[greentriple]

The irony of this entire discussion is the hypocrisy. GT is not be bastion of tolerance, in fact tht would be to progressive for this board. If you question the 2nd amendment Jerry rabidly insults, if you suggest Obama is not a communist well then forget it, you get flayed and if you articulate religious belief of disbelief you are soon ridiculed and or condemned to Hell or retardation.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by greentriple

The irony of this entire discussion is the hypocrisy. GT is not be bastion of tolerance, in fact tht would be to progressive for this board. If you question the 2nd amendment Jerry rabidly insults, if you suggest Obama is not a communist well then forget it, you get flayed and if you articulate religious belief of disbelief you are soon ridiculed and or condemned to Hell or retardation.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

In all honesty, Obama is more of a fascist. He hasn't yet tried to confiscate companies, he just tries to control them and manipulate what they do.

Try being an agnostic around here if you think YOU have it hard.

[Animal Mother]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

I think I've already stated that there is a greater than 95% probability that evolution is occurring.

My biggest problem is that some people use evolution mistakenly as evidence that intelligent design is not also possible. It doesn't show that at all. It shows that species can adapt. Some are better at it than others.

Neonatal development was pretty cool, and there are a lot of visual similarities to the embryo's of mammals.

What did I take from it? Life is very, very complex. A huge number of chemical reactions must occur every instant, in the right place for a single cell to survive. The cooperation of different tissues, distant in the animal, through complex negative and positive feedback loops is simply amazing. Life is much more than just DNA & RNA.

Ever have to learn the "krebs cycle"? It's hard to understand.

The krebs cycle is but one very small piece of many other biologic pathways that must occur correctly to be compatible with life.

To be fair, the reason people sometimes tend to believe you are a creationist/believer in disguise is because you're constantly parroting their arguments. No one has argued that evolution shows that intelligent design is not possible. The argument which is presented is that there is overwhelming evidence for evolution and none for either the existence of intelligent design or for a designer.

[greentriple]

The evidence of a designer is the historical and universal belief in one across cultures. Yes, there have always been Agnostics and Atheists - but a designer has existed from the beginning of thought in one form or another. Superstition? Ignorance? Fear? Maybe, or maybe sufficient evidence?


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

[scottz0369]

Originally Posted by Glock36shooter

I have no belief system troll.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

That is potentially the single most ignorant statement I've ever seen on the internet, and I've been around since AOL was the hot thing. Out of curiosity, do you believe your statement to be true?

[wingryder]

I guess I will answer a video with a better, more accurate video...

http://youtu.be/XdddbYILel0

http://youtu.be/XdddbYILel0

[Geko45]

CavDoc, I have a genuine and sincere question for you. In regards to intelligent design, where do you stand on the concept of "irreducible complexity"?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[Gunhaver]

.....

[greentriple]

Originally Posted by wingryder

I guess I will answer a video with a better, more accurate video...
http://youtu.be/XdddbYILel0

Wonderful video, and even more so b/c there are a series of connected videos that stretch thinking, clearly explain theories and teach critical thinking. My father always challenged views with these two questions. Why? How?


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

[wingryder]

Qualiasoup has a ton of excellent vids. He explains a variety of subjects from scientific method, atheism, critical thinking, etc. Its certainly worth subscribing to his channel.

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by Geko45

CavDoc, I have a genuine and sincere question for you. In regards to intelligent design, where do you stand on the concept of "irreducible complexity"?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

Many things are possible. No?

[Geko45]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

Many things are possible. No?

Indeed, but as usual your response yields no insight on where you stand on the issue. Certainly, you must have an opinion?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by Geko45

Indeed, but as usual your response yields no insight on where you stand on the issue. Certainly, you must have an opinion?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

My stand on the issue is that none of us "know" for sure how what is came to be. But many have faith that they know.

[Geko45]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

My stand on the issue is that none of us "know" for sure how what is came to be. But many have faith that they know.

So your position is that theists that argue that "irreducible complexity" is evidence of intelligent design can't possibly know with absolute certainty that this is actually the case?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by Geko45

So your position is that theists that argue that "irreducible complexity" is evidence of intelligent design can't possibly know with absolute certainty that this is actually the case?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

Nope. Not at all. I simply point out that evolution and intelligent design are not mutually exclusive.

Some of the faithful religious people would like to think that they are, for their own reasons.

[Geko45]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

Nope. Not at all. I simply point out that evolution and intelligent design are not mutually exclusive.

Some of the faithful religious people would like to think that they are, for their own reasons.

Indeed, intelligent design and evolution are not mutually exclusive, but you are evading the question. Do you believe the concept of "irreducible complexity" effectively supports the idea of intelligent design or do you find it a weak argument that indicates a higher probability towards natural (versus intelligently guided) evolution? Certainly, you don't assess the likelihood of the two possibilities as exactly 50/50? Or do you?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by Geko45

Indeed, intelligent design and evolution are not mutually exclusive, but you are evading the question. Do you believe the concept of "irreducible complexity" effectively supports the idea of intelligent design or do you find it a weak argument that indicates a higher probability towards natural (versus intelligently guided) evolution? Certainly, you don't assess the likelihood of the two possibilities as exactly 50/50? Or do you?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

I just think that both intelligent design and evolution can both be possible and not exclude one another. Which seems to be what you have agreed is possible too.

Was an intelligence involved? Neither of us know for sure, and likely wont.

[Geko45]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

I just think that both intelligent design and evolution can both be possible and not exclude one another. Which seems to be what you have agreed is possible too.

Was an intelligence involved? Neither of us know for sure, and likely wont.

Again, agreed. However, that does not mean that each possibility is equally likely. The human mind is a differential engine. We survive by assessing the probabilities of various outcomes and acting accordingly. Those that are more successful in assessing the correct outcome are typically more successful in passing on their genes through reproduction (be it through natural or intelligently guided evolution).

So again, without claiming absolute certainty, do you feel that "irreducible complexity" is more probably a true and correct argument in favor of intelligent design or do you find it be a less probable factor in which case natural evolution is more likely?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by Geko45

Again, agreed. However, that does not mean that each possibility is equally likely. The human mind is a differential engine. We survive by assessing the probabilities of various outcomes and acting accordingly. Those that are more successful in assessing the correct outcome are typically more successful in passing on their genes through reproduction (be it through natural or intelligently guided evolution).

So again, without claiming absolute certainty, do you feel that "irreducible complexity" is more probably a true and correct argument in favor of intelligent design or do you find it be a less probable factor in which case natural evolution is more likely?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

The bottom line is that I think it is grossly equally possible that a deity existed, or didn't. If one existed, intelligent design might be more likely, or it is perfectly possible that the deity just let random chance and nature take it's course.

I'm sure you have a wonderful argument against this "irreducible complexity", you can present it if you can't help yourself. It's OK.

[Geko45]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

The bottom line is that I think it is grossly equally possible that a deity existed, or didn't. If one existed, intelligent design might be more likely, or it is perfectly possible that the deity just let random chance and nature take it's course.

I'm sure you have a wonderful argument against this "irreducible complexity", you can present it if you can't help yourself. It's OK.

No, no grand argument either for or against "irreducible complexity" will be forthcoming (unless you wish to discuss the competing merits of each position?). I was just trying to assess your capacity for inductive reasoning. As I suspected, your capacity for such abstract thought is fairly limited. You seem incapable of assessing the probabilities of competing suppositions and inductively selecting the more probable position in much the manner I suspected.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[juggy4711]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

...And if random combinations of atoms, molecules and proteins reacting led to all life on earth, there is nothing precise about it. It's just a very rare series of events, relatively speaking.

Once again you prove you have no understanding of what you are talking about. There is nothing random about it. It's all very precise. Again give it up. The random claims are BS.

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

The bottom line is that I think it is grossly equally possible that a deity existed, or didn't. If one existed, intelligent design might be more likely, or it is perfectly possible that the deity just let random chance and nature take it's course.

I'm sure you have a wonderful argument against this "irreducible complexity", you can present it if you can't help yourself. It's OK.

Once again your random reference is wrong and just plain dumb.

WTF do you keep insinsting that there is anything random about evolution or physics?

Seems to me you're ignorant of the science. It in fact is much easier to argue intelligent design when one realizes that science is so precise as to be perfectly designed. That's how ID entered the debate in the first place.

And once again it does not matter if there is a deity or not. If there is or there isn't, science is still right. As proved by the fact you can post on the internet.

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by juggy4711

Once again you prove you have no understanding of what you are talking about. There is nothing random about it. It's all very precise. Again give it up. The random claims are BS.



Once again your random reference is wrong and just plain dumb.

WTF do you keep insinsting that there is anything random about evolution or physics?

Seems to me you're ignorant of the science. It in fact is much easier to argue intelligent design when one realizes that science is so precise as to be perfectly designed. That's how ID entered the debate in the first place.

And once again it does not matter if there is a deity or not. If there is or there isn't, science is still right. As proved by the fact you can post on the internet.

Science is still important, but not always right. Feel free to google "scientific mistakes" if you want to. Especially where life is concerned. There is a long list of pharmaceuticals that were scientifically evaluated, and did at least as much harm as good.

If life is meant to be, and a function of physics, why have we not found it elsewhere. We have found it on our own planet where we didn't expect it to be.

Maybe you are ignorant, and slinging unsupported charges around in a juvenile fashion (an interesting consistency) .

If there is nothing random about the origins of life and evolution, make the case. I'm interested to see you do that.


I'm sure you can explain how soot on trees led to an adaptation of darker moths surviving in greater numbers was a predestined planned event, and not a random occurrence (relatively speaking) at all.

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by Geko45

No, no grand argument either for or against "irreducible complexity" will be forthcoming (unless you wish to discuss the competing merits of each position?). I was just trying to assess your capacity for inductive reasoning. As I suspected, your capacity for such abstract thought is fairly limited. You seem incapable of assessing the probabilities of competing suppositions and inductively selecting the more probable position in much the manner I suspected.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

I have inductively deduced a lot about your motivations and character. I understand that you are prone to project charges of a limited intellect on others to cover for your own.

You also have an innate inability to accept the validity of opinions other than your own. You try to cover this through a process of denial, slander, and refusal to accept your dysfunctional upbringing.

Why do you think that is?

[Glock36shooter]

Originally Posted by scottz0369

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

That is potentially the single most ignorant statement I've ever seen on the internet, and I've been around since AOL was the hot thing. Out of curiosity, do you believe your statement to be true?

I know it's true. I dont need to believe. I don't believe in anything. I only rely on things that can be known.

[Geko45]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

I have inductively deduced a lot about your motivations and character. I understand that you are prone to project charges of a limited intellect on others to cover for your own.

You also have an innate inability to accept the validity of opinions other than your own. You try to cover this through a process of denial, slander, and refusal to accept your dysfunctional upbringing.

Why do you think that is?

Why do I think that is? Considering you have absolutely no knowledge of the nature of my upbringing, I attribute your statement to denial of a worldview that you have yet to publicly acknowledge. You will not commit to even the possibility of one scenario being slightly more likely than another.

Given that absolute equality of competing propositions is something that does not occur in nature, I would submit that you are being intentionally illusive as to your true motives. No one here is stupid enough to believe your statement that you believe the existence or nonexistence of a deity are exactly equally likely possibilities.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2