If you think about it, you only need to shoot a few darts, then draw the bullseye around them and claim to be the best dart player ever.

(May 29, 2014 at 8:38 am)LastPoet Wrote: If you think about it, you only need to shoot a few darts, then draw the bullseye around them and claim to be the best dart player ever.

Why draw the bullseye at all? After all, there's no possible way for the bullseye to not be where your darts are under an atheistic worldview, so therefore wherever your darts are must be the bullseye by default.

All you've got to do is be unable to imagine another way for things to be, and things therefore must be the way you can imagine them, right?

"irreducible complexity" = personal incredulity.

Please, if you can, show us an example of an "irreducibly complex" organism.

I'll wait lol

---

Edit:

Oh, I almost forgot:

http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Some_syste...ly_complex

and

http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity

(May 28, 2014 at 6:36 pm)Artur Axmann Wrote: Is intelligent design a scientific theory?Yes.

The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.

http://www.intelligentdesign.org/

It's a discredited scientific hypothesis. For every proposed instance of irreducible complexity, an evolutionary path has been found that explains how the structure was formed. ID researchers have thus far found no irreducible complexity in biology. They are akin to ghost hunters.

---

(May 28, 2014 at 9:15 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(May 28, 2014 at 9:08 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Based on a sample size of exactly one laboratory-created bacterium that we not only know was deliberately designed, but we also know the identities of the designers?

The claim made was that intelligent design was merely a hypothesis. Just one example of something intelligently designed demolishes that claim.

Intelligently designed biological systems exist.....shouldn't students then be taught about intelligent design?

If the intelligent design hypothesis wasn't already exclusive of human-designed organisms, your thought might actually make sense, but it's something we've been doing for thousands of years.

Students ARE taught about things that are KNOWN to be intelligently designed. In a proper science class, they are not taught about things IMAGINED to be intelligently designed.

---

(May 28, 2014 at 9:25 pm)Artur Axmann Wrote: it is a mathematical impossibility for the universe to be the way it is without external interference.

That's an assertion that would be provable by definition, if true. Show your work, please.

(May 28, 2014 at 9:25 pm)Artur Axmann Wrote: The universe ,in its construction ,reveals the
the laws of mathematics and these laws can be calculated and diagrammed by physicists.

Mathematics is a language we use to describe things precisely. If the universe were different, the math would be different. The mathematical models of physical laws are determined by observation and experimentation, and some of them seem to be brute facts impossible to derive mathematically from other facts.

(May 28, 2014 at 9:25 pm)Artur Axmann Wrote: This implies an intelligence in creation and underpins I.D. theory.

The basis of ID is in trouble, then. And ID is not a theory. Scientific theories are based on hypotheses that have withstood attempts to falsify them. ID fails at this level as well.

---

(May 28, 2014 at 9:27 pm)Heywood Wrote: Would you have a problem teaching students that there are two known mechanisms which explain the existence of biological systems, evolution and intelligent design?

Sadly, the co-option by creationists of the term 'intelligent design' have rendered it useless, scientifically. I would go with natural and artifcial organism.

---

(May 28, 2014 at 9:38 pm)Heywood Wrote: But atheists don't want it taught at all...when it is a fact of reality.

I have difficulty believing that you're actually this stupid. Consider it a compliment that I think you're being willfully deceptive.

---

(May 28, 2014 at 11:46 pm)Heywood Wrote: I think ID'st would be quite happy with teaching that intelligent design is one of the known mechanisms by which biological systems come into existence....even if it included a disclaimer that they only known examples are the result of human intellect.

Sure, the thinnest edge of the wedge still gets the wedge in.

(May 28, 2014 at 11:46 pm)Heywood Wrote: I suspect there would be atheists who fight it and still claim it isn't science.

I suspect you suspect this because you suspect we are as dishonest as you are, not realizing how high you're setting that particular bar.

(May 28, 2014 at 11:46 pm)Heywood Wrote: In the future, the very near future, most lineages of life on this planet will be the result of intelligent design.

That's ridiculous. Do you have any comprehension of the numbers involved? What motivation could we have to be in a hurry to create hundreds of millions of new species? It will take centuries.

(May 28, 2014 at 11:46 pm)Heywood Wrote: The lineage you and I belong to....its origin is unknown. Its origin could be designed or could be the result of happenstance.

It could not be happenstance. It could be evololution, which is to what all the available evidence points.

(May 28, 2014 at 11:46 pm)Heywood Wrote: After generations are taught about intelligent design, some will ponder if our origin is the result of intelligent design. Intelligent design isn't going away anytime soon.

The same way some idiots wonder if we can see a laptop on the beach and tell it's designed, why do we think the sand on the beach isn't. Your future generations will be the intellectual heirs of these same idiots who try to force the qualities that tell us the artificial is different from the natural into service as telling us that the natural is actually artificial. I don't think they'll be very representative.

But your dishonest agenda in getting this taught in schools is noted. I'm perfectly okay with letting the cards fall as they may regarding accurate science being taught. I have a feeling it won't work out as well for your agenda as you think.

(May 29, 2014 at 8:10 am)Bad Wolf Wrote:

(May 28, 2014 at 9:03 pm)Heywood Wrote: More than a hypothesis, it is a fact of reality.

Are we talking about the same thing here? Intelligent design? The 'scientific' cover for creationism. The movement that presumes a god made everything and then goes out looking for evidence for that presumption.

Yes, we are talking about the same thing. From an Intelligent design website:

Quote:Intelligent design is a scientific theory which holds that certain
features of the universe and living things are best explained
by an intelligent cause, and are not the result of an undirected,
chance-based process such as Darwinian evolution.

http://www.ideacenter.org/stuff/contentm...tshell.pdf

Mycoplasm Laboratorium is a living thing that has certain features that are best explained by an intelligent cause.

(May 29, 2014 at 8:10 am)Bad Wolf Wrote:

(May 28, 2014 at 9:03 pm)Heywood Wrote: Mycoplasma Laboratorium is a synthetic species of bacterium. Within the DNA of the species is a series of water marks.
These water marks are too complex to have evolved and can only be the product of intelligent design.

Says who? You?
Who is to say that it would be impossible for this to occur naturally?

Who is to say the bacteria flagellum wasn't designed? Just because a pathway was found that showed it could have evolved doesn't mean that it did evolve.

(May 29, 2014 at 8:10 am)Bad Wolf Wrote:

(May 28, 2014 at 9:03 pm)Heywood Wrote: It has been demonstrated scientifically that biological systems can be intelligently designed and contain systems which are irreducibly complex.

Great! Now how does that prove your god?

Intelligent design, as proposed, doesn't say anything about the intelligence behind the design. It is not a theory that attempts to prove anyone's God.

---

(May 29, 2014 at 10:08 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(May 28, 2014 at 9:15 pm)Heywood Wrote: The claim made was that intelligent design was merely a hypothesis. Just one example of something intelligently designed demolishes that claim.

Intelligently designed biological systems exist.....shouldn't students then be taught about intelligent design?

If the intelligent design hypothesis wasn't already exclusive of human-designed organisms, your thought might actually make sense, but it's something we've been doing for thousands of years.

Students ARE taught about things that are KNOWN to be intelligently designed. In a proper science class, they are not taught about things IMAGINED to be intelligently designed.

There is nothing wrong with asking students to look at a feature of the universe and ask, "is this better explained by intelligent cause or an unintelligent cause?" This is a perfectly valid line of inquiry.

---

(May 29, 2014 at 10:08 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(May 28, 2014 at 11:46 pm)Heywood Wrote: In the future, the very near future, most lineages of life on this planet will be the result of intelligent design.

That's ridiculous. Do you have any comprehension of the numbers involved? What motivation could we have to be in a hurry to create hundreds of millions of new species? It will take centuries.

You are confusing species with lineage. There is only one known lineage of life on this planet(two if you count mycoplasma laboratorium as a separate lineage....I do not because I see it as a modification of existing life). All life shares a universal common ancestor. Once we start creating biological life from scratch(instead of cobbling it together frakenstien style) there will be several lineages.

(May 29, 2014 at 12:05 pm)Heywood Wrote: Mycoplasm Laboratorium is a living thing that has certain features that are best explained by an intelligent cause.

Who decided that? Oh wait, let me guess, intelligent design proponents?

(May 29, 2014 at 12:05 pm)Heywood Wrote: Who is to say the bacteria flagellum wasn't designed? Just because a pathway was found that showed it could have evolved doesn't mean that it did evolve.

There is actual evidence that it did evolve. IT has no evidence, it simply says: 'I don't understand how something like that could evolve, therefore it didn't'

(May 29, 2014 at 12:05 pm)Heywood Wrote: Intelligent design, as proposed, doesn't say anything about the intelligence behind the design. It is not a theory that attempts to prove anyone's God.

Yea....whatever you say bud.

(May 29, 2014 at 12:05 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(May 29, 2014 at 8:10 am)Bad Wolf Wrote: Are we talking about the same thing here? Intelligent design? The 'scientific' cover for creationism. The movement that presumes a god made everything and then goes out looking for evidence for that presumption.

Yes, we are talking about the same thing. From an Intelligent design website:

Quote:Intelligent design is a scientific theory which holds that certain
features of the universe and living things are best explained
by an intelligent cause, and are not the result of an undirected,
chance-based process such as Darwinian evolution.

http://www.ideacenter.org/stuff/contentm...tshell.pdf

Lol. That's it? Copypasta from an Intelligent Design website claiming ID is science?

(May 29, 2014 at 12:05 pm)Heywood Wrote: Mycoplasm Laboratorium is a living thing that has certain features that are best explained by an intelligent cause.

It's also laboratory created by humans. Funny you can't seem to find a similar example in nature.

(May 29, 2014 at 8:10 am)Bad Wolf Wrote: Says who? You?
Who is to say that it would be impossible for this to occur naturally?

(May 29, 2014 at 12:05 pm)Heywood Wrote: YWho is to say the bacteria flagellum wasn't designed? Just because a pathway was found that showed it could have evolved doesn't mean that it did evolve.

Except we have substantial evidence it did evolve. Who is to say the bacteria flagellum wasn't evolved? Just because a pathway was found that showed it could have been designed doesn't mean that it didn't evolve.

(May 29, 2014 at 8:10 am)Bad Wolf Wrote: Great! Now how does that prove your god?

(May 29, 2014 at 12:05 pm)Heywood Wrote: Intelligent design, as proposed, doesn't say anything about the intelligence behind the design. It is not a theory that attempts to prove anyone's God.

If ID pointed to Siva, you wouldn't be supporting it.

---

(May 29, 2014 at 10:08 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: If the intelligent design hypothesis wasn't already exclusive of human-designed organisms, your thought might actually make sense, but it's something we've been doing for thousands of years.

Students ARE taught about things that are KNOWN to be intelligently designed. In a proper science class, they are not taught about things IMAGINED to be intelligently designed.

(May 29, 2014 at 12:05 pm)Heywood Wrote: There is nothing wrong with asking students to look at a feature of the universe and ask, "is this better explained by intelligent cause or an unintelligent cause?" This is a perfectly valid line of inquiry.

Name one.

---

(May 29, 2014 at 10:08 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: That's ridiculous. Do you have any comprehension of the numbers involved? What motivation could we have to be in a hurry to create hundreds of millions of new species? It will take centuries.

(May 29, 2014 at 12:05 pm)Heywood Wrote: You are confusing species with lineage. There is only one known lineage of life on this planet(two if you count mycoplasma laboratorium as a separate lineage....I do not because I see it as a modification of existing life). All life shares a universal common ancestor. Once we start creating biological life from scratch(instead of cobbling it together frakenstien style) there will be several lineages.

Just because you don't understand the biological concept of species doesn't make it a less valuable concept.

(May 29, 2014 at 12:20 pm)Bad Wolf Wrote:

(May 29, 2014 at 12:05 pm)Heywood Wrote: Mycoplasm Laboratorium is a living thing that has certain features that are best explained by an intelligent cause.

Who decided that? Oh wait, let me guess, intelligent design proponents?

Negative....the people who created the species claimed they designed these features. Mycoplasm Laboratorium has features that can best be explained by intelligent agents. This is a fact and the only one who disputes it is you.

(May 29, 2014 at 12:20 pm)Bad Wolf Wrote:

(May 29, 2014 at 12:05 pm)Heywood Wrote: Who is to say the bacteria flagellum wasn't designed? Just because a pathway was found that showed it could have evolved doesn't mean that it did evolve.

There is actual evidence that it did evolve. IT has no evidence, it simply says: 'I don't understand how something like that could evolve, therefore it didn't'

By evidence, you mean a pathway by which it could have evolved. There is no evidence(to my knowledge) that pathway was actually realized instead of the feature being intelligently designed. I think the flagellum did evolve but I can't prove it.

(May 29, 2014 at 12:20 pm)Bad Wolf Wrote:

(May 29, 2014 at 12:05 pm)Heywood Wrote: Intelligent design, as proposed, doesn't say anything about the intelligence behind the design. It is not a theory that attempts to prove anyone's God.

Yea....whatever you say bud.

Its not what I say. The theory itself simply makes no reference about the kind of intelligence behind the features.

(May 29, 2014 at 12:05 pm)Heywood Wrote: Who is to say the bacteria flagellum wasn't designed? Just because a pathway was found that showed it could have evolved doesn't mean that it did evolve.

But it does mean that the sole utility of the irreducible complexity claim, the argument from ignorance that this specific feature could not have evolved, is entirely nullified. So what we're now looking at is a claim of intelligent design that is completely limp and has no evidence, or a claim of evolution, where we actually have evidence that it at least occurs.

And when your only defense is "well, it could have happened that way anyway!" which is another argument from ignorance, we don't really have to consider it. The intelligent design claim is formulated to be as vague as possible so that it "could have" happened to anything; "could have" isn't compelling when the designer you're talking about has literally no properties.

Come back with evidence, then we'll talk.

Quote:Intelligent design, as proposed, doesn't say anything about the intelligence behind the design. It is not a theory that attempts to prove anyone's God.

Tell that to all the Cdesign proponentsists from the intellient design movement.

(May 29, 2014 at 12:31 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(May 29, 2014 at 12:20 pm)Bad Wolf Wrote: Who decided that? Oh wait, let me guess, intelligent design proponents?

Negative....the people who created the species claimed they designed these features. Mycoplasm Laboratorium has features that can best be explained by intelligent agents. This is a fact and the only one who disputes it is you.

Hate to interrupt your jack-off party, but repeatedly introducing a laboratory modified bacterium with features not shown anywhere else in nature is just another bullet in the head of ID.