DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[Peebothuhlu]

Strawman again.

How many times are you guys going to use strawman arguments?  That is such obvious BS debate tactics a lot of people can see through.  It's weak.

 I'm sorry.

How is pointing out that you are accepting only one, single man's view and not the view of every one else who works in the field of biology a 'Straw man'?

You are referencing one man, P.Z. Myers, yes?

Who effectivly stands alone and apart from the rest of the scientific comunity.

I fail to see where there is a traw man in my statement?

[Abaddon_ire]

Strawman again.

How many times are you guys going to use strawman arguments?  That is such obvious BS debate tactics a lot of people can see through.  It's weak.

 I'm sorry.

How is pointing out that you are accepting only one, single man's view and not the view of every one else who works in the field of biology a 'Straw man'?

You are referencing one man, P.Z. Myers, yes?

Who effectivly stands alone and apart from the rest of the scientific comunity.

I fail to see where there is a traw man in my statement?

He is referencing Steven Meyer the ID crackpot, not P. Z. Myers the evolutionary biologist.

[Peebothuhlu]

 I'm sorry.

How is pointing out that you are accepting only one, single man's view and not the view of every one else who works in the field of biology a 'Straw man'?

You are referencing one man, P.Z. Myers, yes?

Who effectivly stands alone and apart from the rest of the scientific comunity.

I fail to see where there is a traw man in my statement?

He is referencing Steven Meyer the ID crackpot, not P. Z. Myers the evolutionary biologist.

Sorry... got my personalities mixed up there as I posted on the fly.

Still am pretty sure I'm not making a straw man argument.....

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, you say that..but you did just say that you couldn't change your position, too.  Which one of those assholes is correct?

( a thousand pages worth of shit argument and demonstrations to the contrary having been completely ineffectual does back up the first assholes story against your new claim....so, there's that)

Actually both are true.

-demonstrating the underlying cause for these last 1k pages worth of failure in a single sentence.  You're the kind of person who believes that mutually exclusive and contradictory things can be simultaneously true.  Knowing that, it's wholly unsurprising that you believe in ID, and that it's proponents are credible, despite the mountain of evidence and information..which you requested and received..to the contrary.

[CDF47]

Strawman again.

How many times are you guys going to use strawman arguments?  That is such obvious BS debate tactics a lot of people can see through.  It's weak.

 I'm sorry.

How is pointing out that you are accepting only one, single man's view and not the view of every one else who works in the field of biology a 'Straw man'?

You are referencing one man, P.Z. Myers, yes?

Who effectivly stands alone and apart from the rest of the scientific comunity.

I fail to see where there is a traw man in my statement?

Where did I say I follow just one man.  I just think he is the best standing with few beside him like many great scientists before him that didn't crack to the pressures of the establishment.

---

 I'm sorry.

How is pointing out that you are accepting only one, single man's view and not the view of every one else who works in the field of biology a 'Straw man'?

You are referencing one man, P.Z. Myers, yes?

Who effectivly stands alone and apart from the rest of the scientific comunity.

I fail to see where there is a traw man in my statement?

He is referencing Steven Meyer the ID crackpot, not P. Z. Myers the evolutionary biologist.

Yes, that is right.

---

Actually both are true.

-demonstrating the underlying cause for these last 1k pages worth of failure in a single sentence.  You're the kind of person who believes that mutually exclusive and contradictory things can be simultaneously true.  Knowing that, it's wholly unsurprising that you believe in ID, and that it's proponents are credible, despite the mountain of evidence and information..which you requested and received..to the contrary.

What were the contradictions here?  Not sure what you are talking about now.

[The Grand Nudger]

---

-demonstrating the underlying cause for these last 1k pages worth of failure in a single sentence.  You're the kind of person who believes that mutually exclusive and contradictory things can be simultaneously true.  Knowing that, it's wholly unsurprising that you believe in ID, and that it's proponents are credible, despite the mountain of evidence and information..which you requested and received..to the contrary.

What were the contradictions here?  Not sure what you are talking about now.

Exactly.

[downbeatplumb]

One problem with intelligent design is that it fails to explain anything about the alleged designer.

[LadyForCamus]

@T0 Th3 M4X

So you are objecting to the theory of evolution. That’s what I thought.

So, here we are again. We have a couple of theists putting forth claims of the existence of god and intelligent design, and as evidence they’ve offered to us: 1. The Bible, 2. personal experience, and 3. “It’s just obvious”. That’s enough for them to be convinced. It’s enough for them to think their beliefs are justified. But, rather than engaging in a discussion about whether or not their reasoning rationally justifies their beliefs, they prefer to nitpick at evolutionary theory.

Tell me, Max. Why is it you don’t demand the same rigorous evidence for the existence of god that you have been demanding for evolution since you joined? If god really helped cure your dad, I’m going to need for you to provide evidence of the exact mechanism of action behind that event, or else “god did it” has no explanatory power at all. As you say, specific claims require detailed, specific evidence from the person making the claim. Right?

[CDF47]

One problem with intelligent design is that it fails to explain anything about the alleged designer.

That's not the purpose of ID.  They purposely do not get into that.  They focus on the science which points to a Creator.

---

He is referencing Steven Meyer the ID crackpot, not P. Z. Myers the evolutionary biologist.

Sorry... got my personalities mixed up there as I posted on the fly.

Still am pretty sure I'm not making a straw man argument.....

You are focused on ID and I am focused on DNA.  That is the strawman created.  I am not focused on the ID movement.

---

@T0 Th3 M4X

So you are objecting to the theory of evolution.  That’s what I thought.

So, here we are again. A couple of theists here putting forth claims of the existence of god and intelligent design, and as evidence they’ve offered to us: 1. The Bible, 2. personal experience, and 3. “It’s just obvious”. That’s enough for them to be convinced. It’s enough for them to think their beliefs are justified.  But, rather than engaging in a discussion about whether or not their reasoning rationally justifies their beliefs, they prefer to nitpick at evolutionary theory.

Tell me, Max. Why is it you don’t demand the same rigorous evidence for the existence of god that you have been demanding for evolution since you joined?  If god really helped cure your dad, I’m going to need for you to provide evidence of the exact mechanism of action behind that event, or else “god did it” has no explanatory power at all. As you say, specific claims require detailed, specific evidence from the person making the claim. Right?

I provided much more than that.  I provided proof.  Watch the videos in my signature or in this thread on the molecular machines.  I will re-post the molecular machine video if you would like to watch it.

[LadyForCamus]

One problem with intelligent design is that it fails to explain anything about the alleged designer.

That's not the purpose of ID.  They purposely do not get into that.  They focus on the science which points to a Creator.

---

Sorry... got my personalities mixed up there as I posted on the fly.

Still am pretty sure I'm not making a straw man argument.....

You are focused on ID and I am focused on DNA.  That is the strawman created.  I am not focused on the ID movement.

---

@T0 Th3 M4X

So you are objecting to the theory of evolution.  That’s what I thought.

So, here we are again. A couple of theists here putting forth claims of the existence of god and intelligent design, and as evidence they’ve offered to us: 1. The Bible, 2. personal experience, and 3. “It’s just obvious”. That’s enough for them to be convinced. It’s enough for them to think their beliefs are justified.  But, rather than engaging in a discussion about whether or not their reasoning rationally justifies their beliefs, they prefer to nitpick at evolutionary theory.

Tell me, Max. Why is it you don’t demand the same rigorous evidence for the existence of god that you have been demanding for evolution since you joined?  If god really helped cure your dad, I’m going to need for you to provide evidence of the exact mechanism of action behind that event, or else “god did it” has no explanatory power at all. As you say, specific claims require detailed, specific evidence from the person making the claim. Right?

I provided much more than that.  I provided proof.  Watch the videos in my signature or in this thread on the molecular machines.  I will re-post the molecular machine video if you would like to watch it.

I’m not watching your stupid YouTube videos. I shouldn’t even be responding to you, because I’m convinced you’re a troll, and I’m going against my own advice in this very thread. When the scientific consensus is that life was was designed by god, get back to me. Unfortunately for you, all available evidence points to evolution by natural selection. You’re silly, “wow, look how complex this is!  It’s just obvious!” is nonsense that I shouldn’t even bother responding to.