Evolution happening before our very eyes? Awesome.

[Nik]

Brainwashed religious zealots who ignore evidence because it doesn't support their baseless theories and then telling other people to think for themselves...

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

You Think for yourself? Ya, I'm gonna call Shens.

This is fairly typical for this thread. I provide a lot of information and analysis and get nothing in return except links, insults, and ad-hominem attacks.

If you want to pursuade people to your side, you really need to do better.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

Brainwashed religious zealots who ignore evidence because it doesn't support their baseless theories and then telling other people to think for themselves...

Again, a lot of blather, but nothing worthwhile to add to the discussion.

 

[sandorski]

This is fairly typical for this thread. I provide a lot of information and analysis and get nothing in return except links, insults, and ad-hominem attacks.

If you want to pursuade people to your side, you really need to do better.

You're deluded. Srsly.

 

[Nik]

Again, a lot of blather, but nothing worthwhile to add to the discussion.

I'm giving you exactly what you've given to this discussion: NOTHING.

Oh, wait, didn't you add me to your ignore list you liar?

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

You're deluded. Srsly.

Same old, same old. Again, nothing substantive to add to the discussion.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

I'm giving you exactly what you've given to this discussion: NOTHING.

Oh, wait, didn't you add me to your ignore list you liar?

Same old, same old. Again, nothing substantive to add to the discussion.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Same old, same old. Again, nothing substantive to add to the discussion.

Well, at least you finally admitted that's what you're doing.

 

[child of wonder]

Phineas --

There's no point in arguing with these people. It's clear they cannot think rationally or are open to opposing evidence.

The Bible clearly says GOD created the universe and the Bible is the word of GOD because the Bible says so.

END OF DISCUSSION

 

[sandorski]

hehe

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

hehe

Same old, same old. Again, nothing substantive to add to the discussion.

 

[darkswordsman17]

I provide a lot of information and analysis

What info did you provide? I must have missed it while you were doing this:

Again, a lot of blather, but nothing worthwhile to add to the discussion.

Same old, same old. Again, nothing substantive to add to the discussion.

I'm actually serious, what information did you provide ever? I guess you did provide us with the info that you find your own children to be physically attractive. Oh, and you admitted that you have the intelligence/knowledge of a 5 year old, but that just proves that you were trolling the entire time.

Any analysis was just pulled from some site, so you don't deserve any credit for that if you're going to say that what was provided to you by the opposing viewpoint doesn't count.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

What info did you provide? I must have missed it while you were doing this:

I'm actually serious, what information did you provide ever? I guess you did provide us with the info that you find your own children to be physically attractive. Oh, and you admitted that you have the intelligence/knowledge of a 5 year old, but that just proves that you were trolling the entire time.

Any analysis was just pulled from some site, so you don't deserve any credit for that if you're going to say that what was provided to you by the opposing viewpoint doesn't count.

Same old, same old. Again, nothing substantive to add to the discussion.

Read the thread.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Same old, same old. Again, nothing substantive to add to the discussion.

This discussion, as started by Nik, could have been an enlightened discussion but you chose to bring the dark ages anti-science into it and if "goddidit" is the position you have been indoctrinated into then no discussion can be had as it is an unfalsifiable position, it's not open for discussion from either side.

Of course, ID is creationism, it's "too complex so goddidit" and it adds nothing new, nothing to investigate and there can be no evidence to find because since it's just creationism with an assertion added to it.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Same old, same old. Again, nothing substantive to add to the discussion.

Read the thread.

Then perhaps you can understand why a lot of us will refer you to talkorigins, we've had this debate with a stone skulled whackjob a thousand times before, the information is there if you wish to take part of it but it requires something you are not used to, it requires that you THINK because you won't be told what to think by it.

Perhaps that is your biggest problem? That it doesn't simply tells you what to think but actually gives you enough information and evidence so you can decide for yourself?

 

[darkswordsman17]

Same old, same old. Again, nothing substantive to add to the discussion.

Read the thread.

I did read the thread, and yet, you never did actually provide any info that wasn't what you disqualify from other people (links, quotes, etc).

Really, the only information I can find that you provided was your attraction to your kids and that you admitted you were incapable of understanding much due to your knowledge.

You have to actually provide this alleged information. Also, do it in your own words. Maybe its because you never actually bothered to explain any of the information you claim to have provided? You never did that at all. If you want people to be able to discuss a topic with you, you're going to actually have to do this, until you do, we literally cannot have further discussion.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

no discussion can be had as it is an unfalsifiable position

That's untrue. ID is falsifiable.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=494

 

[darkswordsman17]

That's untrue. ID is falsifiable.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=494

Oh, so that's how you discuss a topic, just link to something? I can't be bothered to read that link, you have to explain it to me.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

Oh, so that's how you discuss a topic, just link to something? I can't be bothered to read that link, you have to explain it to me.

Sure. ID is falsifable, ie., it is testable and emperical evidence can be used against it.

falsifiable - capable of being tested (verified or falsified) by experiment or observation

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

You suggested that over time, the cummulative effect of microevolution leads to macroevolutiuonary changes and cited the fossil record, homology, and biogeography.

I examined each of these factors and showed how they don't support your theory at all.

You showed nothing of the sort.

I repeatedly asked what the source was for the infomation encoded in genetic matter and you provided no explanation other than than the Geiger counter, broken glass and dealt playing cards.

That you fail to comprehend the refutations does not make them less true or valid. Information is generated at random, as those supplied examples demonstrate. You admitted yourself you don't understand information theory, so here you're basically just lying... again.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Sure. ID is falsifable, ie., it is testable and emperical evidence can be used against it.

falsifiable - capable of being tested (verified or falsified) by experiment or observation

Please supply an example of an observation which would falsify intelligent design.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

That's untrue. ID is falsifiable.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=494

This has to be a joke?

 

[xSauronx]

That's untrue. ID is falsifiable.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=494

That doesn't show it is falsifiable...it shows that it currently isn't, and it does a half ass job of it at that.

also this:

Cerpin Taxt

Please supply an example of an observation which would falsify intelligent design.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

Please supply an example of an observation which would falsify intelligent design.

"Consider the argument that Michael Behe makes in his book​

Darwin’s Black Box.There he proposes that design is detectable in many “molecular machines,” including thebacterial flagellum. Behe argues that this tiny motor needs all its parts to function—it is“irreducibly complex.” Such systems in our experience are a hallmark of designed systems, because they require the foresight that is the exclusive jurisdiction of intelligent
agents. Darwin’s mechanism of natural selection and random variations, in contrast, requires a functional system at each transition along the way. Natural selection can select for present but not for future function. Notice that Behe’s argument rests not on ignorance, but on what we know about designed systems, the causal powers of intelligent agents, and on our growing knowledge of the cellular world and its many mechanisms.
How does one test and discredit Behe’s argument? Describe a realistic,​

continuously functional Darwinian pathway from simple ancestor to present motor."

 

[sandorski]

"Consider the argument that Michael Behe makes in his book​

Darwin’s Black Box.There he proposes that design is detectable in many “molecular machines,” including thebacterial flagellum. Behe argues that this tiny motor needs all its parts to function—it is“irreducibly complex.” Such systems in our experience are a hallmark of designed systems, because they require the foresight that is the exclusive jurisdiction of intelligent
agents. Darwin’s mechanism of natural selection and random variations, in contrast, requires a functional system at each transition along the way. Natural selection can select for present but not for future function. Notice that Behe’s argument rests not on ignorance, but on what we know about designed systems, the causal powers of intelligent agents, and on our growing knowledge of the cellular world and its many mechanisms.
How does one test and discredit Behe’s argument? Describe a realistic,​

continuously functional Darwinian pathway from simple ancestor to present motor."

fail