Nope.  I've seen anything and everything you would link, time and time again, ad nauseum.  There isn't anything you would link that I haven't seen.  We would simply do what we are doing now, i.e. disagree down the line on everything.  Even worse, I could just link and throw stuff back to you, forcing you to link and throw stuff back at me, and its a viscious circle where neither one of us argues anything to the other in our own words, rather we just cut and paste other people arguing to each other.  No thanks.

Also, don't call my theory an "intelligent design" theory.  I have not used that word once here to describe myself, I just used it when other people used it first.  You can call my theory a "designed and built" theory if you want.

LOL, embarassingly false.  Easily demonstrated to be so, but until after the new year, I simply don't have time to cite examples.  Right now I just have 1 or 2 minutes in the day to check email and read a few web posts, so live in your own world and believe what you want.

'Designed and built', by whom - or by what?

A single sentence answer is enough, if that would be enough to answer the question.

But, 'designed and built' would infer an intelligence. So while you may not have used the phrase 'Intelligent Designer', your use of the phrase "an "intelligent design" theory" would seem to assume so.

How does the one differ from the other?

 

There has been mention of 'a great brain' - if you will. That the universe, and all that is in it, had to come from another physical intelligence (i.e. - a 'great brain', or a race that came before humans). Ridiculous. That just leads to the thinking that the universe is ever ending in all directions, with no first cause to precede the first effect. If there is no first cause, then how came the first effect?

And the alternative, that Life came into being through 'natural random processes' and has evolved to the point at which we are now at (barring entropy - because that theory states that everything should be ever devolving into a simpler state), simply has not had enough time - even if less complex systems could bring about more complex systems through random mutations.

Please! Someone do the math! How long would it take for the first single cell of Life to come about by random means, and to evolve from its first state of being? Then, how long would it take to 'evolve' a second cell that was necessary to its own existence - when none was required before (mitosis to meiosis)? How long would it take, by random mutations, to evolve into a second viable life-form? Or a third, or fourth...?

And how long would it take to produce all the various (and interacting) life forms on our own little planet, by genetic mutation alone??!!!

So far, I have not found anything more than speculation as to how these things occurred.

 

But, what if the known physical universe was designed and created and guided by a non-physical Source? That is what the Bible actually describes. And to me, it is the only thing that makes sense.

I believe the current consensus is at least 2 billion years, and a site in Australia might contain microfossils over 3 billion years old, but it could also be abiotic stromatolites. Or did you mean to "give or take" a whole giga-year?

Who the heck knows?  At this point you leave the realm of rationalism, science, etc. and enter the realm of pure conjecture, philosophy, etc.  Fine stuff, I just make sure not to mix my rationalism or science with any of it.

Practically-speaking, I don't think they differ much, if any.  But you have to understand, the first thing an evolutionist will try to do is categorize you into a "demonized" group, and then simply demonize and attack you over and over again rather than have an actual debate.

Their two demonized groups are "creationists" and "ID'ers."  Actually, it is a single demonized group "creationists," and they lump ID'ers in with that group.  I am most certainly not a creationist, i.e. I don't look to the bible or any religion for any of my views on this stuff.  And if I say I'm an ID'er, they will just throw me in the creationist group and demonize me.  Now, they will still do that anyway, but I make it just a little bit harder for them by not associating myself with ID'ers at all.

I am not an ID'er.  But practically-speaking, our views probably differ little, if any.

Yes.  I think I've also read the 3 billion year figure you cite.  As I said, the time frame isn't controversial, and I will accept whatever the evolutionists say on this.

They don't have enough time in the lifetime of the universe for any o it.  But it's actually far worse than that, I just don't have time right now to delve into it.

We go on and on about when the universe is created.   It is all resolved very easily if we just ask the Geico cavemen.  They were there.  Cavemen get no respect.

Don't read too much into my numbers, I was basically using numbers out of my ass to illustrate a point. The only reason I picked the last half-billion years was to limit the discussion to fossils of large, complex life forms.

See above. Numbers used weren't rigorously obtained. Although even if the real number of fossils is 1 billion over a 3 billion year period, my numbers were still close enough to make my point. We have a fossil of ONE LIVING THING every 3 years (as opposed to the 10 years my WAG produced). For pulling numbers out of my ass, I call getting within an order of magnitude a win.

It shows *evidence* of a tree of life. An extremely rough outline of one, to be perfectly blunt. But as I have pointed out, no one could rationally expect to see a fully developed evolutionary tree of life in the fossil record. I'd go as far as saying that finding a full evolutionary record would be smoking-gun proof FOR creationism, as it would take a special act of god for sch a thing to occur.

The closest thing I can come up with as an analogy for the fossil record would be trying to reconstruct the entire road system of the US using only a few hundred 1 foot square patches. There is simply not enough data to make definitive conclusions. Seeing how some of the roads are laid out would give you reason to suspect things like on ramps, but the odds of getting a piece of one is comically low.

Apparently you were blissfully unaware that Gould was as anti-ID as is physically possible for one person to be, else you wouldnt' be using his work to support ID. So yes, my characterization of your use of his work stands.

Unlikely, as only a brick to the head is going to change your opinion, and only a time machine is going to change mine.

And now on to things not specifically addressed to me:

"Natural causes" is generally defined to be anything other than the act of humans, which we expand to include non-human intelligence for this discussion. So by definition, yes, believing in ID requires you to think outside the "natural causes" box.

More importantly, there is a vast gulf between living creatures and machines. Last time I checked, cars do not contain a working blueprint for creating another car, nor is one capable of reproducing itself. Of course, neither are cats (arbitrarily random animal), but individuals of the species are capable of creating more cats without an intelligent designer stepping in to do it for them.

By this logic, I am not an evolutionist, I just happen to agree with them. And therefore you aren't allowed to use that term to describe anyone who disagrees with you.

Labels are convenient things, it allows us to refer to a group as a whole. I'd really prefer not needing to type out "creationists and that Agent of Kharma jackass" all the time, when "creationists" is just as accurate and far faster.

That's mostly because they assume they aren't going to get any respect. They just need some self-esteem seminars.

I thought cave men had a problem with getting satisfaction?

 

It's not real obvious, but then I've always preferred to insult people indirectly.

 

There isn't a distiction between one theory about being designed and another theory of being designed. Trying to set up some kind of sematec difference will not hide the fact that you are using a design.

Also, you do not have a theory, you (might) have a hypothesis, with no data. What you have in a concept, and you haven't even begun to discuss the science, unless you have a full analysis of the fossil record that somehow proves your idea.

You seem to think if you observe only one cause for something, that somehow other causes get excluded. A designer is excluded from evolution because there is absolutely zero evidence for one. We haven't seen it, we haven't seen a fossil of it. So for you to say that the only cause for life is design because we've only seen machines that are designed, you're falling into a logical hole of your own: We haven't seen the designer for life, either, or any evidence of one, so you can't assume it's there.

And you STILL don't explain the origin of life even if you did show that life was designed. The designer also had to come from somewhere - it might turn out the designer had to evolve anyway. Mind you, if you're positing that all life is designed, and somehow show that that's how we got here, then the designer would have had to have been designed. There is a logical problem here, which is solved by theology. I've already pointed out why supernatural explanations won't get through science, unless you care to explain how a supernatural event can be modeled and predicted while still remaining supernatural.

Duhhh, I already know that Gould was anti-ID, and was a hardcore evolutionist.  I stated this verbatim several times.  In fact, that was my point, and that's why I used him as an example.

HE DIDN'T THINK THE FOSSIL RECORD SUPPORTED DARWINIAN EVOLUTION, SO HE CAME UP WITH HIS OWN MODEL.  THAT'S MY POINT.  THERE IS NO OTHER POINT.

Geez, I've tried to be nice, but you just don't want to play nice, do you?  Is my eff'ing point THAT freaking hard to understand, even though I keep spelling it out over and over and over again?  Is your skull that eff'ing thick, or are you simply that dull?

Let me see if I can lay this out for you one last time.  I've already tried to make it so that a two year old can understand it, so I don't know how much simpler I can make it:

1) Someone here said that the fossil record provides an airtight case for evolution.

2) I said "gee, that's funny, considering that even some prominent HARDCORE EVOLUTIONISTS like Gould, Darwin, etc. don't think the tree of life is reflected in the fossil record."

Now, where in any of that do you see "Gould was pro-ID" or "Darwin was pro-ID?"  Answer:  Nowhere.  In fact, do you see the words "hardcore evolutionists?"  Yes, you do, which of course means "anti-ID."  And I either used the term "hardcore evolutionists," or similar words to make my point before.

You say I wouldn't use the views of Gould or Darwin if I truly knew how anti-ID they were.  But you see, you're just dumb.  Of course I would, because it actually makes my point.  Do you think it would make my point if I said "Prominent ID'er Michael J. Behe says such and such about the fossil record?"  Of course not, because an evolutionist would say "who among us gives a flying rat's ass what Behe says about the fossil record?"



If you still don't get my points, I recommend re-reading everything I wrote above over and over again, while smashing that brick to your head over and over again, paying particular attention to anything in bold caps, until it sinks in, if that is possible.

I also stated verbatim that I was not trying to change your opinion (I'm not that stupid).  I stated verbatim that you could keep all your pro-evolution, anti-ID views.  My goal was for us to simply to agree on a common set of "facts" i.e. "yes, some prominent evolutionists don't believe a tree of life is represented in the fossil record."  But I see that will be impossible, because all you want to do is bicker and attack.



Then your definition of "natural causes" is wrong, as with everything else.  "Natural causes" is just what it says - "natural causes" i.e. "not supernatural."  But I guess I'm not surprised.  Evolutionists redefine science to suit their own ends, and they redefine evolution itself to include merely filtering a population.  So of course they would redefine "natural causes" and anything else as they see fit.



That's because you are an idiot evolutionist who doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground.  Living creatures ARE machines.  But I guess I wouldn't expect you to ever know or comprehend that in a million years.



Wow, check out the big brain on this evolutionist!  Yes, you are entirely right.  The biological machine is infinitely more complex, sophisticated, and of a higher technology than any man-made machine.  They contain blueprints within themselves, they reproduce themselves, they self-repair, they make extensive use of nano-technology and advanced composite materials, on and on.

Just stick to your evolutionary theory.  I've always said that evolution is for people who don't see anything particularly special in biology.

If someone has a problem with the term "evolutionist" I would be happy not to use it.

Fantastic, I'll just use my short label for you of "asshole" and be done with it.

Yeah, I wonder where I could have gotten the notion that science starts with an observation, and if you don't have that, you aren't practicing science?  Ahh yes, that inconvenient little thing called the scientific method!  I guess you've never heard of that?  Or perhaps you never read and understood it?

Neither do you, asshole, as I've said for the thousandth time.  I think the problem is that you people can't read?

Either way, I think the level of idiocy and assholery with the evolutionists on this thread has reached its zenith.  I've already confirmed the private point with this entire thread that I was making to a friend.  So I'm outta here.  Have a nice life.

Anyone else wonder how much he won betting a friend he could troll an internet board for 13 pages?

I moderate for GameFAQS. As a trolling attempt I give this a 7/10. He's fairly good, but he'd be eaten alive on CE or the Religion board.

Poor AoK, he's been pretty much going it alone all this time.   Yet he obviously knows what he's talking about, and I tend to side with him.    Go ahead and flame me all you want for saying that--I'm not playing.

As for taking moderator action against him for going it alone and persisting at it--I don't think so.   I've seen that done before.   Someone sticks up for himself alone, 5 people don't like him, the mods don't like him, so they take action:   because they don't LIKE him.   I have yet to see a single moderated chat board whose rules state that you will be censored if your popularity rating goes below a certain percentage.  It's called the mods being bigger babies than that guy.

I spend a lot of time working on GameFAQs, I I tend to judge by the standards we enforce there. Most of the people in this topic would have had at least one post deleted, myself included. Most of us would already have been banned.

Very little of it has to do with agreeing with the guy or not, the standard we enforce is "a post intended to annoy or offend other users". Constantly asserting positions contrary to other users and refusing to back them up with anything other than "lol you noob if you don't know this shut up" would have gotten him warned or suspended several pages ago.

Just in reply #313 I count 8 violations that would get his post deleted on GameFAQs, 9 if I count the one by me he quoted. And that's just flaming (direct insults to other users). At least 4 parts of his post would be moddable as trolling, even without context.

For comparison, my two posts on this page (#308 and 309) have at least two instances of trolling, one flame, and some quoted language that would get deleted as offensive (but the autocensor wouldn't have let them be posted to begin with).

I'd have been banned here if they enforced the rules, probably within a week of joining.

Sure, but you are taking one post out of context of all posts.  Would be the same as taking one boy's punch out of context in a schoolyard fight.  Why did he throw that punch?  What did the other boy do to him in the events leading up to that punch?

I think if you review all my posts made here, in the context of all the posts made to me by people on the other side, you will see a lot more flames and personal attacks on the other side.  On the whole, I was quite reserved.  I just opened my flame spigot on my last post as a parting shot, and I was happy to do so.  Whoever I flamed deserved it, and flamed me much more throughout this post than I flamed.

Post 241 then. Three pages ago you weren't planning you flashy exit, right?

At least three instances of blatant trolling, even taken entirely without context. With context maybe 5 or 6, depending on which mod handled it and how generous they were feeling. Not to mention the language. Any one of those would get the post deleted, beyond that is just keeping score.

As I said, by GameFAQs rules nearly all of us would have had at least one post deleted, but yours are by far the worst. And with psychoak in the same topic, that is quite an achievement.

You usually find these sort of topics degenerate into trollfests. It's nearly always the same couple of names involved.

 

What?! Agent kharma should be locked u for consequently evading every question I ask him.

Also. Gould models Darwinian evolution. It's just a refinement of Darwin theory. In fact although you think it's a cover up for ID(with no proof whatsoever but hey) it actually makes more sense than the unrefined theory of evolution. Species will evolve faster when there is more selective pressure on them. What you see as some hole in the theory of evolution is very well understood by "evolutionists".

 

What? Yes living creatures are some sort of machines. But that is not what Willy disputed. You read that in his post. He said that living creatures are different from a car in that they can reproduce themselves. He said nothing about how complex they were. You turned the point around for your own purposes.

And last. CITE.

I think he may be evading questions he doesn't have a good answer for.

 

It's my fault, I've been in a shitty mood, my creativity and viciousness isn't doing very well these days.  The joys of rain and arthritic fingers.

http://superstrangeland.blogspot.com/2010/01/intervention-theory.html

A lot of what is said here is quite good stuff and accurate, some is a little iffy, and some is downright weird or preposterous.  But an interesting read nonetheless.

My favorite quote from the article: A fellow German, physicist Max Planck, was moved to state it this way: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”