Spotting Beretta's "designer" {Now only 1 summation message per member}

But you made up your mind that material processes must have done it before looking at the evidence -just admit it. If you can believe that random material mutations and the selection of the best ones could create all the complexity of living things -then you do believe in magic.The magic is in believing that it is possible to get complex organization out of random mistakes -and don't forget old natural selection which cleverly chooses the best ones to put complex things together. You sure do love that word. No actually they seem to be familiar with their own little speciality -as for the rest of the evidence which they don't appear to be very familiar with, they are as good as laypersons as far as the big picture, the overall look of the evidence is concerned.
Halfwitted religious bigotry is a phrase designed to make people imagine that anyone who believes in God is a fool -how to win friends and influence people....And then of course how anyone who believes that nature did all its own creating is made of sterner stuff, facing reality in the eye boldly - give me a break. How awfully audacious of you -there you go boldly defiant as always.Staring the facts in the face -there is no God, live with it!
Maybe I know more than you think and, evolutionist to the core, you only imagine in your proud little heart that anyone that doesn't agree with you doesn't know anything.It's possible, think about it... There we go again, that little word you love so well...Who's deceiving who here???

This is just a fantasy you have about me.It is the very opposite of the truth.Like most of your fantasies. No, attributing something to natural processes is still, obviously, the opposite of believing in magic. You sure do love lying to me about my own opinions.Apparently you can't argue with the real me, so you argue with a fantasy version of me in your head. If every "little speciality" agrees with evolution, then it seems to me that so does the "big picture".You, on the other hand, seem to believe that you can see the "big picture" without studying any part of it.And so you make your assault on evolution armed with the made-up "fact" that "all Earth's creatures have 2 eyes" ...Is that the "big picture"? No. Is it an accurate account of some detail of the "big picture"? No. No it isn't.You're not good at spotting design, are you? And that is, of course, not what I said.Instead of debating with the fantasy version of me that lives in your head, why not try debating ... me?Oh yeah, 'cos you'd lose. Maybe you do know more than I think. In which case you are a big phoney for concealing this knowledge behind a screen of ignorance and bullshit.I concede that possibly you are just a troll pretending to be ignorant. Otherwise, you're just ignorant. You are deceiving no-one whatsoever.

And you must admit, has the property of 'special pleading' in it.

No fantasy, just an observation about how evolutionists decide what's what based on no other options. No it isn't. If natural processes are unlikely to be able to do the job, imagining that they can without some sort of direction is akin to believing in magic. Most little specialties don't even need evolution at all. Some just throw in a little evolution related story at the end of their discoveries in order to go with the flow -but it's quite unnecessary. As for agreeing with it, dare they not? It wouldn't be good for funding, would it. Listen, all I know about you at this stage is that you're a radical fundamentalist evolutionist, you love to imagine that anyone who opposes your opinion is lying and you're very angry about something so it oozes out all over your writing.

Why would we believe that there is "direction" where none appears to exist and when no one, yourself included, can tell us what it is and how to spot it?You have no positive evidence of "direction" or "design" whatsoever, as this thread clearly demonstrates. You have nothing to argue for.

No, it is a halfwitted fantasy that you use to protect yourself from the truth.Now, this might make you feel all warm and cozy inside, but when you repeat your stupid fantasies about people to the people whom you're having the fantasy about, then you are going to get laughed at. No, believing that something happens naturally rather than supernaturally is, still, the very opposite of believing in magic. Especially since I know for a fact that natural processes are quite capable of doing the job. I could say the same of creationist drivel. I'll let them be the judge of that, since they are scientists and you know damn-all about science. Why not? Creationists seem to be quite good at getting funding. Kent Hovind, for example, has swindled more money out of the taxman then I've earned in a lifetime. To be precise, I am angry that you lie about my opinions instead of debating my actual opinions. So I'll do you a deal. You stop lying, and I'll stop being angry about it.---"Radical fundamentalist evolutionist". Heh. Funny thing how creationists do this. You are a fundamentalist, you wish to insult me, and the dirtiest word you can think of is ... fundamentalist. Apparently you think the supreme insult is to say that I'm like you.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

'Nuff said?

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

That's strange, that's exactly what I think of the evolutionists' belief system. A fantasy to keep the truth at bay. People have always been running from God throughout history, only now they present what they're doing as the 'scientific' truth -it is philisophically inspired you know, from its roots right up to the present day.
The more you run from God, the more you cling to your belief system, enraged at the possibility of any other option. Not if it means believing something that flies in the face of logic. Organization -requires an organizer -where does the genetic code's information come from? It's not just a chemical composition you know.It requires sending a message and receiving it and then acting upon it -code....you know. Look around and ask everyone you know where their best evidence for evolution lies -it's usually in someone else's speciality. All the little just-so stories in the world won't make evolution true - I appreciate the wonderfully imaginative stuff that evolutionists come up with but I would really prefer the truth when it comes to science. No actually you've got it all quite wrong, that's another one of the evolutionary fairytales; it's the evolutionists that have access to all the tax payer's money. ID proponents have to find private funding if they want to do their research. If you don't go with the flow, you know.... Actually I answer to the things that you write and that's all I know about your opinions at this stage.

Hey Dr A,You make valid points, but I think a more constructive approach might highlight them better.All you need ask Beretta is to provde positive evidence for the ID position.

Your silly lies and fantasies about evolutionists in general and me in particular are not on topic. Nor, as I have pointed out, are they likely to deceive anyone.Do you want to produce evidence for a designer, or do you want to drool out silly nonsense about the people who have the temerity to disagree with you?I guess the latter option is easier ...

A few quotes that may make sense:"According to the Darwinian creation myth, intelligent adaptations within highly complex, functionally integrated systems just happen for no particular reason.This is the fundamental proposition that materialism in all its variants asks us to swallow. First articlated by the ancient Greek atomists, it is a bolus that has been gagging scientists and philosophers for more than two millenia."
Cicero spoke of it in 45 BC and Fred Hoyle updated Cicero's imagery in his famous analogy of a tornado passing through a junkyard and leaving a Boeing 747 in its wake.One cannot tinker at random with a functionally integrated system and expect to achieve beneficial results. To be viable, changes must be coordinated.
" The real problem Darwinists face is even given 15 billion years from the Big Bang, a heap of inert matter would not spontaneously organize itself into a functionally integrated system. Epic poems and Boeing 747's do not come into existance by themselves, no matter how much time is available -and neither do cells or even proteins.
If there is no intrinsic connection between the material constitution of a system and its function, then we can say with certainty that the organization must have been imposed on the system by an external agent. If on the other hand as naturalists we suppose that the system organized itself into a functionally integrated whole, then we must also posit some intrinsic connection between matter and function to act as a guiding principle.Either way, Darwinism has got it wrong. Invoking chance in a way that it does is tantamount to saying "here the laws of nature as we understand them are suspended.." It is no different from invoking miracles."
(James Barham -"Why I am not a Darwinist")Maybe the way he puts it explains better what I am trying to say.

There is one serious flaw in this argument: Boeing 747s are not alive. This might be a good argument for TRVE believers, but it is patently ridiculous at any level beyond that.As for cells and proteins, a lot of the building blocks can be seen forming in nature. Don't bet the rent money that they won't be assembled in the laboratory before too long now.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

So, he doesn't know what Darwinism is. This is going to vitiate his attampts to attack it. No-one claims that adaptation is produced "for no particular reason". The reason is natural selection acting on random variation. Analogies are mean to resemble the processes of which they are analogues. How is a tornado sweeping through a junkyard like the action of natural selection on a lineage reproducing with random variation?Oh wait, it isn't. Yet we observe beneficial mutations; we can also observe that genetic algorithms work; so what Barham "expects" is wrong, no surprise there. Now, if only "Darwinism" was about "epic poems and Boeing 747's coming into existance by themselves", or "a heap of inert matter spontaneously organizing itself into a functionally integrated system", rather than the action of natural selection on genetic variation, then he'd have a point. That would be na-tu-ral se-lec-tion. Actually, pointing out that mutations are random is not the same as saying "here the laws of nature as we understand them are suspended" Because these are two totally different propositions with no conceivable connection between them. Then I shudder to think how you would have put it.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

But you are saying precisely nothing about the designer, all you are doing is criticising the ToE. Where is your positive evidence?In any case the 747 analogy can just as easily used by someone arguing for evolution. No one "designer" directed aircraft from the the time of the Wright brothers to that of the Boeing 747. In this sense the 747 can be said to have "evolved" from early aircraft without any single "director".Analogies don't equate to facts, however. It is a fact, for example, that you have thus far presented no positive evidence for ID and are entirely limited to ToE criticism.

And let's take a look at what James Barham wants the ToE to make way for, shall we? Somehow I doubt that this is what creationists are believing this week.