The Power of the New Intelligent Design...

Yeah. Questions like that really are scary - if asked seriously.
I generally think people ask them because they just haven't really thought about it and "just accepted" the religious answer for whatever reason. More of an ignorance thing then a malevolent thing. But, who knows? I'm not a mind-reader.Anyway, I like Penn Jillette's phrasing when asked "...without God, what’s to stop you from raping all you want?"

quote:

---

I do rape all I want. And the amount I want is zero. And I do murder all I want, and the amount I want is zero. The fact that these people think that if they didn’t have this person watching over them that they would go on killing, raping rampages is the most self-damning thing I can imagine.

​

-Penn Jillette (from Penn & Teller)

---

What is limiting about a hierarchy? What is unnecessary about it?

You do not understand the position being made. Of all the possible patterns to find in the fossil record we see only the one: a nested hierarchy. That is rather limited (down to one) in the space of possible patterns that could have appeared. Suggest you re-read Taq's message.

And you came to this conclusion based on what? You would expect a different pattern? Which one?Or multiple patterns mixed together or something? Why?

That's what I mean. You don't understand the position. It has nothing to do with expectations. It has to do with probability.Of the hundreds of different patterns we could have seen in the fossile record why do we only see the one throughout every relationship?Would you expect a god to follow one pattern throughout all of creation? Why would he use the one and only pattern that shows this hierarchy?The proposed answer is that the pattern is evidence of evolution rather than fiat creation.That was the question?

I think you should make your argument much more explicit. sensei doesn't seem to have the sharpest katana or tantō. He probably won't understand your reply.The basic idea that is so obvious that it should not need to be explained is: The creation by fiat of an omnipotent Creator would result in an arbitrary pattern (if any pattern at all). In such a fiat creation, the resultant pattern (or lack thereof) would be completely independent of how the Creator created.IOW, the patterns in the resultant creation could be anything.And yet, the patterns are exactly what we would expect if that hierarchy had been evolved. Why would the Creator have chosen that specific pattern, one that looks for all the world like evolution?This brings us back to that oldy-moldy Omphalos Argument (see Message 669, also my page on it, THE OMPHALOS ARGUMENT).If that hierarchy did not evolve but rather was created in an act of fiat creation, then all that evidence of evolution would be false, a lie. And since the Creator deliberately planted that "false evidence of evolution", that would make the Creator a Liar. Indeed, that was a big reason why everybody rejected Gosse's "absolute defense of the Bible against geology", because it proposed a Trickster God, like Loki.

If you take one lottery ticket out of a million, it will always be one ticket out of a million. Any other ticket would also be one out of a million, with the exact same probability.Your argument is evidence for nothing!

If we would generate millions of totally random DNA sequencies, the sequences can always be arranged in a nested hierarchy. As we will be able to find groups of sequences that are closer to each other than to other sequences. Similar sequences form a group in the nested hierarchy. Nothing special about nested hierarchies. Unlike what evolutionists want us to believe.

You use “evolutionist”. Ahh, another religious weenie out to do battle with the scourge of evolution.There are literally thousands of science papers explaining common descent, how it works and the meaning. UCD and common descent are strongly evident in both the fossil record and genetics. It is a reality your religious cults must endure.You really think you can defeat evolution with NOTHING? That is what you have to fight with. That is your weapon. Nothing at all. You cannot show any evidence that any of your religious fantasy, whatever it is, is real. You have no alternative processes to cite. No gods you can show us to call upon to inspire your fight. You have nothing.Before you continue spouting inanities, show us your god. If your god exists and controls this world then show him to us. Show us the evidence that he is real. Once you prove your god then we can discuss how evolution destroys him.

Wow. You really have problems with the concept.What do you think a nested hierarchy is? How is it recognized? Do you know what you're talking about?

I assumed he was a fundie trying to catch us in a gotcha. I wonder if there is a fundie school giving credit for owning the evilutionists again.

Ha ha...If only cults were so straightforward.
I'd be more inclined to think that their involvement is more meant for them to fail - to reinforce that the "outstide, evilutionists" will never accept them and always fight them. This would lead them back into the cult - where they can be abused further.They would be given some task like "engage in conversation with 10 evolutionists" or something like that.
They would be expecting to own the evilutionists... but the task wouldn't specifically include that. Reinforcement of the "us vs. them" cult behaviour would be the goal.A despicable, and very sad thing, really.

All you do is ranting the same evolutionist nonsense, instead of actually responding to any of my points.

If you know so well what a nested hierarchy is, then proof me wrong. Otherwise, you are just full of empty claims with nothing to back it up!

Are you done ranting nonsense and showing your disrespect? Because it says more about you than the people you are trying to bash.