(October 31, 2015 at 2:15 pm)jenny1972 Wrote: i understand that some people have the opinion that evolution is completely random and not intelligently designed  i just dont have that opinion . there is no proof its simply a theory noone really knows for sure or were there to document the evolution or perform testing during the process so its a theory . i do understand the theory of evolution that some people think had nothing to do with intelligent direction/design .

No. No no no.

We've been over this. Theory does not mean "guess" or "opinion", in science. People in the ID camp want to dilute the meaning of theory, at least in the public mind, because they know their idea does not measure up as a scientific theory. You have fallen for this propaganda.

You are not entitled to hold an opinion on a scientific theory until you really understand it. I'll apply the same basic test I apply to everyone who tries to have an evolution discussion with me. Name the basic equation that proves a genetically-reproducing population will not remain stable. It's covered on week one of any course on genetics, which is of course one of the first (and primary!) things one must understand before even beginning to understand evolutionary biology under the Modern Synthesis.

It's not "some people" who "have the opinion that evolution is completely random and not intelligently designed", it's literally 99.9999999% of the field of professional biologists. I have yet, in my professional career and my friendships/associations with other scientists outside of work, to meet a biologist who does not laugh when you propose the idea of an intelligent designer. [Edit to Add: And yes, that includes the Christian ones.]

A few guys have made quite a lot of money off the credulous, who want desperately to believe in an Intelligent Designer. There's a lot of money to be made, there. But the guys who have made such claims can not support their claims, under investigation. That is what it takes to have an idea in the scientific community. What they have doesn't even qualify for the term "hypothesis", because it is an argument from ignorance and by definition cannot be falsified. What few claims they have made in the physical world are quickly proved to be false, and based upon poor assumptions. "There can't be Thing A by natural selection!!" "Here it is, I proved how Thing A evolved." "Oh... well, uh, you can't show how Thing B evolved!!" "Oh, the team over at UT-Austin already proved that one." "Oh... well, uh, what about thing C!?" 

It's not an argument. It's not the other side of the opinion. It's a few naysayers against HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of scientists who all agree about evolution. Numbers by themselves don't mean anything, of course, but when every expert in the field says the same thing but you prefer to listen to a tiny fraction of a percent who have a clear agenda for what they say, and have been called out repeatedly in public court hearings for that agenda, because they expressed it openly, you have passed beyond the realm of "my opinion is worthy of being respected".

Your opinion must be based on the best facts available, or it is worthless. This is true of anyone. And ID is simply not based on anything factual or worthwhile... it's quite literally "I don't understand how this works, so it can't be natural".

(October 31, 2015 at 2:15 pm)jenny1972 Wrote: yes i am enjoying the fruits of my labor very much

-said the troll.  Should I not have taken you seriously? Am I wasting my time with you? Will my last post have been a waste of time as well?

(October 31, 2015 at 2:14 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Here's what I'm going to do.  I'm going to let you reach down and grab a shred of dignity out of the wreckage you've created.

The idea that complex things -have- designers, in your experience today here on earth, does not provide a valid means of inference for your conclusion.  What this means...is that even if complex things do have designers....here on earth, even if your mal-formed opinion on the matter is true, read that again, even if it is true, this is no reason to conclude that there is a creator, let alone a creator god.   That's what it means, for something to be an invalid form of inference.  It means that the truth of the propositions are irrelevant - that even if we supplied the form with true propositions, we cannot trust the conclusion to be true.  I don't have to know, for example..whether or not complex things have designers....to state that you are plainly, demonstrably, and provably wrong.  

That's it, that's all there is... and all there needs be.  There's no difference of opinion, there's nothing to argue, there is nothing further to discuss regarding this claim.  Are you capable of acknowledging this simple fact, and remaining consistent to that acknowledgement going forward?  Do you understand what I've just explained to you?

no i have not been proven to be wrong its just your opinion that im wrong i think you are wrong and recognizing that intelligence creates complex organized systems and applying that observation to the larger picture of evolution and nature is valid . so i disagree with your opinion on that .

So you don't understand.  This is not my opinion...I'm explaining the rules of the system we call logic, to you..the very foundation of what we mean when we say we have proven something.  Would you like to understand, or would you rather persist in debasing yourself for all to see?

You did know that there were rules, right?  You're about to engage someone in a formal debate.........holy, shit.

(October 31, 2015 at 2:26 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote:

(October 31, 2015 at 2:15 pm)jenny1972 Wrote: i understand that some people have the opinion that evolution is completely random and not intelligently designed  i just dont have that opinion . there is no proof its simply a theory noone really knows for sure or were there to document the evolution or perform testing during the process so its a theory . i do understand the theory of evolution that some people think had nothing to do with intelligent direction/design .

No. No no no.

We've been over this. Theory does not mean "guess" or "opinion", in science. People in the ID camp want to dilute the meaning of theory, at least in the public mind, because they know their idea does not measure up as a scientific theory. You have fallen for this propaganda.

You are not entitled to hold an opinion on a scientific theory until you really understand it. I'll apply the same basic test I apply to everyone who tries to have an evolution discussion with me. Name the basic equation that proves a genetically-reproducing population will not remain stable. It's covered on week one of any course on genetics, which is of course one of the first (and primary!) things one must understand before even beginning to understand evolutionary biology under the Modern Synthesis.

It's not "some people" who "have the opinion that evolution is completely random and not intelligently designed", it's literally 99.9999999% of the field of professional biologists. I have yet, in my professional career and my friendships/associations with other scientists outside of work, to meet a biologist who does not laugh when you propose the idea of an intelligent designer. [Edit to Add: And yes, that includes the Christian ones.]

A few guys have made quite a lot of money off the credulous, who want desperately to believe in an Intelligent Designer. There's a lot of money to be made, there. But the guys who have made such claims can not support their claims, under investigation. That is what it takes to have an idea in the scientific community. What they have doesn't even qualify for the term "hypothesis", because it is an argument from ignorance and by definition cannot be falsified. What few claims they have made in the physical world are quickly proved to be false, and based upon poor assumptions. "There can't be Thing A by natural selection!!" "Here it is, I proved how Thing A evolved." "Oh... well, uh, you can't show how Thing B evolved!!" "Oh, the team over at UT-Austin already proved that one." "Oh... well, uh, what about thing C!?" 

It's not an argument. It's not the other side of the opinion. It's a few naysayers against HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of scientists who all agree about evolution. Numbers by themselves don't mean anything, of course, but when every expert in the field says the same thing but you prefer to listen to a tiny fraction of a percent who have a clear agenda for what they say, and have been called out repeatedly in public court hearings for that agenda, because they expressed it openly, you have passed beyond the realm of "my opinion is worthy of being respected".

Your opinion must be based on the best facts available, or it is worthless. This is true of anyone. And ID is simply not based on anything factual or worthwhile... it's quite literally "I don't understand how this works, so it can't be natural".

but since noone knows for a fact that God did not influence evolution then its just an opinion that God did not influence it .

Here again you show yourself to be demonstrably and provably wrong - for the same reason as before.

(October 31, 2015 at 2:26 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(October 31, 2015 at 2:15 pm)jenny1972 Wrote: yes i am enjoying the fruits of my labor very much

-said the troll.  Should I not have taken you seriously?  Am I wasting my time with you?  Will my last post have been a waste of time as well?

why shouldnt i enjoy talking about a topic that i believe in your being far more of a troll than i am on this thread im not being insulting with my posts at all just because your getting frustrated because im not agreeing with your position doesnt make me a troll

It's not an issue of agreeing with me, Jen...and it's not as though I haven't explained this multiple times.  You enjoy the subject so much, and believe in your claims so sincerely....that you can't be bothered to accord it or them the respect and consideration they deserve?  Really?

(October 31, 2015 at 2:32 pm)Rhythm Wrote: So you don't understand.  This is not my opinion...I'm explaining the rules of the system we call logic, to you..the very foundation of what we mean when we say we have proven something.  Would you like to understand, or would you rather persist in debasing yourself for all to see?

You did know that there were rules, right?  You're about to engage someone in a formal debate.........holy, shit.

why is observing that intelligent beings creating complex systems and applying that observation to a complex system not logical its very logical . scientists use observation to develop theories all the time dont they ?

Because it's invalid fucking inference, you jackass.   I literally -just- explained it. Are we back to pretending that this thread doesn't exist? If you don't understand logic, and you don't know the rules of inference, just say so. Would that be so hard?

Just say so..because I do...and not only that, I can lead you to a place where you could learn them for yourself, if you, a fucking demonstrable liar, would have the audacity to cast aspersions about my reliability.