What does "Intelligent Design" even mean?

[Theocrat]

A Silent Evolutionist

I sometimes wonder what it is like, to be this hapless, this ignorant. Is it really blissful?

What's the matter? You can't answer the question? Hmmm, I wonder why...

 

[amy31416]

When with the IDers realize that pseudo-philosophy is not science? All they can present is pseudo-philosophical nonsense.

Where is the evidence to back up your claims? Where is the data? Where is the experimentation? Where is the proof?

Excerpts from the lab manual:

Safety Guidelines:

Unlike other laboratory courses you've taken, this course will not require safety glasses, gloves, aprons or any other material equipment. As you should already know, praying will keep you safe. There will be no hazardous chemicals, pesky bunsen burners, delicate glassware or any other harmful materials. However, it is recommended that you pray for at least five minutes upon entering the lab, it is also helpful to be wearing a cross or other outward symbol.

Experiment one:

Part 1:
Bringing forth life from non-life. This experiment requires all who are involved in said experiment to focus and channel all their belief in God, the omnipotent, to come forth and animate various substances. If the experiment does not work, there is at least one disbeliever amongst you.

Part 2.
If part 1 did not work, it is the duty of the group to fish out the heretic. This can be done in several ways:

a) Place a cross against each person's skin--does it leave a mark?
b) Flotation. If the person does not float, they are obviously a disbeliever.
c) Garlic: are there any individuals who seem particularly sensitive to garlic? If so, they are likely a disbeliever.

Part 3.

What to do with the disbeliever. . .to be continued....

 

[Truth Warrior]

What's the matter? You can't answer the question? Hmmm, I wonder why...

Perhaps becauase he's just a typical run of the mill, predictable atheist socialist/fascist. It's part of their modis operandi.

Does that give you any clues? Have you had any previous run ins with any of those types before?

 

[Theocrat]

More ID Proof Which Shows the Obvious Truth of Nature

When with the IDers realize that pseudo-philosophy is not science? All they can present is pseudo-philosophical nonsense.

Where is the evidence to back up your claims? Where is the data? Where is the experimentation? Where is the proof?

Intelligent Design is based on simple observation of obvious complexity in living organisms within the universe. When one looks at a skyscraper, one immediately knows that it was designed. That person doesn't need to perform a scientific experiment to come to that conclusion; it's axiomatic. When one decides to figure out how it was designed, then that person uses scientific analysis to find out how. But in doing that analysis, the person never questions that the building was designed. It's the same with Intelligent Design upon biological creatures.

I present yet another proof of intelligent design by posting a video. It's entitled,

"Incredible Creatures that Defy Evolution"

 

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

Again with the damn quotes, WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE?

Where is the data?

Where is the experimentation?

Where are the tests?

Where is the research?


Do you have anything to offer other than pseudo-philosophy and quotations?

 

[Theocrat]

I Ask Once Again (To Prove a Point)

Excerpts from the lab manual:

Safety Guidelines:

Unlike other laboratory courses you've taken, this course will not require safety glasses, gloves, aprons or any other material equipment. As you should already know, praying will keep you safe. There will be no hazardous chemicals, pesky bunsen burners, delicate glassware or any other harmful materials. However, it is recommended that you pray for at least five minutes upon entering the lab, it is also helpful to be wearing a cross or other outward symbol.

Experiment one:

Part 1:
Bringing forth life from non-life. This experiment requires all who are involved in said experiment to focus and channel all their belief in God, the omnipotent, to come forth and animate various substances. If the experiment does not work, there is at least one disbeliever amongst you.

Part 2.
If part 1 did not work, it is the duty of the group to fish out the heretic. This can be done in several ways:

a) Place a cross against each person's skin--does it leave a mark?
b) Flotation. If the person does not float, they are obviously a disbeliever.
c) Garlic: are there any individuals who seem particularly sensitive to garlic? If so, they are likely a disbeliever.

Part 3.

What to do with the disbeliever. . .to be continued....

Did this evolve?

If so, what is your scientific proof for it?

 

[Theocrat]

With All Due Respect

Again with the damn quotes, WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE?

Where is the data?

Where is the experimentation?

Where are the tests?

Where is the research?


Do you have anything to offer other than pseudo-philosophy and quotations?

Excuse me, but are you that ignorant and lazy that you won't watch the video presenting the evidence for intelligent design? Do you ask those same questions when trying to prove the existence of love, justice, logic, historical figures, authors of books, etc.?

 

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

nvm

 

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

Excuse me, but are you that ignorant and lazy that you won't watch the video presenting the evidence for intelligent design? Do you ask those same questions when trying to prove the existence of love, justice, logic, historical figures, authors of books, etc.?

Sorry, that "evidence" has already been debunked by real scientists.

 

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

Science is not a set of philosophical beliefs

 

[Theocrat]

I Beg to Differ

Sorry, that "evidence" has already been debunked by real scientists.

Be more specific by giving me some examples.

Science is not a set of philosophical beliefs

You couldn't be more wrong. It's just the philosophical beliefs of any scientist which govern how they view the evidence and interpret the results of an experiment. By the way, there are many different kinds of "science." There's political science, social science, computer science, life science, physical science, geographical science, etc., and all of the people who are involved in these sciences assume philosophical viewpoints in order to perform their discipline. Without a priori philosophical views, a person wouldn't know where to begin in his studies or understanding of a subject. Your statement, once again, assumes that a person can be neutral in his thoughts and beliefs (not assume anything), and that's just naive thinking, if I may be so blunt to say so.

 

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

Intelligent Design is based on simple observation of obvious complexity in living organisms within the universe. When one looks at a skyscraper, one immediately knows that it was designed. That person doesn't need to perform a scientific experiment to come to that conclusion; it's axiomatic. When one decides to figure out how it was designed, then that person uses scientific analysis to find out how. But in doing that analysis, the person never questions that the building was designed. It's the same with Intelligent Design upon biological creatures.

I present yet another proof of intelligent design by posting a video. It's entitled,

"Incredible Creatures that Defy Evolution"

BRILLIANT! You dont have to "study" things, you can just look at them and KNOW what its all about by simple intuition.


What does your intuition tell about the theory of lift? How do airplanes stay in the air without feathers?

How do steel boats stay afloat? Just be looking at them, I know they are made of metal. And metal sinks. There is NO physical explanation to why a steel boat stays afloat. They are made of steel, steel sinks, therefore steel boats must be kept afloat by some unnatural force.

 

[Truth Warrior]

Again with the damn quotes, WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE?

Where is the data?

Where is the experimentation?

Where are the tests?

Where is the research?


Do you have anything to offer other than pseudo-philosophy and quotations?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman

 

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman

I dont think you understand what I am asking.


Where

Is

The

Evidence

?

 

[Truth Warrior]

I dont think you understand what I am asking.


Where

Is

The

Evidence

?

I don't think that you really understand, I really don't give a shit, about what you want. Who died and made you thread God?

 

[DrYongrel]

This thread is suffering, and needs help. We can't let this thread suffer any longer. It's cruel.

We need to usher it into a better place: the crematorium.

 

[wotwut]

This thread is suffering, and needs help. We can't let this thread suffer any longer. It's cruel.

We need to usher it into a better place: the crematorium.

... that almost made me cry it was so fantastic 0_0

 

[Dr.3D]

BRILLIANT! You dont have to "study" things, you can just look at them and KNOW what its all about by simple intuition.

So a zoologist can't just look at many animals and KNOW by looking to see if it has a penis and testicles that is it a male and thus has to "study" it further before he can determine it's sex? In many animals, it is simple to KNOW by observation what sex it is.

In many bird species it is easy to identify if it is a male or female by just looking at how brightly the feathers are colored.

Imagine having to sex each and every chicken hatched at a hatchery by doing more than looking at it and checking the cloaca with your finger. I doubt they would enjoy having to do a DNA check on every one of them to determine it's sex.

There seems to be more than just intuition involved here.

 

[Kade]

So a zoologist can't just look at many animals and KNOW by looking to see if it has a penis and testicles that is it a male and thus has to "study" it further before he can determine it's sex? In many animals, it is simple to KNOW by observation what sex it is.

In many bird species it is easy to identify if it is a male or female by just looking at how brightly the feathers are colored.

Imagine having to sex each and every chicken hatched at a hatchery by doing more than looking at it and checking the cloaca with your finger. I doubt they would enjoy having to do a DNA check on every one of them to determine it's sex.

There seems to be more than just intuition involved here.

Your flawed thinking is in that you rely on those observations because of what we have previously established.

What's the gender of this seahorse Professor?

 

[Dr.3D]

Your flawed thinking is in that you rely on those observations because of what we have previously established.

What's the gender of this seahorse Professor?

If you can't just look at a bull, a cow and a steer and tell what sex they are, then you are in serious trouble.

I didn't say it was easy to determine the sex of all species.

Edit: The sex of a seahorse is easy to detect: male seahorses have a pouch below the chest area.