Conclusive disproof of the theory of intelligent design?

Post by **GONNAFISTYA** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:50 pm

Intelligent Design: The Clincher. A butterfly explodes the theory

So here you have an insect that depends for its very existence on a fragile chain of circumstances that is easily broken by bad weather, changes in exposure to grazing due to human intervention and disease, loss of its unique food plant, and loss of its protector ant species

Clicky

Post by **MKJ** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:52 pm

no, see, ID was conjured up with humans in mind.
we dont deal with lesser lifeforms, they have obviously not been blessed by the Ingelligent Beings' wisdom.

Post by **plained** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:53 pm

like a bullit with butterfly wings, or a butterfly effect ?

thats all i got

Post by **MKJ** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:54 pm

speak of the devil

Post by **Grudge** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 8:09 pm

despite all my rage I am still just a rat in a cage

Post by **seremtan** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 8:37 pm

i always thought the human eye was a better refutation of ID because the retina is in backwards, which if it was designed by god would make god a lousy designer

Post by **mjrpes** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 10:24 pm

creationists don't care about proof, silly

Post by **tnf** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 11:23 pm

I mentioned bringing this type of stuff up to a leading ID guy once and having him say "That is an area of active research for us. Right now one idea is that the creation was perfect but that the archangels had a period of time wherein they disrupted the creation"
(that was his response to my asking about the several examples of bad design, i.e. rabbits that have to eat their own feces to fully digest food).

Post by **S@M** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 12:41 am

Is that proof?
playing devils advocate for a min here - the specific contexts needed for the insect to survive could just as easily be argued to require ID rather than gradual evolutionary processses couldnt they?

There's the whole question though of why bother with insects who live sometimes for just 1-3 days before mating and dying - but I dont see the link between those examples and proof either for or against ID or evolution - although clearly I dont know much about either.

Post by **MKJ** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 9:03 am

seremtan wrote:i always thought the human eye was a better refutation of ID because the retina is in backwards, which if it was designed by god would make god a lousy designer

nono. its not God theyre talking about you see.
God wouldnt be restricted by the laws of physics (optica in this case). The Intelligents, however, would

see how that works ?

Post by **Pext** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 9:17 am

is your "colleague" serious about that archangel thing?

Post by **Ryoki** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 9:23 am

I’ve always felt that the existence of all kinds of different dog species is an excellent bit of ‘Argh no, my brain!’ for people who deny evolution. Don’t know why that argument is hardly used in these types of discussions…

Post by **DooMer** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 9:27 am

You can't disprove ID because the circumstances are whatever they dream up.

Post by **RiffRaff** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 5:47 pm

No one can prove one way or the other. Thats what's funny, it's all speculation as to whether ID exists or not. (I believe in ID with evolution having some part in the plan)

In my opinion, someone or thing had to have a hand in creating some of the retards on this board so I can be thankful I'm not one of them.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all...

Post by **Grudge** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 6:19 pm

I'd say ID carries the burden of proof.

Post by **Grudge** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 6:24 pm

Although I would like to believe that there exists some kind of "anthropic" principle in the nature of the universe that enables, or perhaps even necessitates, the development of intelligent beings. You could say that it is in the nature of the universe to develop the ability to observe itself.

This has nothing to do with what those ID nuts are rambling about though.

Post by **GONNAFISTYA** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 6:38 pm

Grudge wrote:You could say that it is in the nature of the universe to develop the ability to observe itself.

This is a very romantic concept.

It appears you smoke good weed. :icon26:

Post by **GONNAFISTYA** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 6:39 pm

RiffRaff wrote:No one can prove one way or the other. Thats what's funny, it's all speculation as to whether ID exists or not. (I believe in ID with evolution having some part in the plan)

In my opinion, someone or thing had to have a hand in creating some of the retards on this board so I can be thankful I'm not one of them.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all...

Speculation as to whether ID exists or not is not the issue. The issue is the fact that ID tries to compare itself to real science....which it's not.

Do you debate that science exists? Of course not.

Post by **HM-PuFFNSTuFF** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 6:43 pm

It's a funny old world.

Post by **dzjepp** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 7:31 pm

q3 was made by id... that's why it's such a spectacular game.

Post by **tnf** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 11:42 pm

ID is not science. There is plenty of evidence that ID, as described in the current "theory" did not happen.

now...must...force...self...to stay away from this thread...

heh.

Post by **mjrpes** » Thu Dec 07, 2006 12:20 am

You can prove anything with God...

Person A) You don't exist.
Person B) How so?
A) God told me.
B) But I know I exist. I am talking to you right now, no?
A) That doesn't prove you exist.
B) How could I be talking to you if I don't exist?
A) God says you don't exist. 'nuff said.
B) You can't just base my non-existence off of something God told you. Prove to me that I don't exist.
A) The entity I am talking to right now looks like a person, talks like a person, and thus 'seems' to exist, but really you are just an illusion that God has been nice enough to point out.
B) Bullshit. God is a figment of your imagination. That's where the 'illusion' is coming from.
A) Untrue. Everyone at my 'church' fully agrees that you don't exist. And I have a 2,000 year old text here that says you don't exist.
B) Fuck it. :icon33:
A) Have a nice day.

Post by **tnf** » Thu Dec 07, 2006 12:21 am

i don't like the way people who don't understand what the term proof in science actually means use the term proof for all sorts of things.

Post by **Tsakali_** » Thu Dec 07, 2006 12:28 am

mjrpes wrote:You can prove anything with God...

Person A) You don't exist.
Person B) How so?
A) God told me.
B) But I know I exist. I am talking to you right now, no?
A) That doesn't prove you exist.
B) How could I be talking to you if I don't exist?
A) God says you don't exist. 'nuff said.
B) You can't just base my non-existence off of something God told you. Prove to me that I don't exist.
A) The entity I am talking to right now looks like a person, talks like a person, and thus 'seems' to exist, but really you are just an illusion that God has been nice enough to point out.
B) Bullshit. God is a figment of your imagination. That's where the 'illusion' is coming from.
A) Untrue. Everyone at my 'church' fully agrees that you don't exist. And I have a 2,000 year old text here that says you don't exist.
B) Fuck it. :icon33:
A) Have a nice day.

and yet in the end the happy camper is the creationist...ignorance is bliss, why fight it

Post by **Underpants?** » Thu Dec 07, 2006 12:33 am

We're all artifacts of special interest
some interest lies less within reality than others.
Obscurity by showmanship or inflection makes this
subtle truth more subtle, yet it remains as such-a truth.