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

You have made 268 posts on this board and you still don't know that evolution is not random.You have my sympathy. No, but thanks for asking. This "evidence" stuff we keep talking about. Once more I refer you to the evidence. Nice use of the word "maybe". This is a lie. If you do not know that you are lying, a glance into "any textbook" will show you that you are reciting a witless lie. Thank you. So, while you admit that evolution is possible according to natural laws, you still wish to insist that GodDidItByMagic is more plausible?Strange.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I have, it's rubbish.Here's some of my critique: No.

Yes, this is absolutely where eductation leads us. Being educated leads us to know that what is "obvious to so many" is bollocks. This is kinda why people need to be educated.You should try it yourself some time. Of course. This is the most basic argument in favor of evolution.Of course evolution deludes people into imagining design. We don't need to imagine it, we can prove it. That's kind of the difference between biology and the shit you make up in your head. And, whoopie-do-dah, we can prove it.Isn't science great? You could spend thirty seconds with this little thing we call "logic", and then you could slap yourself on the forehead and say "Damn, how silly I've been".Don't worry, it's not going to happen. Thirty seconds of logical thought is not something that you or any other creationist will undertake. Relax. Mmm ... do you know what the word "mutation" means? Only if you did, you'd lie less often. Your beliefs are most amusing, but do not constitute evidence for anything except that you're a bigoted religious fanatic frightened of the facts that contradict your crazy beliefs. On the one hand, I see why you're desparate to dodge the question you were asked.On the other hand, we can all see that you're desparate to dodge the question you were asked.Let's ask it again.How do I spot design?That was kind of the topic. So let's ask it again.How do I spot design? How, for example, can I tell a snowflake designed in a laboratory from one that just dropped out of the sky?Answer the frickin' question.

Do you really suppose that lying to us about the basis of our opinions is going to deceive us? Think about this for a moment. Scientists disagree. I'll take their word for it rather than yours, because they know about science, a subject of which you are not merely ignorant, but also dishonest. Yup. That and all the other evidence. This has been calculated by Nilsson and Pelger.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

And there is evidence for this, and no evidence for the involvement of magic. Could I point out one more time that your opinions of what science is differs completely from the opinions of scientists? Obviously it is belivable, since the people who "look into all the little details" --- something you have never done --- do in fact believe it.If you ever bothered to "look into all the little details" --- i.e. study nature --- you might come to the same opinion. Then I suggest that you do what scientists have done and study nature. If you study it a little bit, you'll have a "little bit of proof". If you study it a lot, you'll have a lot of proof. You mean like when you stated as fact that "all Earth's creatures have 2 eyes"? Do I need to remind you again what conclusions doing science has led scientists to?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

There's no point in you telling me this lie --- I've looked at the evidence. Why would you describe as "magic" something which was done by material processes?This appears to be a contradiction in terms. The view that you attribute to me is one that I do not hold, as I presume you know.Why lie to me about my own opinions? I will tell you, however, that the scientists are more familiar with the evidence than most of the public, and are therefore more likely to be guided by the evidence and less likely to be guided by halfwitted religious bigotry. Don't tell such silly lies, you know nothing of the details, and we know it.You, remember, were the guy who based your argument against evolution on the premise that "all Earth's creatures have 2 eyes". You've never looked at the details of the world around you, because you're not remotely interested in it. This is, of course, not true, and reciting this lie over and over again will not make it any truer --- nor will it deceive anyone.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

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.

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.

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 ...

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.

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.

Your fantasy does not account for the many theists who accept evolution, including almost all theist scientists. And if you see the results of evolution ... ? A painter is a materialistic explanation for a painting. Evolution is not based on the premise that there is no God. As demonstrated by all those theist scientists. That does not follow. For example, if God exists and evolution happened, as theist scientists believe, then your conclusion is irrational. Or if God exists, but he's Krishna rather than Jehovah, than you've still screwed up.The phrase "God exists" is not co-extensive with everything that you choose to believe. If God does exist, then his conclusions are also rational. Because they are based on observation of nature, not on any proposition about God. IMHO, no. This is why no-one does so.You keep whining on about this fantasy world of yours, but where in the real world do you see anyone arguing for evolution with the non-existence of God as a premise? Another strange fantasy. Do you believe that you can read minds?

As I have pointed out, all these imaginary "problems" are problems with the rubbish that Barham has made uup in his head (or, to be more precise, pinched from creationist websites) not with the theory of evolution. I notice that you haven't defended any of Barham's crap, you just admit that creationists also use this sort of drivel as their starting point. This I concede.---To return to the one point you did try to answer: yes, you do indeed start out with the same crazy nonsense and ignorance as Barham does. But as you, from this nonsense, draw the conclusion of fiat creationism, and Barham draws a completely different conclusion, it seems on the face of it that your/Barham's nonsense is not in itself an argument for fiat creationism in particular. It's just the customary nonsense that people recite when they want to wish away evolution --- whatever they want to put in its place.To take a further example, that trash about hurricanes and 747s originates with Fred Hoyle, who believed that evolution was driven by genes dropping on us from outer space or something. Barham cheerfully recites it as an argument for his views. You copy-and-paste it from Barham in favor of yours. I bet a quick look round Muslim fundie websites would demonstrate that they trot it out too.If it was an argument against evolution, which it isn't, it still wouldn't particularly be an argument for your false conclusion, rather than Barham's false conclusion, or for Hoyle's false conclusion, or for the false conclusions of Muslim fundementalists, or for any of the other utterly unsubstantiated alternatives to evolution that one can think of.

I think that is, inadventently, as good a summation of ID as any: it is a combination of gross scientific ignorance and childish errors in logic.