A new ID challenge at Hannity.com

fowlsound said:
Oh man. Jlam, that's the best f***ing thing I've ever read over there.

I bow to your ranting ability. I think it is well deserved on their part. Damn good man.


Boy do I love it when someone lays the smack down...
Click to expand...
Fowl, I've got nothin' on you and your alternative medicine paper. That was some smack that done got laid down.

But thanks for the compliments :)
 
JLam said:
Fowl, I've got nothin' on you and your alternative medicine paper. That was some smack that done got laid down.

But thanks for the compliments :)
Click to expand...

Yeah but I wasn't directing it AT anyone.

I love the terms mouth-breathing and halfwit. good use of them :)

Nicely done.
 
Sadly, it only highlights a major ( the major? ) problem with ID adherents: they are not actually in any way concerned with evidence, argument or reason. They believe, and must maintain that belief regardless. Hence, highly commendable efforts by JLam, KingMerv, and others are doomed to such frustration.

But still, as rants go...'dumb as 3 tons of navel lint' is sheer, unmitigated poetry :D
 
The best thing about this thread is the comedy:

We have theories of cosmic EVOLUTION, chemical EVOLUTION, planetary, galactic, solar, social, etc. EVOLUTION. The term is very broad and biological evolution is only one small piece of the evolutionary pie.
Click to expand...

Shades of Jack Chick and Kent Hovind.

sides....splitting
 
What I'd like to see asked over there (since my registration hasn't yet been accepted) is, will they finally admit that ID is a religious flavour?
 
fowlsound said:
Holy crap! You called someone DUMBO!!!


You are going to burn in HELLFIRE
Click to expand...


That's it. You slipped up and went on a rant. That has never been done in the entire history of that board. Now they are justified in banning you, troll. :)

Meanwhile, they're thinking "Whew, glad we don't have to argue with someone who can actually DEBATE!"

You let them off easy ... ! And yourself for that matter. You must enjoy pain, kind of like me. You didn't think you were actually going to change anyone's mind, did you?

There's no point to arguing with people like that. If you want to enlighten people on message boards, just make your points and don't bother to respond to their attacks unless they are reasoned and polite. You are never obligated to defend your position to people who won't listen to your defense, like when Sean Hannity grills and browbeats someone he's interviewing but won't let them answer his question without interrupting them three times for more questions.

Only defend and explain yourself when you feel someone sincerely wants more explanation and you feel they are willing to listen and think about it. Your blood pressure will thank you.

Of course, you can always turn it around and take anyone who isn't debating politely and reasonably and report them to the mods instantly. People who change the subject constantly, don't answer questions, don't respond to your statements, and don't have the good sense and manners to allow for give and take in a debate obviously aren't interested in debating and could be considered trolls, ripe for banning. Turn it around on them and the minute someone gets personal or dodges the question, or changes topics, etc. report the post to a mod. See how they like it for a change.

Of course, nothing will come of it because debate and discussion are not the point of that board. The point is to make Sean Hannity look good and promote his show.
 
Last edited:
homer said:
looks like you're doing fine .
Remember that bringing in a creator to explain the complexity merely moves the problem to one of explaining how the creator was created and so on ...
Click to expand...

You mean like if man was the creatror of cement, that it is silly to contemplate that there was a man involved, by looking at the cement? And unless we can figure out where THAT man came from, then it's silly to think that a man made the cement? Think about that one once.

One of the reasons we call God "GOD" is in the fact that he is the greatest of anything ever, and the most powerful thing of anything, ever, and did not require creating.

I bet you are willing to believe that energy just 'is'. Right? No questions asked. Right? If you accept that..why not accept this energy as possessing some sort of brains networking going on, to where this energy can produce order out of chaos. And cause this energy to appear that there is some purpose going on. How is it that WE are purpose driven? How could random chance motion, with no purpose, cause something down the line, to develop purpose, unless that purpose was already part of the grand knowledge of the entire universe in the beginning?
 
Iamme said:
You mean like if man was the creatror of cement, that it is silly to contemplate that there was a man involved, by looking at the cement? And unless we can figure out where THAT man came from, then it's silly to think that a man made the cement? Think about that one once.

One of the reasons we call God "GOD" is in the fact that he is the greatest of anything ever, and the most powerful thing of anything, ever, and did not require creating.

I bet you are willing to believe that energy just 'is'. Right? No questions asked. Right? If you accept that..why not accept this energy as possessing some sort of brains networking going on, to where this energy can produce order out of chaos. And cause this energy to appear that there is some purpose going on. How is it that WE are purpose driven? How could random chance motion, with no purpose, cause something down the line, to develop purpose, unless that purpose was already part of the grand knowledge of the entire universe in the beginning?
Click to expand...


Iamme are there alot of crows around your house?

Cause you sure like to build strawmen...
 
Ok Iamme, you asked for it...

Iamme said:
You mean like if man was the creatror of cement, that it is silly to contemplate that there was a man involved, by looking at the cement? And unless we can figure out where THAT man came from, then it's silly to think that a man made the cement? Think about that one once.
Click to expand...

This makes no sense, but I'll try to address what you'er getting at. Firstly, yes. Since man IS the creator of cement, looking at cement in the form of buildings and sculpture or bridges, to understand what the purpose of the cement was, you'd have to understand where the man came from. This would entail understanding the society in which the man lives, and the purpose of using cement. However, cement is *ONE* thing. There is evidence man designed alot of things outisede of cement, and we can see man doing this everyday. We cannot see God doing this. We do see things happening in the order of natural law, as predicted by science based on empirical evidence, and there is no evidence that anything other than evolution brought about the current form of man. Also, you are confusing Cosmology and Abiogenesis with TOE. Evolution does not address where life started or how (that's the field of Abiogenesis), it addresses how it evolves. It also does not address the beginnings of the universe, cosmology does.

Iamme said:
One of the reasons we call God "GOD" is in the fact that he is the greatest of anything ever, and the most powerful thing of anything, ever, and did not require creating.
Click to expand...

Evidence?

Iamme said:
I bet you are willing to believe that energy just 'is'. Right? No questions asked. Right? If you accept that..why not accept this energy as possessing some sort of brains networking going on, to where this energy can produce order out of chaos. And cause this energy to appear that there is some purpose going on. How is it that WE are purpose driven? How could random chance motion, with no purpose, cause something down the line, to develop purpose, unless that purpose was already part of the grand knowledge of the entire universe in the beginning?
Click to expand...

You throw alot of crap out in that one. let's start from scratch.

1) what "energy" are you speaking of? radiation? light? gravity? kenetic?
2) how exactly are we purpose driven, except to the tenets of natural selection? reproduce, and survive? Everything we do makes it easier to survive and reproduce. What's your point?

I would be a proponent of ID because obviously all humans are intelligent, except then you post and prove that hypothesis wrong.
 
Over 24 hours since I registered there and no confirmation notice. Does anyone know who mods that board so I can PM them?
 
Hey, KingMerv, couldn't log on here last night so I went over there to play a bit.

You'll notice under my name it says 'ordained minister', which is technically true. I got ordained online at ULC. They never asked if I believe in god, or I wouldn'a.

I dunno why but I started being ambiguous over there. Don't let on that you know me just yet, maybe we can have fun.

I propose that I immerse myself in the best arguments that ID puts forth, call you out in a debate, and you can cut them all down. What say you?
 
Iamme said:
I bet you are willing to believe that energy just 'is'. Right? No questions asked. Right?
Click to expand...

Here's the point where you begin to construct your straw man. Any time a person begins a sentence with "You believe" or "You must believe" or the like, the rest of the post is just giving the pile of hay human form. If you avoid the temptation to cram words in others' mouths, they might start taking you seriously around here.

Now, for the part of the post one might consider taking seriously (i.e. what comes before that gibberish.) The logic used by homer goes something like this...

IF existence always implies there was a designer
AND a god exists
THEN the god must have a creator

But neither assumption is necessary or supported by any physical evidence, so there isn't really any point in discussing the conclusion. It's just a convenient way to point out circular logic.
 
delphi_ote said:
IF existence always implies there was a designer
AND a god exists
THEN the god must have a creator
Click to expand...

I think their argument is actually "Anything that begins to exist must have a cause." At least that's what I gather from what little ID stuff I've read. Something that does not begin to exist has well, always existed. Which is very logical as stands.

It's the "cause" that causes the debate. :)

Flick
 
fowlsound said:
2) how exactly are we purpose driven, except to the tenets of natural selection? reproduce, and survive? Everything we do makes it easier to survive and reproduce. What's your point?
Click to expand...

I can't speak for him, but I think his point is that TOE is directional when there is no need for it to be other than it just is. TOE assumes survival from matter that doesn't necessarily need to survive by any universal law, and that in its most basic forms (protons, neutrons, electrons) serve no real purpose in surviving, especially in a dying universe.

In other words, some matter was organized by whatever means (we can't know for sure) with an imprinted law to survive, but that law was not present prior to organization, nor is it justified by any other law we know through observation. In other words, stars aren't built to survive, nor radiation to reproduce.

I suppose however given all the other things in the universe that are organized in a way such as not to survive, it is possible that a survival law randomly sprung out of all the combinations of non-survival.

But directionality is a bit of a condundrum.

Flick
 
stamenflicker said:
I can't speak for him, but I think his point is that TOE is directional when there is no need for it to be other than it just is. TOE assumes survival from matter that doesn't necessarily need to survive by any universal law, and that in its most basic forms (protons, neutrons, electrons) serve no real purpose in surviving, especially in a dying universe.

In other words, some matter was organized by whatever means (we can't know for sure) with an imprinted law to survive, but that law was not present prior to organization, nor is it justified by any other law we know through observation. In other words, stars aren't built to survive, nor radiation to reproduce.

I suppose however given all the other things in the universe that are organized in a way such as not to survive, it is possible that a survival law randomly sprung out of all the combinations of non-survival.

But directionality is a bit of a condundrum.
Click to expand...
It's not a question of a law being "imprinted" at the point of organisation. It's just a question of how things work once you have inherited variability.

As far as natural selection is concerned, a successful entity (whether we're talking about an entire organism or a molecule) is one that produces more copies of itself that its peers. If the traits that enable it to produce more copies of itself are inherited, then its descendents, having inherited those traits, will on average be able to produce more copies of themselves than individuals not exhibiting those traits, and the population will have an increasing proportion of descendents of our original successful individual.

This is not a law that was not present prior to organisation. It was there all the time, but only comes into play in populations in which variation can be inherited.
 
I posted a perfectly viable strategy for detecting intelligent design in nature...here. Of course the nature, means and intent of the intelligent designer is known beforehand, which helps a bit.

As Mojo points out, reproduction with inheritance is the key.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom