Intelligent Design (brief overview).

[FatAndFaithless]

MK has literally and unequivocally said he does not care about peer reviewed scientific evidence. The conversation is over.

[Mystic]

In my perspective, they lack proper reasoning to assess what Creationist argue by. So it doesn't matter, they are bullies like you guys who can't argue their case, but seek to manipulate people to believing they have a reasonable case.

[Foxaèr]

In my perspective, they lack proper reasoning to assess what Creationist argue by. So it doesn't matter, they are bullies like you guys who can't argue their case, but seek to manipulate people to believing they have a reasonable case.

Peer review is the furthest thing from bullying.

The way some members respond on here is in no way comparable to peer review scientific articles. I don't necessarily agree with how some atheist members respond to you, but I provide myself a cleaner conscience by not participating and responding similarly.

[Mystic]

I've seen Meyer present ID, and I see all responses as never addressing truly what he argues by.

[LadyForCamus]

When I was taught evolution in high school, they didn't even tell us anything about the issue of irreducible complexity and how evolutionist tempt to solve them.

It was like it was total non-issue. Before we get into actual details in nature... you have to understand what the irreducible complexity problem is to evolution.

A complex system has many parts. What makes a complex system possibly irreducible is dependency on certain parts on others.  That is without certain parts, other parts wont be useful. 

The problem of irreducibility, is that, it could not by mechanism of small mutations, have evolved because the irreducible complexity suggests that many parts are needed for them to work together for it to work at all.

Of course, you can always take about a more simple version of that system evolving to more complex version of that system.....

But the very first time the system rose, is it possible to go the route of gradual changes? That's the question.

I've realized there is many complex systems that this is not possible.

It's not "I don't know how it's possible so it's not", it's more I know how it's impossible.

Aside from this something are binary. That is they in or they out. One thread I don't know if you guys remember was the binary nature of consciousness. Some thing is either consciousness or not. To go from non-consciousness to consciousness at whatever degree of any degree of consciousness, cannot happen by a mere mutation or a few. It has to be a lot and so many that it cannot be due to random type in naturalism way. 

The reason is because of the binary nature of it.  You can imagine a million steps on the way, but then it make that transition, it's binary.

So aside form irreducible complexity of life of dependency issue, is binary design of things like consciousness.


Now certain things that we may think they are irreducible complex, but they are not, and evolutionary path might be possible for them. Other things not so much.


Sometimes it's not just a irreducible complex system, it's the need of several different type of irreducible complex systems working together... 

That's how easy it always been to see the design of the Creator.

You should try that suicide vest sooner rather than later.

Whoa, wtf?

---

I don't believe in scientific authority. Sorry.  I see it clear as daylight. Design is so manifest and has always been manifest.

I don't care about that peer journalism bullshit. 

There is no reason to trust any authority in this time where humans are ruled by deceivers.

Then what is the point of having any discussion with you at all?

[Mystic]

You can have a discussion LC but the opposite of that, is talking about "peer review" and "science" to dismiss Creationist arguments. Of course, creationist are not considered scientist nor the theory of ID design as scientific, for no reason but bullying.

I don't care about authority figures. If you can show one of your scientist including Dawkins to properly assess irreducible complexity as it has been best presented by it's proponents, then do so.

I've read these so called refutations of it and they don't address it, but just scribble all over the place irrelevant things to obscure it.

[Crossless2.0]

I don't believe in scientific authority. Sorry.  I see it clear as daylight. Design is so manifest and has always been manifest.

I don't care about that peer journalism bullshit. 

There is no reason to trust any authority in this time where humans are ruled by deceivers.

That's a nice little outlook you have there, MK. You get to decide what is 'manifest', ignore what people actually learned in the relevant disciplines have to say, and walk away convinced that you, at least, are not one of the ungodly deceived. And all without doing anything more than credulously playing make-believe. Congratulations. 

[Mystic]

It doesn't matter to me. I don't care if Catholic Priests and Jewish Rabbis for example don't see Mohammad in their holy books. I don't care if they studied all their life.

I can't depend on people to see things. God gave me intelligence and I intend to use it. I see intelligent design. It doesn't matter how much it's proponents are mocked today, it's clear they have the reasonable arguments to me, and science is actually on their side.

[FatAndFaithless]

"Everyone else is wrong, God has revealed the truth to me." That's some dangerous thinking there, MK. How the hell did you end up that far down the rabbit hole?

[Mystic]

"Everyone else is wrong, God has revealed the truth to me."  That's some dangerous thinking there, MK.  How the hell did you end up that far down the rabbit hole?

It's called having some courage to not be intimated by people claiming they have knowledge when they are not trustworthy enough to use reasoning nor humble enough to accept the truth.