?
Care to explain that?

And does He have a nice condo in Beverly Hills?

IntelligentAnimation wrote:

<quoted text>
AM, you cant point to anything at all.
There is not a single aspect of any living thing... no formation, activity, thought, reproduction or free will... that does not make a joke out of your silly and evidence-free belief that a happy mix of chemicals causes it all.

Sometimes it's a sad mix of chemicals.

We like to call them IDers.(shrug)

IntelligentAnimation wrote:

If you disagree, then explain any one thing through standard chemistry. Just one. Should be a snap.
Do you believe that your thoughts are also random happenstance? Just trying to guage the stupidity level here....

You're STILL conflating randomness with chemistry.

I think we have WELL established a stupidity level here.

http://lolcat.com/images/lolcats/1396.jpg

IntelligentAnimation wrote:

<quoted text>
Advocate, you do NOT speak for evolution if you are a Darwinist.
Yes, evolution by intelligent cause is clearly what causes predictable changes in genetics in all stimulus response genetic experiments. We predict the change, grab a bucket of popcorn, and then it happens as we predicted it. There is no longer any question as to the cause of genetic changes. Genetics change purposefully to adjust to the changing needs of their environment.

Except the designer seems to be a bit selective in that regard...

You even HEARD of starvation in the third world, Annie?

IntelligentAnimation wrote:

The whole bizarre concept of Darwinist random accident never made sense and always failed mathematically, but now we can prove it to be false with the scientific method.
Intelligent evolution wins out on every experiment. Darwinist evolution fails every time. So where is the debate?

There isn't one. There is only your baseless and failed but repetitive proclamations.(shrug)

IntelligentAnimation wrote:

<quoted text>
Advocate, asking where it comes from is not a refutation of its existence. Where does electromagnetism "come from"? Are you claiming that if you dont know where it "comes from" then it cant exist? Really?

Nope. We have evidence of the universe but we don't know for certain "where" it comes from.

We don't have evidence of your designer thus far.

It COULD exist.

On the other hand, it COULD also not.

Discord wrote:

<quoted text>
Except for the small problems that:
1. There is no scientific evidence that an intelligence caused the universe, life, humanity, etc.
2. You are still confusing natural with random. 2 Hydrogen atoms and an Oxygen atom combining to make a molecule of water is natural, not random, and there is no evidence to suggest that an intelligence 'willed' them together.
3. You are free to use Intelligent Design yourself to mean intelligently directed Evolution (most people use the term Theistic Evolution instead), however to the majority of people that use the term, Intelligent Design was put forth as an alternative to Evolution, and it is that context that we discuss it here.
4. No science class that I have ever heard of, taken or read about makes the claim that cause of the universe, life, etc. was 'random accident'. Your opposition to what you call Darwinism is essentially tilting at windmills because your opponent doesn't exist.
----------
TVtropes shirt "For Science" now available for pre-order:
http://discordmerch.com/index.php...

And around in circles we go...

Discord wrote:

<quoted text>
I will ask that you stop using the terms obvious, certain, etc. It's not as no scientist I have ever heard of has ever conceded such a thing.
See, how things work here is, step 1 back up your point, step 2 claim it is obvious. Don't skip.
----------
TVtropes shirt "For Science" now available for pre-order:
http://discordmerch.com/index.php...

Annie is the skipping champion of the skipping olympics. I heard the kangaroos even tried to sue.

CTEd wrote:

<quoted text>
he's massive troll, everyone should just stop feeding him and let him post his loopy posts.

But sometimes it's much more fun to point out that all he can tell us about ID is that "some intelligent thing... did something, somehow, somewhere, at sometime!"

MikeF wrote:

<quoted text>
Is that anything like a 'True Christian'?
Sorry pal, but you've gone 'round the bend now. If ID is valid then ANYONE should be able to define it. You want to criticize atheists as been close minded then you zoom right off into this nonsense.

Problem is so far, no-one can define ID, in a scientific manner anyway.

Not even the guys who made it up.

So we have to look elsewhere OTHER than science to define it.

And lo and behold, that's what Phil Johnson did for us.

When he pointed out it was "Goddidit with magic".

The Dude wrote:

<quoted text>
And does He have a nice condo in Beverly Hills?

Indeed, with a pool and a car park big enough for six vans, since "It's" smart enough to make its own money, apparently.

IntelligentAnimation wrote:

<quoted text>
Advocate, asking where it comes from is not a refutation of its existence. Where does electromagnetism "come from"? Are you claiming that if you dont know where it "comes from" then it cant exist? Really?

Well then you yourself have just now completely refuted the religitard argument that there must be a "first cause" and that you know that "first cause" is your Gaud. The universe exists, you do not know where it comes from, that does not mean it can not exist none the less, creator or no creator. A creator is not required.

Here, let me say it for you; "D'OH!!!!!"

LowellGuy wrote:

<quoted text>
I question it. Show us this evidence.

Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.
Thomas Jefferson

IntelligentAnimation wrote:

<quoted text>
AM, we definitely can point to evidence that an intelligent cause exists, of that there is no question. It is the most certain fact in all science.
If you are looking for a name, call ir what you want. It is there, nonetheless. Whatever it is, it is intelligent, capable of moving both matter and energy and it has the intention of life sustenence.
Does a fire investigator rule out arson just because he/she doesnt know who started the fire? No, they detect signs of intelligent intent and then search for an arsonist they may never find
We will learn more only by explorng it, not by pretending that life is an ongoing comedy of errors in which we just keep getting lucky enough to be functional and self-aware. That vapid stupidity will never get us anywhere because there is no hope of it being even somewhat true.

This was really funny, I hope you're not serious.

>>>IntelligentAnimati on wrote:
If you are looking for a name, call it what you want.

>>>Gillette
OK, how about "Cheeses the Lord and Savior"?

>>>IntelligentAnimati on wrote:
Whatever it is, it is intelligent, capable of moving both matter and energy and it has the intention of life sustenence.

>>>Gillette
Really? Then why have 99% of all the animal species that have ever lived on earth gone EXTINCT?

Evolution provides answers. Does your "Intelligent Designer"?

Is your Cheeses still working at getting it RIGHT?

>>>IntelligentAnimati on
What, do tell, is applying pressure toward anything positive? This is nothing more than the usual tired and repeatedly rebuked selection fallacy.

>>>Gillette
You've been given examples already in this thread.

In an arctic environment, rabbits born with the occasional genetic mutation for brown fur will, as a group, tend to live a lot shorter lives than their white counterparts. The hawks and eagles, etc. in their environment will see to that.

So gradually, over many generations, the species has come to have almost entirely white fur.

If, due to global warming, the ice melts and the environment quickly becomes brown or green, then those rabbits with the mutation for brown fur will begin to thrive and the white ones will tend to make quick meals for the predators.

So gradually, over many generations, the species will come to have almost entirely brown fur.

There you have it. Evolution (Gene modification PLUS Natural selection) at work. NOT random, and NOT designed -- unless you think the Widdle Baby Cheeses sits up there in the Christian heaven saying, "Hmmm, I WIKES wittle brown bunnies...."