Evidence for Design #1 - Complexity, irreducible and otherwise

[ding]

That is not 'logical' unless you can posit an illogical universe.

Incorrect. It only requires one to be able to tell the difference between logical and illogical. It takes no great leap in imagination to posit a universe with no rules or laws which would be an example of an illogical universe and a lifeless one at that.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

haha, only fools who know less thasn nothing about evolution think irreducible complexity is a good talking point.

Please go learn something about this topic, morons.

In the meantime... here is a great video by Dawkins, geared toward children.

Maybe fools like Seymour Flops can better understand, when we talk down to their level.

 

[abu afak]

Neither does design theory.

The End

Dishonest "quotation" citing only One of my 4 points.

Seymour Flops is a FRAUD who cannot answer any of my posts, and cannot evidence any of his opinions!

He's answered my last three before this in 10 letters or less because he can't do anything else.
"umms" and "mm hmms"
He's a DISHONEST TROLL who knows he's Lost


Here was that original post (now bolded points) answering his confused babble.

Seymour Flops said:
..No naturalistic theory explain why there is a finite universe in the first place and why it is as it is.

So lack of an explanation for origin does not disqualify design theory unless you say that it also disqualifies Darwinian theory.

1. Evolution does not deal with the Universe.

2. Lack of an origin for the universe or life has Nothing to do with Darwin.
Nor the reason other ignorants made up gods for what they didn't understand.
Turned out there WAS a natural explanation explanation for Fire., Lightning, etc and after 10,000 of such 'gogs'; have been flushed down the drain we (many of us) understand 'god of the Gaps' is/was never a good wat to explain anything, nor stop trying to find a Real explanation.

3. Evolution starts immediately after life and it does No matter how it started.

4. Evolution has Overwhelming EVIDENCE, design-designER/creation/god has None.

` - - - - - -


And indeed design still has NO evidence.
Just as FLOPS' (Laughed off the board) "apparent design" had NO evidence.

`

 

[Seymour Flops]

haha, only fools who know less thasn nothing about evolution think irreducible complexity is a good talking point.

Please go learn something about this topic, morons.

In the meantime... here is a great video by Dawkins, geared toward children.

Maybe fools like Seymour Flops can better understand, when we talk down to their level.

Wait what?

You think Richard Dawkins is an authority?

All your fellow Darwiniacs are disavowing him. But I can see how he might long to be the Captain Kangaroo of evolution.

If I watch that low-budget Bill Nye knockoff video and prove it wrong, will you even admit it?

I don't trust ideologues. First explain why you believe that Richard Dawkins is a person worthy of appeal to authority.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Dishonest "quotation citing only One of my 4 points .

The rest only restated the first "point" in more words.

The end.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It takes no great leap in imagination to posit a universe with no rules or laws

So, you can imagine this horseshit, but you can't quite work up the energy or ability to imagine a universe where gods did not set the laws a certain way on purpose...?

Ooooookay

Your apologist talking points are incoherent and basically spontaneous outbursts. That is why they don't make any sense, when put next to each other.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You think Richard Dawkins is an authority?

Of course, he is an authority, and a celebrated scientist.

But the important part is that your ignorant ass watch the video for the ideas contained within it, because you are embarrassing yourself.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Of course, he is an authority, and a celebrated scientist.

Then why have you not responded to those pro-Darwin posters who have ridiculed and disavowed him?

You sound very insincere . . .

But the important part is that your ignorant ass watch the video for the ideas contained within it, because you are embarrassing yourself.

Well that answers my question, then. Even if I prove your silly video wrong, you will never admit it.

Not sure why I would want to watch it then.

Here, you watch your "celebrated scientist" get shredded by Ben Stein. You know, the "Beuller ... Beuller . . . Beuller" guy?



I take it you agree with his space alien theory?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I just feel bad for these morons at this point.

Imagine spending so much time and energy on a topic, yet still knowing less than nothing about it and still being at the point where you would fail a 7th grade quiz on it. That's how kids end up in Special Ed classes.


Something tells me they like the abuse and the abject failure. Like, it makes their dumbasses feel "Christ-like", or something

 

[Seymour Flops]

I just feel bad for these morons at this point.

Imagine spending so much time and energy on a topic, yet still knowing less than nothing about it and still being at the point where you would fail a 7th grade quiz on it. That's how kids end up in Special Ed classes.


Something tells me they like the abuse and the abject failure. Like, it makes their dumbasses feel "Christ-like", or something

I'll take that for your surrender.

Buh-bye . . .

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Ah yes, and the mandatory declaration of victory.

Imagine being a flat-earther and declaring victory in every exchange. Just bizarre behavior all around.

 

[Hollie]

Then why have you not responded to those pro-Darwin posters who have ridiculed and disavowed him?

You sound very insincere . . .

Well that answers my question, then. Even if I prove your silly video wrong, you will never admit it.

Not sure why I would want to watch it then.

Here, you watch your "celebrated scientist" get shredded by Ben Stein. You know, the "Beuller ... Beuller . . . Beuller" guy?



I take it you agree with his space alien theory?

You mean this Ben Stein?

Encyclopedia of American Loons

It’s … The Encyclopedia of American loons! Our new and exciting series presenting a representative sample of American loons from A-Z.

americanloons.blogspot.com

A.k.a. BS

Ben Stein, former speechwriter for Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, used to be famous for his role as the teacher (decidedly out of character) in Ferris Bueller's Day Off and for being a particularly dim neo-conservative, despite degrees in economics and law, from Columbia and Yale, respectively. He is currently most famous for starring in the denialist pseudo-documentary Expelled (also here), for writing a weekly column in the New York Times (he was eventually booted forviolating their ethics policy), and for being a less than classy rape apologist. His track record with respect to predicting economic developments is sufficiently out of touch with reality (who would’ve guessed) to originate the term “Ben Steinery”.

He is, as already mentioned, a notable opponent of science: “When we just saw [Myers] talking about how great scientists were, I was thinking to myself the last time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them what to do they were telling them to go to the showers to get gassed … that was horrifying beyond words, and that’s where science — in my opinion, this is just an opinion — that’s where science leads you […] Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people.”

The comment sheds some light on his promotion of Intelligent Design Creationism, and his claim that real science is being kept out of universities because of an anti-God conspiracy among biologists. His critical thinking skills, in light of Expelled, are documented here.

Diagnosis: Unable to get absolutely anything right, Stein is a good example of how far sheer incompetency and fail can take you in the US. Total hack.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Ah yes, and the mandatory declaration of victory.

Imagine being a flat-earther and declaring victory in every exchange. Just bizarre behavior all around.

Oh, you're thirsty for more?

Start by explaining how your celebrated scientist and Bill Nye wannabe, got his ass handed to him by Ben Stein . . . the "Beuller . . . Beuller . . . Beuller" guy?

Are you really that impressed with Dawkins just because he pronounces "at all," "uh-tall?"

Or just a yes or no, do you agree with his Intelligent Design, but by space aliens theory?

 

[Hollie]

Oh, you're thirsty for more?

Start by explaining how your celebrated scientist and Bill Nye wannabe, got his ass handed to him by Ben Stein . . . the "Beuller . . . Beuller . . . Beuller" guy?

Are you really that impressed with Dawkins just because he pronounces "at all," "uh-tall?"

Or just a yes or no, do you agree with his Intelligent Design, but by space aliens theory?

“I'll take that for your surrender.

Buh-bye . . .”



And here you are.

Dishonest about…well, everything.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I don't know that it was a God, that's not my argument.

You have a point but only so far. No purely naturalistic theory explains how life began in the first place. Darwinian theory (neo Darwinism anyway) relies on DNA and RNA as a START point. But it is a big leap from non living Earth to DNA that can reproduce and evolve.

No naturalistic theory explain why there is a finite universe in the first place and why it is as it is.

So lack of an explanation for origin does not disqualify design theory unless you say that it also disqualifies Darwinian theory.

No, but this is a problem. If we don't know something, we simply make things up to explain it, to make ourselves feel comfortable about it.

Maybe life doesn't exist. Maybe none of this actually exists.

 

[alang1216]

Incorrect. It only requires one to be able to tell the difference between logical and illogical. It takes no great leap in imagination to posit a universe with no rules or laws which would be an example of an illogical universe and a lifeless one at that.

An astronomer (Howell?) started studying Mars and interpreted the patterns he saw as canals. He developed an elaborate theory of Martians building them to bring water from the poles. Turned out the intelligence he saw was only on his side of the telescope. I think you are doing the same, seeing patterns in nature that your intelligence determines is logical or intelligent or planned or whatever. You see what you want to see.

 

[ding]

So, you can imagine this horseshit, but you can't quite work up the energy or ability to imagine a universe where gods did not set the laws a certain way on purpose...?

Ooooookay

Your apologist talking points are incoherent and basically spontaneous outbursts. That is why they don't make any sense, when put next to each other.

I don't believe it is a coincidence the universe popped into existence being finely tuned for life and intelligence. Sue me.

 

[ding]

An astronomer (Howell?) started studying Mars and interpreted the patterns he saw as canals. He developed an elaborate theory of Martians building them to bring water from the poles. Turned out the intelligence he saw was only on his side of the telescope. I think you are doing the same, seeing patterns in nature that your intelligence determines is logical or intelligent or planned or whatever. You see what you want to see.

The question hinges on intentionality. Was the universe intentionally created or was it an accidental happenstance of circumstance.

To answer that question I have thoughtfully studied the evidence we have available which is creation itself. What have you thoughtfully studied to answer that question?

Because from where I sit you haven't even taken the first step in answering that question which is to start by determining a realistic perception of God. Everything you look at is skewed to fairy tales. So before you go and accuse someone - who has thoughtfully considered the origin questions for the past 20 years - of confirming his bias don't you think you should remove the log from your eye first?

 

[Seymour Flops]

No, but this is a problem. If we don't know something, we simply make things up to explain it, to make ourselves feel comfortable about it.

Sure, that's what religion is.

I'm not asking that anyone accept someone else's religious beliefs about the unknown. Hate religion and the religious all you like.

But if someone hates religion so much that they pretend that the unknown is known it is only themselves they fool.

Maybe life doesn't exist. Maybe none of this actually exists.

Maybe. . . .

 

[alang1216]

And the epitome of logic.

Nope. Logic is the study of correct reasoning or good arguments. Logic requires intelligence, natural laws do not.