The Power of the New Intelligent Design...

Not difficult. I would look at its structure and function and determine from experience with other forms whether it was naturally formed or not. Then we will need about a dozen or so other recognized and qualified scientists to make an independent set of observations. The consensus will make the tentative conclusion.The same goes for all your questions.Are you going to try and resurrect Behe’s bullshit on complexity? Unless you have something startlingly new to argue then all the old bs has already been refuted. And be careful with trying to use Dumbski’s information theory. We got some real math people here.So, now it’s your turn. How can you differentiate a created X from an un-created X?BTW, both your sources are self-serving non-scientific narcissism. I will not read them nor will I reference them. You want to present evidence? Bring it here. What do your cites say? Anything not already debunked decades ago?Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Of course you can! That is the way science works. We insult attention starved Einstein wannabees when they storm in here saying they've discovered The Truth^©, the one true way, without presenting any evidence at all and then expect us to praise their superior intellect.Bullshit. Consider yourself insulted, again ... and again.You want to say you have something superior to science? Bring it. Tell us your discovery.Don't send me to your web page. I'm not going to read let alone buy one of your books. You want to press your case here then write it up here. Present your ideas in your post, not some sub-reference.Then we'll tell you if you're full of shit or not. Are you a real scientist? I think you're just a wannabee. I insult you again. Have me banned.I think you may be a religious naboob with a dumb idea stuck in your superstitious head who thinks he is the greatest mind since Newton but can't find anyone to appreciate his true genius so you haunt internet fora looking for validation and applause.I think you may be a religious wack job just like all the other science wannabee wack jobs that come in here flaming about intelligent design and the power of their brains.Do you care to counter any of this?Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Your questions from the OP were answered in Message 4.Are you going to answer mine?How do you differentiate a created X from an natural X?

I'm not going to read your self-serving narcissistic tome.Present your argument here within the post.How do YOU tell a natural object from a manufactured one? What criteria do you use? I already stated mine in Message 4.Write it up and bring it here in a forum message, not in some off-site opus.Failure to do so will show your lack of evidence for your proposal.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

So, again, MrID, how do YOU tell a natural object from a manufactured one? What criteria do you use?

Evolution does not ask such questions. It makes organisms. It hasn't the capacity to care if such and such is a rock or a cell.And, yes, evolution is quite famous. It’s been in all the schools for the last 100 years or so. I don’t think I need to teach evolution to you. Either you have studied it in depth in preparation for your writing or you don’t know what you’re trying to fight and have no intellectual challenge worth our time.I prefer to believe the former, so consider evolution explained, at least provisionally, as outlined in Wiki – Evolution.Your task, as you seem to define it, is to defeat the edifice of evolution with your thoughts on god, ID specifically.So, again, MrID, how do YOU tell a natural object from a manufactured one? What criteria do you use?Edited by AZPaul3, : link

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

I don't remember the bet but the next round is on me.[ ]? [ ]?

OK. Evolution does not address abiogenesis.That’s it. Your turn.So, again, MrID, how do YOU tell a natural object from a manufactured one? What criteria do you use? No you haven’t. Your OP was a bunch of nonsense questions and a couple self-written, self-serving, non-science write-ups. I believe you as much as I believe your god.So, again, MrID, how do YOU tell a natural object from a manufactured one? What criteria do you use?Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Oh. That origin. You should be clearer. You've been using them interchangeably and sometimes it's hard to tell.Are you denying evolution explains the origin of species for which there are entire libraries and museums and universities full of evidence?Do you have an equal quality and quantity of evidence to dispute this?Of course you think so but you seem unable to explain what, how, when. Child.Back to the topic.So, again, MrID, how do YOU tell a natural object from a manufactured one? What criteria do you use?

No, just summarize your argument in your own words here in the text. No lengthy cut & paste necessary.So, again, MrID, how do YOU tell a natural object from a manufactured one? What criteria do you use?Surely you can answer the simple question. I answered back in Message 4.

quote:

---

I would look at its structure and function and determine from experience with other forms whether it was naturally formed or not. Then we will need about a dozen or so other recognized and qualified scientists to make an independent set of observations. The consensus will make the tentative conclusion.

---

And I didn't have to cut and paste complete books to explain it.So, again, MrID, how do YOU tell a natural object from a manufactured one? What criteria do you use?Start easy. What is the first trait you would look to?Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Dear Mr. ID,

​

We have received your submission titled Scientific Falsification of the Theory of Evolution (ToE) and Its Replacement.

​

After a quick perusal your submission has been deemed the ravings of a lunatic mind with no relation to reality and has been added to the trash pile to be destroyed. It’s crap.

​

Furthermore, we advise you seek psychological treatment, quickly.

​

This journal receives dozens of papers from crazy people touting all manner of stupidity. Do not contact us again. If you do contact this journal again we will report your harassment to the appropriate civil authorities.

​

Editor,
Nature

---

Child.You will first denounce all gods. You will confess that the supernatural does not exist. You will swear that evolution is real and the greatest force for diversity of life. You WILL do this, Mr. ID, then I will tell you why that is right.Now, answer my questions from Message 34, Message 37, Message 42, Message 47, Message 53, Message 58, Message 68.So, once again, MrID, how do YOU tell a natural object from a manufactured one? What criteria do you use?Failure to do so will mean you have no answer because your whole ID stance is nothing but another creationist sham.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

If you're a scientist then you would care deeply. Peers are the only ones who can tell you if you are a real scientist doing real science or not. Then you have to present, to share, to show how your process works.Your peers are telling you that you are not doing science, have not done science. If you want to be a scientist you must prove yourself and your process to your peers. You have not done so.

How might you check? What sources would you look to for the data?

He made this one harder.

Message 128	finger
Message 129	Crockoduck
Message 130	Anubis

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.