Creationists

[UltimateReality]

The ID’iot methodology of claiming “The Gawds Did It”

It’s one logical fallacy after another but for ID’iots, logical fallacies are the stuff of affirming an incoherent and derelict argument.

The ID’iot argument:
(a) All landscape flamingos are pink;
(b) An object in my yard is pink.
(c) Therefore, the object in my yard is a landscape flamingo.


This is the ID’iot argument that Meyer stole from Behe and Dembski. They just make up this nonsense as they go along.
(a) - DNA has 'specified complexity'
(b) - 'Specified complexity' can only be caused by intelligent agents
(c) - DNA was made by an intelligent agent

It's really just an embarrassing admission of the failure of the fundie Christian creationist cabal.

Wow, just wow. Your angry fundie persona might be more effective if you actually knew how to compose a syllogism. The first syllogism you used doesn't even qualify so it is worthless for comparison purposes. How many countless times must I expose your lack of education? You can educate yourself here:

Syllogism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In your stupid example below, (b) does not even qualify as a premise. Therefore, your argument is invalid.

(a) All landscape flamingos are pink;
(b) An object in my yard is pink.
(c) Therefore, the object in my yard is a landscape flamingo.

Here is your incompetent example rephrased as a valid syllogism:

All landscape flamingos are pink.

Hawly is a landscape flamingo.

Hawly is pink.

The correct and true ID syllogism would go like this:

All functional information has an intelligent agent as its source. (prove this statement isn't true)

DNA contains functional information. (prove this statement isn't true)

DNA has an intelligent agent as its source.

Now I'm just waiting for the imbecile Daws to thank Hawly for her incompetent post.

Oh my. Angry fundie fails again. It seems the religiously addled are unable to defend their bad analogies, inept comparisons and false claims, thus are forced to retreat to wiki. It seems that the hyper-religious Loon doesn't understand the false result, of the false premise that is set forth by the ID'iot argument.

Fundie Christians promoting ID'iosy seem to forget that their charade has long ago been exposed as fraudulent.

I notice you didn't apologize for your preposterous abuse of a logical syllogism. Please do yourself a favor and spend some your computer time actually educating yourself. If you are going to cheat the government for a fake disability, at least do something to better yourself while you are spending countless unproductive hours in your section 8 apartment.

 

[newpolitics]

Meyer does too: No complex, information with specificity exists in nature unless it has an intelligent agent as its source, period. Or put another way, ALL functional, complex information has an intelligent agent as its source. This is a hypothesis that will become a law eventually until you prove otherwise. However, you are too blind to even have a logical discussion with, as evidenced by this post. Logic escapes you so what is the point in arguing with you?

There is only one species that we know of who is "intelligent," by our own definition: us. We are therefore, by definition, the ONLY Known intelligent source of specifiable, complex information. My point: you are begging the question, and your sample size is far too small to generalize this to then claim that "all specifiable, complex information is created by intelligence."

Prove me wrong then!!! Omigosh!! I can't believe you are so ignorant to your own theory of Evolution!! The TOE does this continually. All the historic sciences do this. When there are multiple explanations, they default to the best explanation. Meyer refutes all the chance, necessity and chance with necessity arguments and then points to a cause presently in operation as being the best explanation. Again, you denial of Meyers probability arguments just screams of your ignorance of origins arguments made by the so called pseudo scientist of evolultion. Meyers probability arguments are merely a rebuttal to origins theories from your camp. Your inability to acknowledge this just shows your blatant ignorance of your own worldview.
No, its the level of yours.

There are green apples, yellow apples, etc...You can't generalize to all apples being red based on the first apple you saw.

Wrong again!! You have not presented me with any yellow or green apples in this case so your fallacy accusation has no merit!!! Find an example of complex, functional information that doesn't have an intelligent agent as its source and you will have your green apple. Furthermore, we have billions examples of information created by intelligent agents, dating as far back as cave drawings, NOT ONE, as in your completely ignorant and fallacious apple comparison. So it is not the first apple, but apple after apple after apple after apple infinity that fits until you falsify it with an example that violates the hypothesis. That silly, false comparison might work on the mental giants like Daws and Hawly, who were quick to thank you for your fallacious example, but you are sadly mistaken if you think you can pass it off on the intelligent folks here. Until then, your silly comparison has no merit and is fallacious in and of itself.

Yet, this is what you are doing while looking at human created information. Even more arrogant is that you are the one defining us as intelligent. Therefore, you are defining this conclusion into existence. It is begging the question, yet another fallacy.

This is by far the dumbest thing you have said yet and shows a complete lack of intelligence on your part. So excluding yourself, are you are saying that the human mind does not represent intelligence??? Really???

Considering you start off with trying to shift the burden of proof to me to "prove you wrong," I'll keep this short and consider this maneuver a microcosm of the rest of your fallacy-laden post and of your posts in general. It is not incumbent upon me to disprove your assertions. You must do your own work, and you can not, without employing multiple fallacies as I've mentioned, which you continuously deny.

Nowhere did you refute anything I wrote. You just ridiculed me without actually addressing arguments. So, there is really nothing to say. All of my points stand. You haven't refuted the inductive nature of Meyers conclusions, instead only attacked evolution, which does nothing to rescue your theory from its fallacies. Also, you failed to follow through on your own assertions about evolution. Science looking for a best explanation had nothing to with inductively concluding something, necessarily. The assertion is a non-sequitur as you failed to explain how this is applies here. As for the intelligence issue, you completely missed the point and obviously don't know what begging the question means, so I find it hilarious that you attempt to school others about syllogisms when it is clear you don't know the first thing about them or logic. Basically, Intelligence is a subjective term, and considering it is being used in the premise and the conclusion, it is begging the question. One other annoying point in your posts is that you keep on talking about origins, which has nothing to do with evolution, so stop attacking abiogenesis as if that would weaken evolutionary theory. The two are completely independent of one another. If you want to discuss one or the other, fine, but stop putting them in the same category of discussion.


You can not reach the conclusions that DNA was created by intelligence without invalid argumentation. I have tired of constantly having to dismantle your egregious use of logical fallacy, only to have you deny any fallacy exists. It's a little exhausting, especially when I keep on having to identify and point out the same fallacies over and over again. You just don't want to learn. You are so convinced of your truth, it seems as though you never thought to question it. I have questioned evolutions, because of this thread. I have allowed that doubt to take place, and have found that it doesn't alter the evidence for evolution, and I find your arguments so utterly unconvincing, simply because I don't already believe in an intelligent designer. Perhaps you should allow yourself the same doubt so you can discontinue your streak or arrogance and hubris, leveraged off of Meyers confidence no doubt, instead of off the merits of the argument itself. I have gotten way off course here, but as I said, I've already dismantled Meyers argument again and again, yet you seem to think this isn't possible, so I digress.

 

[Hollie]

Wow, just wow. Your angry fundie persona might be more effective if you actually knew how to compose a syllogism. The first syllogism you used doesn't even qualify so it is worthless for comparison purposes. How many countless times must I expose your lack of education? You can educate yourself here:

Syllogism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In your stupid example below, (b) does not even qualify as a premise. Therefore, your argument is invalid.

(a) All landscape flamingos are pink;
(b) An object in my yard is pink.
(c) Therefore, the object in my yard is a landscape flamingo.

Here is your incompetent example rephrased as a valid syllogism:

All landscape flamingos are pink.

Hawly is a landscape flamingo.

Hawly is pink.

The correct and true ID syllogism would go like this:

All functional information has an intelligent agent as its source. (prove this statement isn't true)

DNA contains functional information. (prove this statement isn't true)

DNA has an intelligent agent as its source.

Now I'm just waiting for the imbecile Daws to thank Hawly for her incompetent post.

Oh my. Angry fundie fails again. It seems the religiously addled are unable to defend their bad analogies, inept comparisons and false claims, thus are forced to retreat to wiki. It seems that the hyper-religious Loon doesn't understand the false result, of the false premise that is set forth by the ID'iot argument.

Fundie Christians promoting ID'iosy seem to forget that their charade has long ago been exposed as fraudulent.

I notice you didn't apologize for your preposterous abuse of a logical syllogism. Please do yourself a favor and spend some your computer time actually educating yourself. If you are going to cheat the government for a fake disability, at least do something to better yourself while you are spending countless unproductive hours in your section 8 apartment.

What hasn't gone unnoticed is your use of a syllogism that defines the circular and presumptive nature of hyper-religious creationist. Obviously, you didn't realize that you used such measures to dismantle your own argument.

It's actually laughable to watch the Meyer groupies repeat the same silly slogans without understanding how utterly pompous they appear.

As it was pointed out to you earlier - and it's obvious why you chose to side step: "Creationist information, as discussed by Meyer, is an incoherent mess. One version of it has been introduced by William Dembski, and criticized in detail by Mark Perakh, Richard Wein, and many others (including me). Intelligent design creationists love to call it "specified information" or "specified complexity" and imply that it is widely accepted by the scientific community, but this is not the case. There is no paper in the scientific literature that gives a rigorous and coherent definition of creationist information; nor is it used in scientific or mathematical investigations".

Creationism, as defined by "stealth fundamentalist christianity", is a laughable joke. Critics know that "specified information" is a slogan invented by fundie Christians and is a term chosen to suggest relative importance, yet, there is no objective standard for either measurement or evaluation of such creationist babble. Scientists, (to exclude hacks such as creationists with dubious or non-existent credentials), know that "information" routinely comes from many sources, such as biological processes. Mutation and natural selection do just fine without the introduction of magic and mysticism required by Christian fundies.

Two things struck me as I read the slogans invented by Meyer and the Christian cabal: first, Its essential dishonesty, and second, Meyer's misunderstanding and thus gross errors regarding information theory.

The logical reply to fundie Christians who invent means, methods and mechanisms for how " The gawds did it", is to require an answer to the question, "If we concede your point that gawds are incomprehensible,then why is any attribute you attach to them, including that they are incomprehensible -- to be taken as accurate?

See, the problem shared by Christian fundies is their inability to escape internal collpase. If they are granted their premise, that Gawds are incomprehenisble, then you exclude yourself from saying anything meaningful about them and even your claim that they are indeed "incomprehensible" is suspect.

Fundies are simply confirming they have nothing but invented suppositions and conjecture


Actually, I find the Christian gawds "plan" to be ridiculously simple. Basically, they're trying to teach themselves a lesson. They do this by creating Satan and using humans as pawns in a game.

In other words, the gawds comes across as lethargic and bored with doing nothing for infinity and need to amuse themselves, not unlike countless other bored gawds who dicker with humankind in order to get some sort of entertainment out of existence.

Of course, the problem with this view (specifically, the frivolous fundie Christian view) is that by definition, gawds cannot have any wants. To ascribe "want" and "desire" to a being that authored everything is self-evidently absurd.

 

[Youwerecreated]

as stated before you have no quantifiable proof that god did anything.
funny if god created everything why was human kind the species that invented the clock?

Your ability to believe in miracles is noted.

God gave human kind the ability to do so through intelligence. That is what separates us from all living organisms our intelligence.

funny, god's stock and trade is miracles .
your denial of this means you fashioned god in your own image.
you can believe god gave humans abilities but you have no proof to back it up.
on the other hand it's been proven that humans developed skills and abilities over time with no help from
deities
Bitching, whining and unprovable pseudoscience ravings in 3...2.....1

God's work are not miracles to him they may seem like a miracle to us but Gods work is his natural ability but for a naturalist everything is the result of mircales.

 

[Hollie]

Your ability to believe in miracles is noted.

God gave human kind the ability to do so through intelligence. That is what separates us from all living organisms our intelligence.

funny, god's stock and trade is miracles .
your denial of this means you fashioned god in your own image.
you can believe god gave humans abilities but you have no proof to back it up.
on the other hand it's been proven that humans developed skills and abilities over time with no help from
deities
Bitching, whining and unprovable pseudoscience ravings in 3...2.....1

God's work are not miracles to him they may seem like a miracle to us but Gods work is his natural ability but for a naturalist everything is the result of mircales.

It really is remarkable that creationist take it upon themselves to speak with authority on the wants, needs, desires and intentions of the gawds they similarly insist are incomprehensible.

We're now to understand that creationist have configured their gawds such that "naturalistic everything" is the work of the gawds.

So..... are we to take away that the natural world is a miracle configured by the gawds?

If so, why would a natural world require the intervention of gawds? Are we to believe that the supernatural gawds, supernaturally made a natural world?

Have creationist fallen out of the gawds tree and bumped their heads on the way down?

 

[daws101]

"That silly, false comparison might work on the mental giants like Daws and Hawly,..."

It seems fundie stalker has yet to emerge from his stupor.

he's like a neurotic school girl.

When you say Thespian, do you pronounce it thethspian?

can't seem to kick your homoerotic fantasies.

 

[daws101]

Actually, it would seem you are a bigot, as you base your own opinions on how you feel and not on what God reveals/teaches. Judge not lest ye be judged. Your own opinion is not a reason to disrespect someone. Homosexuality is non productive. It is founded on self debasement and the misuse of the human body. God's Word is very clear in this regard. And the random use of deragatory terms for sexual encounters is only another symptom of a negative self righteous destructive society promoting hedonism.

hardly! your religious delusion is so pervasive that you fail to notice how truly bigoted it is.
you have no proof god reveals anything, what you are taught from the bible is an interpretation by either yourself or someone you "believe" to be more in touch with a so called god. most of all it's subjective.. your use of this phrase:"Judge not lest ye be judged" is contradictive.
as you've already judged wrongly, myself... homosexuality...what is productive and what's not and society as a whole.
or to put it another way: opinions are like assholes everybody's got one and yours stinks!

God Word says that the wages of sin is death. Do you believe that you will die one day? Even if you believe you will not --- God's Word says you will. Can the act of sex between two men produce a child? If not, it is not productive. And you are correct when you say everyone has a anus. But not everyone enjoys something to be stuck up it.

your religious delusion is so pervasive that you fail to notice how truly bigoted it is.

 

[daws101]

Wow, just wow. Your angry fundie persona might be more effective if you actually knew how to compose a syllogism. The first syllogism you used doesn't even qualify so it is worthless for comparison purposes. How many countless times must I expose your lack of education? You can educate yourself here:

Syllogism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In your stupid example below, (b) does not even qualify as a premise. Therefore, your argument is invalid.

(a) All landscape flamingos are pink;
(b) An object in my yard is pink.
(c) Therefore, the object in my yard is a landscape flamingo.

Here is your incompetent example rephrased as a valid syllogism:

All landscape flamingos are pink.

Hawly is a landscape flamingo.

Hawly is pink.

The correct and true ID syllogism would go like this:

All functional information has an intelligent agent as its source. (prove this statement isn't true)

DNA contains functional information. (prove this statement isn't true)

DNA has an intelligent agent as its source.

Now I'm just waiting for the imbecile Daws to thank Hawly for her incompetent post.

Oh my. Angry fundie fails again. It seems the religiously addled are unable to defend their bad analogies, inept comparisons and false claims, thus are forced to retreat to wiki. It seems that the hyper-religious Loon doesn't understand the false result, of the false premise that is set forth by the ID'iot argument.

Fundie Christians promoting ID'iosy seem to forget that their charade has long ago been exposed as fraudulent.

I notice you didn't apologize for your preposterous abuse of a logical syllogism. Please do yourself a favor and spend some your computer time actually educating yourself. If you are going to cheat the government for a fake disability, at least do something to better yourself while you are spending countless unproductive hours in your section 8 apartment.

god will punish you for your many false declarations like this one.
who's immature again?

 

[daws101]

there is only one species that we know of who is "intelligent," by our own definition: Us. We are therefore, by definition, the only known intelligent source of specifiable, complex information. My point: You are begging the question, and your sample size is far too small to generalize this to then claim that "all specifiable, complex information is created by intelligence."

prove me wrong then!!! Omigosh!! I can't believe you are so ignorant to your own theory of evolution!! The toe does this continually. All the historic sciences do this. When there are multiple explanations, they default to the best explanation. Meyer refutes all the chance, necessity and chance with necessity arguments and then points to a cause presently in operation as being the best explanation. Again, you denial of meyers probability arguments just screams of your ignorance of origins arguments made by the so called pseudo scientist of evolultion. Meyers probability arguments are merely a rebuttal to origins theories from your camp. Your inability to acknowledge this just shows your blatant ignorance of your own worldview.
No, its the level of yours.
Wrong again!! You have not presented me with any yellow or green apples in this case so your fallacy accusation has no merit!!! Find an example of complex, functional information that doesn't have an intelligent agent as its source and you will have your green apple. Furthermore, we have billions examples of information created by intelligent agents, dating as far back as cave drawings, not one, as in your completely ignorant and fallacious apple comparison. So it is not the first apple, but apple after apple after apple after apple infinity that fits until you falsify it with an example that violates the hypothesis. That silly, false comparison might work on the mental giants like daws and hawly, who were quick to thank you for your fallacious example, but you are sadly mistaken if you think you can pass it off on the intelligent folks here. Until then, your silly comparison has no merit and is fallacious in and of itself.

yet, this is what you are doing while looking at human created information. Even more arrogant is that you are the one defining us as intelligent. Therefore, you are defining this conclusion into existence. It is begging the question, yet another fallacy.

this is by far the dumbest thing you have said yet and shows a complete lack of intelligence on your part. So excluding yourself, are you are saying that the human mind does not represent intelligence??? Really???

considering you start off with trying to shift the burden of proof to me to "prove you wrong," i'll keep this short and consider this maneuver a microcosm of the rest of your fallacy-laden post and of your posts in general. It is not incumbent upon me to disprove your assertions. You must do your own work, and you can not, without employing multiple fallacies as i've mentioned, which you continuously deny.

Nowhere did you refute anything i wrote. You just ridiculed me without actually addressing arguments. So, there is really nothing to say. All of my points stand. You haven't refuted the inductive nature of meyers conclusions, instead only attacked evolution, which does nothing to rescue your theory from its fallacies. Also, you failed to follow through on your own assertions about evolution. Science looking for a best explanation had nothing to with inductively concluding something, necessarily. The assertion is a non-sequitur as you failed to explain how this is applies here. As for the intelligence issue, you completely missed the point and obviously don't know what begging the question means, so i find it hilarious that you attempt to school others about syllogisms when it is clear you don't know the first thing about them or logic. Basically, intelligence is a subjective term, and considering it is being used in the premise and the conclusion, it is begging the question. One other annoying point in your posts is that you keep on talking about origins, which has nothing to do with evolution, so stop attacking abiogenesis as if that would weaken evolutionary theory. The two are completely independent of one another. If you want to discuss one or the other, fine, but stop putting them in the same category of discussion.


You can not reach the conclusions that dna was created by intelligence without invalid argumentation. I have tired of constantly having to dismantle your egregious use of logical fallacy, only to have you deny any fallacy exists. It's a little exhausting, especially when i keep on having to identify and point out the same fallacies over and over again. You just don't want to learn. You are so convinced of your truth, it seems as though you never thought to question it. I have questioned evolutions, because of this thread. I have allowed that doubt to take place, and have found that it doesn't alter the evidence for evolution, and i find your arguments so utterly unconvincing, simply because i don't already believe in an intelligent designer. Perhaps you should allow yourself the same doubt so you can discontinue your streak or arrogance and hubris, leveraged off of meyers confidence no doubt, instead of off the merits of the argument itself. I have gotten way off course here, but as i said, i've already dismantled meyers argument again and again, yet you seem to think this isn't possible, so i digress.

bump!

 

[daws101]

Your ability to believe in miracles is noted.

God gave human kind the ability to do so through intelligence. That is what separates us from all living organisms our intelligence.

funny, god's stock and trade is miracles .
your denial of this means you fashioned god in your own image.
you can believe god gave humans abilities but you have no proof to back it up.
on the other hand it's been proven that humans developed skills and abilities over time with no help from
deities
Bitching, whining and unprovable pseudoscience ravings in 3...2.....1

God's work are not miracles to him they may seem like a miracle to us but Gods work is his natural ability but for a naturalist everything is the result of mircales.

you fashioned god in your own image.SLAPDICK...

 

[daws101]

funny, god's stock and trade is miracles .
your denial of this means you fashioned god in your own image.
you can believe god gave humans abilities but you have no proof to back it up.
on the other hand it's been proven that humans developed skills and abilities over time with no help from
deities
Bitching, whining and unprovable pseudoscience ravings in 3...2.....1

God's work are not miracles to him they may seem like a miracle to us but Gods work is his natural ability but for a naturalist everything is the result of mircales.

It really is remarkable that creationist take it upon themselves to speak with authority on the wants, needs, desires and intentions of the gawds they similarly insist are incomprehensible.

We're now to understand that creationist have configured their gawds such that "naturalistic everything" is the work of the gawds.

So..... are we to take away that the natural world is a miracle configured by the gawds?

If so, why would a natural world require the intervention of gawds? Are we to believe that the supernatural gawds, supernaturally made a natural world?

Have creationist fallen out of the gawds tree and bumped their heads on the way down?

YES AN THE EFFECTS ARE OBVIOUS: mircales

 

[daws101]

"That silly, false comparison might work on the mental giants like Daws and Hawly,..."

It seems fundie stalker has yet to emerge from his stupor.

he's like a neurotic school girl.

When you say Thespian, do you pronounce it thethspian?

no it's thessspian..
if you insist on doing stereotypical gay affections, try these classics: "I'll ssssscratch your eyesss out! " or You brute!....you brute!

 

[LittleNipper]

hardly! your religious delusion is so pervasive that you fail to notice how truly bigoted it is.
you have no proof god reveals anything, what you are taught from the bible is an interpretation by either yourself or someone you "believe" to be more in touch with a so called god. most of all it's subjective.. your use of this phrase:"Judge not lest ye be judged" is contradictive.
as you've already judged wrongly, myself... homosexuality...what is productive and what's not and society as a whole.
or to put it another way: opinions are like assholes everybody's got one and yours stinks!

God Word says that the wages of sin is death. Do you believe that you will die one day? Even if you believe you will not --- God's Word says you will. Can the act of sex between two men produce a child? If not, it is not productive. And you are correct when you say everyone has a anus. But not everyone enjoys something to be stuck up it.

your religious delusion is so pervasive that you fail to notice how truly bigoted it is.

I trust God. God is the light of the world. A bigot is someone who cannot live outside a box of his own making.
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. described bigotry in the following quotation: "The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract."

 

[UltimateReality]

There is only one species that we know of who is "intelligent," by our own definition: us. We are therefore, by definition, the ONLY Known intelligent source of specifiable, complex information. My point: you are begging the question, and your sample size is far too small to generalize this to then claim that "all specifiable, complex information is created by intelligence."

Prove me wrong then!!! Omigosh!! I can't believe you are so ignorant to your own theory of Evolution!! The TOE does this continually. All the historic sciences do this. When there are multiple explanations, they default to the best explanation. Meyer refutes all the chance, necessity and chance with necessity arguments and then points to a cause presently in operation as being the best explanation. Again, you denial of Meyers probability arguments just screams of your ignorance of origins arguments made by the so called pseudo scientist of evolultion. Meyers probability arguments are merely a rebuttal to origins theories from your camp. Your inability to acknowledge this just shows your blatant ignorance of your own worldview.
No, its the level of yours.
Wrong again!! You have not presented me with any yellow or green apples in this case so your fallacy accusation has no merit!!! Find an example of complex, functional information that doesn't have an intelligent agent as its source and you will have your green apple. Furthermore, we have billions examples of information created by intelligent agents, dating as far back as cave drawings, NOT ONE, as in your completely ignorant and fallacious apple comparison. So it is not the first apple, but apple after apple after apple after apple infinity that fits until you falsify it with an example that violates the hypothesis. That silly, false comparison might work on the mental giants like Daws and Hawly, who were quick to thank you for your fallacious example, but you are sadly mistaken if you think you can pass it off on the intelligent folks here. Until then, your silly comparison has no merit and is fallacious in and of itself.

Yet, this is what you are doing while looking at human created information. Even more arrogant is that you are the one defining us as intelligent. Therefore, you are defining this conclusion into existence. It is begging the question, yet another fallacy.

This is by far the dumbest thing you have said yet and shows a complete lack of intelligence on your part. So excluding yourself, are you are saying that the human mind does not represent intelligence??? Really???

Considering you start off with trying to shift the burden of proof to me to "prove you wrong," I'll keep this short and consider this maneuver a microcosm of the rest of your fallacy-laden post and of your posts in general. It is not incumbent upon me to disprove your assertions. You must do your own work, and you can not, without employing multiple fallacies as I've mentioned, which you continuously deny.

Nowhere did you refute anything I wrote. You just ridiculed me without actually addressing arguments. So, there is really nothing to say. All of my points stand. You haven't refuted the inductive nature of Meyers conclusions, instead only attacked evolution, which does nothing to rescue your theory from its fallacies. Also, you failed to follow through on your own assertions about evolution. Science looking for a best explanation had nothing to with inductively concluding something, necessarily. The assertion is a non-sequitur as you failed to explain how this is applies here. As for the intelligence issue, you completely missed the point and obviously don't know what begging the question means, so I find it hilarious that you attempt to school others about syllogisms when it is clear you don't know the first thing about them or logic. Basically, Intelligence is a subjective term, and considering it is being used in the premise and the conclusion, it is begging the question. One other annoying point in your posts is that you keep on talking about origins, which has nothing to do with evolution, so stop attacking abiogenesis as if that would weaken evolutionary theory. The two are completely independent of one another. If you want to discuss one or the other, fine, but stop putting them in the same category of discussion.


You can not reach the conclusions that DNA was created by intelligence without invalid argumentation. I have tired of constantly having to dismantle your egregious use of logical fallacy, only to have you deny any fallacy exists. It's a little exhausting, especially when I keep on having to identify and point out the same fallacies over and over again. You just don't want to learn. You are so convinced of your truth, it seems as though you never thought to question it. I have questioned evolutions, because of this thread. I have allowed that doubt to take place, and have found that it doesn't alter the evidence for evolution, and I find your arguments so utterly unconvincing, simply because I don't already believe in an intelligent designer. Perhaps you should allow yourself the same doubt so you can discontinue your streak or arrogance and hubris, leveraged off of Meyers confidence no doubt, instead of off the merits of the argument itself. I have gotten way off course here, but as I said, I've already dismantled Meyers argument again and again, yet you seem to think this isn't possible, so I digress.

I think the most alarming thing is that you actually believe you have dismantled Meyer's hypothesis!! You have done no such thing. And it is you who is arguing the origins points to me. That is what we were discussing in case your limited attention span has failed you again. As far as Meyer's hypothesis, I was giving you the option to discredit it. You can prove his theory wrong by merely coming up with an example of complex, functional information which is randomly generated or the result of a natural process, a fact which you have continually side stepped and ignored. Why? Because you know in your heart his hypothesis stands for now, until some major discovery is made that would prove otherwise, a fact you also choose to conveniently ignore.

 

[UltimateReality]

Oh my. Angry fundie fails again. It seems the religiously addled are unable to defend their bad analogies, inept comparisons and false claims, thus are forced to retreat to wiki. It seems that the hyper-religious Loon doesn't understand the false result, of the false premise that is set forth by the ID'iot argument.

Fundie Christians promoting ID'iosy seem to forget that their charade has long ago been exposed as fraudulent.

I notice you didn't apologize for your preposterous abuse of a logical syllogism. Please do yourself a favor and spend some your computer time actually educating yourself. If you are going to cheat the government for a fake disability, at least do something to better yourself while you are spending countless unproductive hours in your section 8 apartment.

What hasn't gone unnoticed is your use of a syllogism that defines the circular and presumptive nature of hyper-religious creationist. Obviously, you didn't realize that you used such measures to dismantle your own argument.

It's actually laughable to watch the Meyer groupies repeat the same silly slogans without understanding how utterly pompous they appear.

As it was pointed out to you earlier - and it's obvious why you chose to side step: "Creationist information, as discussed by Meyer, is an incoherent mess. One version of it has been introduced by William Dembski, and criticized in detail by Mark Perakh, Richard Wein, and many others (including me). Intelligent design creationists love to call it "specified information" or "specified complexity" and imply that it is widely accepted by the scientific community, but this is not the case. There is no paper in the scientific literature that gives a rigorous and coherent definition of creationist information; nor is it used in scientific or mathematical investigations".

Creationism, as defined by "stealth fundamentalist christianity", is a laughable joke. Critics know that "specified information" is a slogan invented by fundie Christians and is a term chosen to suggest relative importance, yet, there is no objective standard for either measurement or evaluation of such creationist babble. Scientists, (to exclude hacks such as creationists with dubious or non-existent credentials), know that "information" routinely comes from many sources, such as biological processes. Mutation and natural selection do just fine without the introduction of magic and mysticism required by Christian fundies.

Two things struck me as I read the slogans invented by Meyer and the Christian cabal: first, Its essential dishonesty, and second, Meyer's misunderstanding and thus gross errors regarding information theory.

The logical reply to fundie Christians who invent means, methods and mechanisms for how " The gawds did it", is to require an answer to the question, "If we concede your point that gawds are incomprehensible,then why is any attribute you attach to them, including that they are incomprehensible -- to be taken as accurate?

See, the problem shared by Christian fundies is their inability to escape internal collpase. If they are granted their premise, that Gawds are incomprehenisble, then you exclude yourself from saying anything meaningful about them and even your claim that they are indeed "incomprehensible" is suspect.

Fundies are simply confirming they have nothing but invented suppositions and conjecture


Actually, I find the Christian gawds "plan" to be ridiculously simple. Basically, they're trying to teach themselves a lesson. They do this by creating Satan and using humans as pawns in a game.

In other words, the gawds comes across as lethargic and bored with doing nothing for infinity and need to amuse themselves, not unlike countless other bored gawds who dicker with humankind in order to get some sort of entertainment out of existence.

Of course, the problem with this view (specifically, the frivolous fundie Christian view) is that by definition, gawds cannot have any wants. To ascribe "want" and "desire" to a being that authored everything is self-evidently absurd.

Funny, in this long, useless, typical Ad-Hawlyman response, you said nothing to dismantle the ID syllogism, and provided no evidence to contradict the premises or conclusion.

 

[UltimateReality]

Oh my. Angry fundie fails again. It seems the religiously addled are unable to defend their bad analogies, inept comparisons and false claims, thus are forced to retreat to wiki. It seems that the hyper-religious Loon doesn't understand the false result, of the false premise that is set forth by the ID'iot argument.

Fundie Christians promoting ID'iosy seem to forget that their charade has long ago been exposed as fraudulent.

I notice you didn't apologize for your preposterous abuse of a logical syllogism. Please do yourself a favor and spend some your computer time actually educating yourself. If you are going to cheat the government for a fake disability, at least do something to better yourself while you are spending countless unproductive hours in your section 8 apartment.

god will punish you for your many false declarations like this one.
who's immature again?

It's not false, thespi-douche.

 

[UltimateReality]

he's like a neurotic school girl.

When you say Thespian, do you pronounce it thethspian?

no it's thessspian..
if you insist on doing stereotypical gay affections, try these classics: "I'll ssssscratch your eyesss out! " or You brute!....you brute!

This got your goat so bad it required not one, but two responses!

 

[UltimateReality]

 

[Hollie]

I notice you didn't apologize for your preposterous abuse of a logical syllogism. Please do yourself a favor and spend some your computer time actually educating yourself. If you are going to cheat the government for a fake disability, at least do something to better yourself while you are spending countless unproductive hours in your section 8 apartment.

What hasn't gone unnoticed is your use of a syllogism that defines the circular and presumptive nature of hyper-religious creationist. Obviously, you didn't realize that you used such measures to dismantle your own argument.

It's actually laughable to watch the Meyer groupies repeat the same silly slogans without understanding how utterly pompous they appear.

As it was pointed out to you earlier - and it's obvious why you chose to side step: "Creationist information, as discussed by Meyer, is an incoherent mess. One version of it has been introduced by William Dembski, and criticized in detail by Mark Perakh, Richard Wein, and many others (including me). Intelligent design creationists love to call it "specified information" or "specified complexity" and imply that it is widely accepted by the scientific community, but this is not the case. There is no paper in the scientific literature that gives a rigorous and coherent definition of creationist information; nor is it used in scientific or mathematical investigations".

Creationism, as defined by "stealth fundamentalist christianity", is a laughable joke. Critics know that "specified information" is a slogan invented by fundie Christians and is a term chosen to suggest relative importance, yet, there is no objective standard for either measurement or evaluation of such creationist babble. Scientists, (to exclude hacks such as creationists with dubious or non-existent credentials), know that "information" routinely comes from many sources, such as biological processes. Mutation and natural selection do just fine without the introduction of magic and mysticism required by Christian fundies.

Two things struck me as I read the slogans invented by Meyer and the Christian cabal: first, Its essential dishonesty, and second, Meyer's misunderstanding and thus gross errors regarding information theory.

The logical reply to fundie Christians who invent means, methods and mechanisms for how " The gawds did it", is to require an answer to the question, "If we concede your point that gawds are incomprehensible,then why is any attribute you attach to them, including that they are incomprehensible -- to be taken as accurate?

See, the problem shared by Christian fundies is their inability to escape internal collpase. If they are granted their premise, that Gawds are incomprehenisble, then you exclude yourself from saying anything meaningful about them and even your claim that they are indeed "incomprehensible" is suspect.

Fundies are simply confirming they have nothing but invented suppositions and conjecture


Actually, I find the Christian gawds "plan" to be ridiculously simple. Basically, they're trying to teach themselves a lesson. They do this by creating Satan and using humans as pawns in a game.

In other words, the gawds comes across as lethargic and bored with doing nothing for infinity and need to amuse themselves, not unlike countless other bored gawds who dicker with humankind in order to get some sort of entertainment out of existence.

Of course, the problem with this view (specifically, the frivolous fundie Christian view) is that by definition, gawds cannot have any wants. To ascribe "want" and "desire" to a being that authored everything is self-evidently absurd.

Funny, in this long, useless response, you said nothing to dismantle the ID syllogism, and provided no evidence to contradict the premises or conclusion.

I was certain your befuddlement would cause you to slither away from any attempt at a response. Absent reciting goofy slogans from creationist charlatans such as Meyer, your limitations with both imagination and availability of fact in support of the ID'iot argument leaves you with no options.

You are befuddled in that you haven't been able to grasp the concept that the ID'iot argument is one of circular references, false analogies and appeals to ignorance. A read through of any of your incompetent citing of creationist charlatans is convincing of that.

I suppose it escapes you that a syllogism is typically a mal-formed argument that derives from one with an inability to construct coherent and logically connected ideas. That failure typifies the ID'iot argument.

 

[Hollie]

When you say Thespian, do you pronounce it thethspian?

no it's thessspian..
if you insist on doing stereotypical gay affections, try these classics: "I'll ssssscratch your eyesss out! " or You brute!....you brute!

This got your goat so bad it required not one, but two responses!

Promoted by the pointless babble that typifies similarly pointless ID'iot claims.