Intelligent Design: Coming To A State Legislature Near You

Easter Bunny wrote:

<quoted text>
As Carl Sagan liked to say: "Well, maybe." <g>
Anyway, the fact that random processes cannot explain the creation of the universe to you, and even if they don't explain it to anybody, this does not lend any support to ID. How ya doin' now?

You sure as H cannot rule out ID for origins. That's for sure. If you can in your mind then I pity your shallow frame. It's your choice

Tinka wrote:

<quoted text>
Yeah I can see that..I think even when the guy was plastered he probably was always still a pal...
So did you guys have a drink afterwards??

Yeah, and that was the best part. I mean, the guy just had be worked over, yet he'd buy me a drink. When he asked the waiter "What's the biggest tip you ever got?", the guy replied "$100".(this was a long time ago).

Not to be out-done, Frank made a big show of giving him $200, and then we all kept celebrating together and sharing stories over too many drinks.

Hours later, Frank asked him "Who was the cheap bast@rd who gave you a measly $100?" The waiter looked a little scared, and grimaced and said "It was you, Mr. Sinatra."

Don't remember where I got that one. Maybe Phil Hartman.

TheGavin wrote:

<quoted text>
The validity of anything, is ultimately in it's proof. Proof always wins out at the end of the day.

Dear Mr./Mrs./Ms. TheGavin,
For every 4 lines I type here on this thread, bobbleheads of the opposing team sitting behind the Science goalpost see 7; my original 4 and the ones they placed between them. The original four sans serif are quickly discarded for the remaining 3 phantom all-caps lines which are then used to discredit me. This is not fair play in sports nor is it in social networking.
The singular telling paragraph in your response lies here: "...A sense of accomplishment and back-patting is usually par for the course when you're on the *winning team*, of the moment...as far as I know, that's pretty much how it's always worked...within any setting. But because you can't stand how a star athelete parades pompously after making a score, doesn't negate the ability that allowed him to do so."
This is the cheap consumerism and sport team mentality tied in with the commercial science that created it. It exposes your mindset in the buff; you against 'them'. This is what I have been pointing to in many of my posts. And the reply from the opposing team's thugs is ALWAYS the same; a deflection towards ID, Creationism and Santa Claus. The feeling I get is when encountering a group of French speaking psychotics but I am an English speaking pedestrian. You don't hear me or see my presence for the sirens ringing in your ears and the apparition of Inquisition Board Members.
1.) If you ever come out from that cult-induced stupor of yours, re-read some of my posts and you won't find anything I said discrediting evolution.
2.) You won't find any religious affiliation.
3.) No Biblical quotes.
4.) No "God makes the sun rise" claims.
Keep in mind, fellow human being, that, in shadow-boxing, no one ever lands a punch. You are fighting non-existent counterpoints. Very unbecoming of a science go-fer. But I'm sure you'll be parading pompously after making a make-believe score. Would this be considered make-believe pomposity, too? Or can I consider your pomposity to be genuine but misplaced among your other confused points?

PoKay1kaDuB wrote:

<quoted text>You sure as H cannot rule out ID for origins. That's for sure. If you can in your mind then I pity your shallow frame. It's your choice

Just as we cannot rule out the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

http://www.venganza.org

You've opened the door to His Noodly Greatness and every other potential cause imaginable. Opening that door is to write a cosmological blank-check.

We would do as well to, as I like to say, "Spend our time pondering the whims of the Easter Bunny".

PoKay1kaDuB wrote:

<quoted text>I'm finally realizing that ID belongs with abiogenesis. It can't disprove evolution but it can disprove random evolution if it were to be ever proven. In the same way that abiogenesis grasps at straws to come up with a plausible mechanism (which I have heard of NONE so far that are truly plausible), ID posits a plausible idea that a higher power must be responsible when we can't come up with a rational answer to random abiogenesis.

It would be nice to hear how that process of "realization" happened.

And I've been passing out a lot of "non-sequitur" cards so my stack is getting low. Keep this up and I'll fire up the printer again.

hexene wrote:

<quoted text>
Bullcrap! Adrian, Please where is the science for ID?? Entrance?...Please ID'st find an entrance if there is one.....What about that modern unused lab at DI that was established for ID research ....OH, I guess they need to do some real science to kick-start it.

You used to be a calm respectable poster, what happened? Ventor is not a "creation lab", it is the group that synthesized a virus, of course they didn't do it TOTALLY from scratch, as they cannot synthesize chiral molecules without some original help from a biosource, but you know that. I was trying to explain that if ALL the information for evolution was contained in the junk DNA (Latent Library theory) then Ventor should be able to find it fairly easily compared to what they already accomplished.
Where is the science for random abiogenesis. So far just bad guesses, no real hooks.

shinningelectr0n wrote:

<quoted text>
Dear Mr./Mrs./Ms. TheGavin,
For every 4 lines I type here on this thread, bobbleheads of the opposing team sitting behind the Science goalpost see 7; my original 4 and the ones they placed between them. The original four sans serif are quickly discarded for the remaining 3 phantom all-caps lines which are then used to discredit me. This is not fair play in sports nor is it in social networking.
The singular telling paragraph in your response lies here: "...A sense of accomplishment and back-patting is usually par for the course when you're on the *winning team*, of the moment...as far as I know, that's pretty much how it's always worked...within any setting. But because you can't stand how a star athelete parades pompously after making a score, doesn't negate the ability that allowed him to do so."
This is the cheap consumerism and sport team mentality tied in with the commercial science that created it. It exposes your mindset in the buff;

It was just a prop. Get over it. It is not this big confession that you portray it as.

shinningelectr0n wrote:

<quoted text>
1.) If you ever come out from that cult-induced stupor of yours, re-read some of my posts and you won't find anything I said discrediting evolution.
2.) You won't find any religious affiliation.
3.) No Biblical quotes.
4.) No "God makes the sun rise" claims.
Keep in mind, fellow human being, that, in shadow-boxing, no one ever lands a punch. You are fighting non-existent counterpoints. Very unbecoming of a science go-fer. But I'm sure you'll be parading pompously after making a make-believe score. Would this be considered make-believe pomposity, too? Or can I consider your pomposity to be genuine but misplaced among your other confused points?

You see, this is what I've been saying... you don't say much. Well, except to get all over people for their perceived attitude.

Easter Bunny wrote:

<quoted text>
Just as we cannot rule out the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
http://www.venganza.org
You've opened the door to His Noodly Greatness and every other potential cause imaginable. Opening that door is to write a cosmological blank-check.
We would do as well to, as I like to say, "Spend our time pondering the whims of the Easter Bunny".

would you quit it with that spaghetti monster already. A Designer is not a specific term, it could darn well be Prago, it's in there. It could be anything. Nobody is trying to say what it is, just that random chance is not cutting it.

PoKay1kaDuB wrote:

Hey Laura
Wa don't you wip out your wak wammer
I need your rock hammer to fix my mouse. What do you do when your ball doesn't roll? The whatever you call it, the ball, gets jammed and I can't find anything wrong with the ball, but something internal is causing it to jam up. Do I have to get another one, I don't see any way of opening it without breaking the case. I can barely get through a post anymore.

Will somebody PLEEEZE tell my why I have to keep telling everybody that I, being a woman/lady/girl/female do NOT have a either a wak-wammer OR any balls.

Like other thingys they do get scuzzy inside and must be cleaned. If you don't know how to take your thingy apart, find someone who does, or google it.

PoKay1kaDuB wrote:

<quoted text>When you come back from your hot date maybe you can answer me the following :
You very specifically stated some very inspiring cancer research. Now I would ask you to very specifically explain to me how evolutionary theory made this possible. Don't forget, very specifically. Without prior discovery of DNA and biochemical structures and mechanisms, evolutionary theory would not be possible, not the other way around. There might be value to observable microevolution, but what direct value to practical science is the theory of evolution of the first lifeform into more complex?(which is not observable) This is the part of evolution along with abiogenesis that should either be taught along WITH ID, or not at all.

Well, first I'm certainly not trying to answer for Katydid, but I believe Darwin's hypothesis of common ancestry and natural selection acting upon variation to produce biodiversity was around long before any real understanding of modern molecular biology. Additionally, Darwin, as were most 19th century biologists, was also unaware of Mendel's work demonstrating the basics of heredity. What Mendel's work and all the other big molecular and population genetics discoveries of the early 20th century did was provide the mechanisms that produced variation in natural populations and how this heritable variation manifested under various forms of selection.

All of these components are critical to our understanding of cancer and infectious pathogens. When dealing with the treatment of therapeutically resistant diseases, all of the components of the ToE are applied. From the molecular mechanisms which produce the variation, to how this variation manifests in populations of cancer cells and infectious microbes, to the selection and adaptation within these populations all leading to a rationale model for treating the disease and identifying the best targets for novel drug development.

The only difference between the application of these ToE tenets to medicine and biodiversity alive today and in the fossil record are the temporal scales (hrs to yrs for medicine, thousands to billions of years for fossil record and extant biodiversity). The mechanisms are essentially the same.

An additional application of the ToE to medicine is the tracking of emerging infectious diseases. The phylogenetic approaches which allow us to predict rates of evolution and trace infectious outbreaks back to their geographic sources is the same methodology used to reconstruct and make predictions concerning common ancestry in multicellular organisms.

Again, as ID invokes a supernatural causation, it is outside the bounds of science. It's fine for philosophy class or a comparative religions class, but as science restricts itself to methodological naturalism given the validation of this approach, ID doesn't belong in a science class. ID could be the actual "truth", but without a testable mechanism or positive supporting evidence, for now it's philosophy and not science.
Cheers!

Easter Bunny wrote:

<quoted text>
You see, this is what I've been saying... you don't say much. Well, except to get all over people for their perceived attitude.

Huh? Speak English, please.

Easter Bunny wrote:

<quoted text>
It was just a prop. Get over it. It is not this big confession that you portray it as.

Remember what I said about' non sequiturs?
You be doin' it again, m-a-a-a-n.

A prop? A confession? Are you reading National Enquirer in the bathroom?

Gimme just a clue. Delineate. Breathe deep. Form your words with great effort.

Easter Bunny wrote:

<quoted text>
Just as we cannot rule out the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
http://www.venganza.org
You've opened the door to His Noodly Greatness and every other potential cause imaginable. Opening that door is to write a cosmological blank-check.
We would do as well to, as I like to say, "Spend our time pondering the whims of the Easter Bunny".

RAmen.

PoKay1kaDuB wrote:

<quoted text>It was nothing you said and I was not conjuring up a joke, I just got a 'random' urge to come up with a word that made the wa sound because I can't really think of any. Not the sound in whack, but the sound in wap (somebody wap that evo into reality), I can't think of any others. The same sound the a makes in rascal, but preceded by w instead of r. There has to be another wa word out there. wa wawa wa wa

Whoa, Whack DOES make the wa sound I'm talking about, but that darn h is between the w and the a. That kind of ruins it.

PoKay1kaDuB wrote:

<quoted text>would you quit it with that spaghetti monster already. A Designer is not a specific term, it could darn well be Prago, it's in there. It could be anything. Nobody is trying to say what it is, just that random chance is not cutting it.

If we allow for an adult imaginary friend then The Flying Spaghetti Monster is as much real as any imaginary friend we have.

LWsciencejunkie wrote:

<quoted text>
Will somebody PLEEEZE tell my why I have to keep telling everybody that I, being a woman/lady/girl/female do NOT have a either a wak-wammer OR any balls.
Like other thingys they do get scuzzy inside and must be cleaned. If you don't know how to take your thingy apart, find someone who does, or google it.

OK, you don't have balls, but you have a why? What number G & T are you on? You said, "tell MY why".

Imaginary friend wrote:

<quoted text>
If we allow for an adult imaginary friend then The Flying Spaghetti Monster is as much real as any imaginary friend we have.

If a Designer exists, then it is not imaginary. And if the spaghetti monster is the Designer, so be it. The universe exists, a rational reasoning or understanding of it does not. We are not just saying the origins of the universe are not rational, the existence of it is also irrational as we cannot understand the "whole picture" of an infinite OR a finite universe.

PoKay1kaDuB wrote:

<quoted text>I'm finally realizing that ID belongs with abiogenesis. It can't disprove evolution but it can disprove random evolution if it were to be ever proven. In the same way that abiogenesis grasps at straws to come up with a plausible mechanism (which I have heard of NONE so far that are truly plausible), ID posits a plausible idea that a higher power must be responsible when we can't come up with a rational answer to random abiogenesis.

I would agree with you to an extent in that both ID and abiogenesis are lacking any well defined mechanisms. However, I would offer that the difference between abiogenesis and ID is that the study of abiogenesis is capable of examining physical mechanisms, while the ID mechanism, as posited currently within biology, is supernatural (e.g. ex nihilo irreducible complexity). Abiogenesis, even if capable of providing plausible pathways could never claim "proof" that the putative pathway was "THE" pathway. But then again, as far as I know "proof" only exists in formal logic and mathematics. The best science can do is provide physical evidence that elucidates mechanism and that allows prediction. We can never "know" through scientific investigation if invisible strings aren't/weren't being pulled to result in observable existence. I believe this is the fusion of philosophy with the demonstrated validation of the ToE that Theistic Evolutionists subscribe too.

I would also add that "random" can be misleading in these discussions. Random doesn't infer a philosophical assertion of "purposelessness". It just infers we lack the ability to account for all the pertinent variables. What appears random to us could simply be the mechanism of God. However, again, I'd argue this is a still just a philosophical position unaccessible by science.
Cheers!