Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Then present your refutation
It's you. Spot yourself in the following analogy
The great pyramid is clearly designed.
Darwinist: The great pyramid can be built by chance
ID: Provide some data
Darwinist: You think refuting Darwinism means ID is true?
ID: You haven't refuted ID. Spot yourself in the following analogy. The human system is designed.
Darwinist: Man can be assembled by chance
ID: Provide the data
Darwinist: You think refuting Darwinism means ID is true?
ID: You haven't refuted intelligent design.
The human system is clearly the product of intelligence. This isn't a question. You made the preposterous claim that it can come about by chance due to your affinity for materialistic constructs and attempt to drag ne into it. If you want evidence see man. It's that simple. Materialism is not that difficult to contend with, if you can call it a contention. There's a difference between men discussing the builders of the great pyramid and a man walking by saying it can be assembled by chance.
I'm beginning to get the idea that you think the character defamation of these sources sans rebuttal actually worked
Not at all, I just expect you to not claim you know when you obviously do not!What, you're expecting people to have been using geiger counters for more than the century or so we knew radioactivity even existed?
Besides - the point is that, by using recent measurements of radioactivity rates, people were able to make various /predictions/ that they would be able to gather evidence consistent with such decay rates remaining constant over long periods of time, millions and billions of years; and those predictions have born fruit, and multiple independent lines of evidence have all converged on the same overall answers about the Earth being ~5 billion years old, and the universe being ~14 billion.
And why would that be, in your mind, exactly?The funny thing is that it is obvious you don't even understand why you are wrong. ...
I have a feeling the answer is in your question.And why would that be, in your mind, exactly?
It's you. Spot yourself in the following analogy
The great pyramid is clearly designed.
Darwinist: The great pyramid can be built by chance
ID: Provide some data
Darwinist: You think refuting Darwinism means ID is true?
ID: You haven't refuted ID. Spot yourself in the following analogy. The human system is designed.
Darwinist: Man can be assembled by chance
ID: Provide the data
Darwinist: You think refuting Darwinism means ID is true?
ID: You haven't refuted intelligent design.
The human system is clearly the product of intelligence. This isn't a question. You made the preposterous claim that it can come about by chance due to your affinity for materialistic constructs and attempt to drag ne into it. If you want evidence see man. It's that simple. Materialism is not that difficult to contend with, if you can call it a contention. There's a difference between men discussing the builders of the great pyramid and a man walking by saying it can be assembled by chance.
I'm beginning to get the idea that you think the character defamation of these sources sans rebuttal actually worked
And then they'll take the dictionary and see the meaning of Darwinism. It's that simple.A very nice straw man indeed. First of all stop calling me a 'Darwinist' or I'll report you for personal attacks. It's an insult and I take it as such. I have asked you to cease using the term before yet you continue. Consider this your final notice.
It was built by intelligence. Do you have anything? What about Darwinism? Are you done with that?Now, let's dissect this straw man shall we? Yes, the great pyramids were designed and built by man.
And we already went over this.So your first straw man is claiming I would say otherwise. The second is making the claim that we say 'this must have come about by chance' which is factually untrue. Chance mutations cause changes, and natural selection causes beneficial mutations to flourish.
From Evolution - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation scienceClaiming otherwise is dishonest and a misrepresentation of our position. 3rd you should probably look at what ID claims before making some ridiculous assumption about it. ID fully supports the theory of evolution,
Call it whatever you want. Call them the Egyptians of the gaps and say "theegyptiansdidit". It doesnt change anything.its proponents just use the age old god of the gaps idea to say that 'well, this looks real complicated, and I certainly can't see how it could have come about through natural means, so that must mean goddidit'. This is a ridiculous assumption, and is why ID was thrown out in Kitzmiller Vs. Dover.
So I take it you're not here to refute the intelligent design of man but you want me to pretend-debate your non-refutation without Darwinism.I need not refute ID because nobody has provided a single piece of evidence that is not just 'I can't see how this could have happened without a designer'. Nothing. It was simply an attempt to shoehorn creationism into the classroom, and you won't find a single secular scientist who supports it, it's purely a religious notion.
It doesn't. Present your data.Evolution fits the evidence.
Lol. The human. Here's a tiny bit of himTo claim an intelligent designer must have been involved means you must prove your premise first, which has not been done. Thus no refutation is needed.
Yes and the great pyramid is designed."theEgyptiandidit". The Thor argument is irrelevant in light of an adequate understanding of theological concepts. What exactly is your point here?You have failed to show anything of worth. There is nothing useful that can come of giving up and saying goddidit.
I asked you for evidence that chance can build the human system, not what you think is poor design. There is no light when you get into certain sections of the great pyramid did you know that? To add, there is little to no protection for the driver when getting into an accident and alot of people die each year due to this "flaw". There is a blind spot on the side of the car. Tires sometimes burst on the open road. The doors are not bulletproof. Types of mirrors do not allow you to see around corners. Some cars have no all wheel drive. The exhaust is channeled all the way to the back. Lights at the front blind oncoming vehicles and can cause accidents. No beds for drunk drivers in some cars as opposed to rec vehicles. Speaking of which, high fuel consumption. Speaking of which, low mileage in some hybrid vehicles. And I could go on and on. Even if one finds what they would classify as poor design it doesn't mean that it can be built by chance.Let's go over some examples of very poor design in the human body, shall we?
Appendix
Auricularis Muscles
Coccyx
Human Embryonic Tails
Fetal Circulation
Goosebumps
Grasping Reflex in Human Babies
Jaws
Kidney Development
Knee
Larynx/Pharynx junction
Limb Regeneration
Nerve 'wiring of the vertebrate retina
Nipples
Sex
Spine
Urethra
And that's just poor design in Humans! There's thousands of other examples throughout the animal kingdom.
And then they'll take the dictionary and see the meaning of Darwinism. It's that simple.
It was built by intelligence. Do you have anything? What about Darwinism? Are you done with that?
ChAnd we already went over this.
From Evolution Straw men - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation nonsense
Call it whatever you want. Call them the Egyptians of the gaps and say "theegyptiansdidit". It doesnt change anything.
So I take it you're not here to refute the intelligent design of man but you want me to pretend-debate your non-refutation without Darwinism.
The problem is not design of man. The problem is your materialistic inclinations. It didn't have to be even more spectacular. It's not some mystery. It's only the tip of the iceberg. You start to take the human system for granted and you forget the piece of technology you're dealing with.
Yes and the great pyramid is designed."theEgyptiandidit". The Thor argument is irrelevant in light of an adequate understanding of theological concepts. What exactly is your point here?
I asked you for evidence that chance can build the human system, not what you think is poor design. There is no light when you get into certain sections of the great pyramid did you know that? Even if one finds what they would classify as poor design it doesn't mean that it can be built by chance.
Go kiss some batsActually, I just found a really interesting epidemiological paper on Ebola.
High prevalence of both humoral and cellular immun... [PLoS One. 2010] - PubMed result
Look at this quote from the abstract:
Get me some of that fruit/bat saliva!
Haha, I hope you don't believe your assumptionYou asked me to name one particular item dealing with at least one of your points - I think CF210 fits the bill nicely, and so, since you tacitly agreed to my earlier suggestion should I do so, I shall assume that you'll be checking the Index to Creationist Claims on your own from now on, without my having to pipe up to offer references each and every time I notice you mention something covered in that list.
So a man doesn't like to be called a Darwinist and he tries to outlaw it. So what? Darwinism | Define Darwinism at Dictionary.comFrom wikipedia: "In the United States, the term "Darwinism" is often used by creationists as a pejorative term"
"it is increasingly regarded as an inappropriate description of modern evolutionary theory."
What demeaning and insulting way? You think you're the first person who's come here and instead of addressing the data opts to try personal defamation of character? It's called "poisoning the well".You've been reported for your continue use of the word in a demeaning and insulting way.
So you decided to take up Mr Nathan Poe's argument. We've already been over this.I said I agreed. I also said your comparison to anything living is absolutely nonsense. Drop the example because it isn't doing anything for your case.
No actually, the great pyramid is very clearly designed. We have no way of going back into the past. This is based purely on examination, textual evidence and the methodology of intelligent design. Yes, it is quite obvious isn't it?Not need for them to fill a gap, for they were very clearly the designers and builders of the pyramids. We have indisputable evidence that this is true.
It's not me, it's reality. You begin to take a man for granted (These are not "ad homs" by the way.I need not refute something which hasn't been put forward as a legitimate theory. It's not science, and has no supporting evidence, therefore it is your job to show me something to refute, not my job to refute something you hold true.
It's not a hypothesis lol. Wow. The design of the great pyramid is not a hypothesis either. The fact is the level of complexity observed along with other factors like irregularity, probability, etc match the property of intelligence. It's not some mystery. Ask anybody (And if they say no, hey, ask them for data too). This here is just materialism. You are the one who came by and said hey, it can be built by chance.Ad Hominem attacks are not appreciated here, pal. Ether we have a civilized discussion where you present to me your ID hypothesis and the evidence to support it, and I refute it, or we don't. That's the only way this will go.
Oh boy. Irrelevant. We are not discussing the pyramid builders but the fact that you assert that pyramid can be built by chance. You're still at that point. The human system is far more complex than that. And like I told you, without Darwinism, I'm not going to pretend-debate your non-assertions. There are, in fact, greater tasks at hand when you get past the simple fact that man is created. You separated yourself from the supernatural. The integration remains. It changes nothing.Can your hypothesis make predictions? Can it provide useful insights? Can it do anything other than stifle scientific progress? Your pyramid analogy is useless and does not apply to the situation, why? Because by your logic, as we are made in gods image, and thus he is our image, he too must have a designer. You can't just propose an intelligence and then with special pleading claim that your intelligence doesn't need a designer, but human intelligence does. Your concept is absurd and simple goes into an infinite regression.
- A Critique of ''29 Evidences for Macroevolution'' - Intro -Here you go. I have presented to you 29+ evidences for Macroevolution/common descent. Now, I expect a full refutation using reputable sources of every claim made in that article. Good luck.
(If you need something a bit easier to digest here's the extremely long and well sourced wikipedia article on Common Descent.)
So, when can I expect your full refutation of every claim? (If you fail to refute one of them I'm right and you're wrong by your logic. I'll expect your apology and acceptance of evolution in a could days or weeks)
These are not your refutations of the evidences put forward. I'm still awaiting yours.
The page you linked relies on a few flawed premises: 1) God exists, 2) if it looks designed, it is, 3) an inexorably flawed view of how science works.
The author also seems to love quoting well-refuted books by Jonathan Wells and other creationists/ID proponents. This is inexcusably lazy on the authors part to skip over peer-reviewed articles (Wells has written 3, all completely unrelated to ID) and using his unscientific, un reviewed books. Another fatal nail in the coffin. I said well sourced, not poorly sourced,
Due to all of these basic, fundamental flaws I reject the 'refutation' and hold the position that my evidence has not been countered. So far you are losing mr. Greg1234. How does that make you feel?
Haha, I hope you don't believe your assumption
BTW, I can't make sense of the tengwar in your signature, and it's killing me. (It's also making me feel unusually dense.) Would you mind satisfying my curiosity?
DataPacRat said:It's a multi-leveled pun, in that it describes the most beautiful equation I know, proclaims its beauty, does so in the most beautiful language I know to express that sentiment, and is written in the most beautiful script I know of that language can be expressed in. (It transliterates to "li te'o te'a vei pai pi'i ka'o ve'o su'i pa du li no .i je'a melbi!", which roughly translates to "e^(pi*i)+1=0; most beautiful!".)
We pray to God and [if] He answers either directly, or through doctors.
I ask you to tell us where your first lifeform is and you give us this??
Well, since you are so interested in the first life form, apparently, but can't even discuss it rationally,
I guess we better not add the stellar evolution to all the things you are not addressing here..
So what ya waiting for an alien invasion??
I'm saying disfigured humans weren't Neanderthals and Cro-magna -- they were disfigured humans.
This assumes we prayed to a jug of milk before. Have you?Do you think it's a coincidence that praying to a jug of milk has the EXACT, SAME results as praying to God?
This assumes we prayed to a jug of milk before. Have you?
Do you think it's a coincidence that praying to a jug of milk has the EXACT, SAME results as praying to God?
I fully expect an internet theologian's answer from AV regarding something about dispensations, basic doctrine, hermeneutics or something similar...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?