When does design become intelligent? (AS OF 8/2/10 - CLOSING COMMENTS ONLY)

Hi Subbie, I've run into this approach by creationists before - the last being Cedre in the "Does death cause a problem for abiogenists?" thread. He flatly refused to recognise emergent properties as a result of organisation structuring, and went to ridiculous lengths to reference irrelevancies in a vain attempt to stop an inevitable shooting down in flames of his original argument. You can see what I mean by following my posts to him starting here: Message 63Basically when you patiently explain something to a creationist and then ask for corroboration - as a prelude to moving the discussion on, if they spots they are going down a one-way trip to the debate-losers scrap yard - then they are left with only one solution: refute the opponent by any means possible. Do not agree no matter how obvious the tenet under discussion and give no quarter - even if it makes the creationist look an arsehole.The sole intention of these guys is to preserve their 'fixed 'a priori' belief system to the end. And the only way you can preserve fixed beliefs is if you don't allow new ideas to penetrate. They are happy trying to rubbish science and evolution in general - but when they are taxed with specifics and boxed into a corner - as you, Jar Crash and Dr A have been doing all this thread - then the only resource left to them is stubborn dismissal.It's seriously not worth debating guys as entrenched as ICANT or Bolder Dash - they have internalised their religious beliefs to the point that they have sacrificed all logical thought processes - hence why you felt the need to say this: The difference of course, being that your niece hasn’t yet being subjected to the power of religious brain washing — for her sake I hope she never does!
Clear rationality has to be one of the greatest outcomes of biological evolution — even if it was achieved by emergent properties as a result of organisational structuring!
.Edited by Drosophilla, : No reason given.Edited by Drosophilla, : No reason given.Edited by Drosophilla, : No reason given.

Wow - quick reply Subbie - I was still trying to get the link to the abiogenesis thread properly referenced - If you want to see a creationist really playing the 'brick wall' go ahead and check it out.....

Hi Ringo, The double irony is that if they are right and there really is an intelligent designer - who created monstrosities like the recurrent laryngeal nerve then it is more a case of using intelligence to advocate stupidity......now there is a really frightening thought!Edited by Drosophilla, : No reason given.

For heaven's sake learn some basic science please before we all bang our heads into the wall....!Try - please try to understand what Ringo is telling you. Chemistry is all about molecular shape and atomic configuration - guided by atomic shell stability levels (i.e. chemistry comes from even more basic quantum physics principles). There is NO message in the chemical molecules other than the shape of them - and their propensity to bond to some atoms/molecules and not others due to their shapes and ionic charges - that's all the 'messages' you need. No intelligence needed - end of story!Here's a challenge for you: Without rushing to Wiki to find the answer tell me - how do chemists know (bearing they weren't there to witness it 4.5 billion years ago) that the chemistry of the 'air' on the very young earth couldn’t possibly contain more than trace amounts of oxygen (compared to the 21% we have today)?Why do we know this - have you the remotest clue? Why does earth today have the levels of atmospheric oxygen that we have? Any idea?This is BASIC chemistry - known from the electron shell configuration and bond energies of all the known elements - physical constants so fixed that we can make all sorts of statements like the one above - AND KNOW WE ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.So - why did the early earth have almost no atmospheric oxygen?Think that this question is irrelevant to your comments above? If so then all it shows is that you haven't yet got to a basic understanding of junior/secondary science that is needed to even begin discussing subjects such as double-helix biochemistry.You tried knocking Crashfrog earlier in this thread - you do know he holds a major in biochemistry right? Do you even know what the discipline of biochemistry covers? Its not for simpletons that's for sure. For the record I didn't make the A level grade of chemistry required to do biochemistry at a British University and had to settle for plain biology instead. My room-mate at college did do biochemistry and worked night and day at it - it seriously is not for feeble-minded fools!It basically comes down to this: The guys you have been arguing with in this thread all like to spend their spare time reading a lot - peer reviewed journals figuring heavily....guess what - that's what advances the learning and thought process. I'm guessing you like to spend a lot of your time praying in pews....that's your business - but this I will say - you'll not get intellectual enlightenment that way my friend.Stay with the faith threads is my advice - at least there you can talk within your remit - where science topics are concerned you really do look a jack ass.By the way.....I'm not a scientist, I don't work in any field of science since I left Uni in 1983 (I work in financial services), and you can tell by the date I left Uni that I'm no spring chicken either - so don't try the belittling tone you tried on Crash about being a college kid - you sounded a real jerk on that one!Final thought: What is your purpose in this thread? You are arguing against guys who are either extremely well informed scientifically if not actual professional scientists - whilst you patently have the scientific knowledge of a ten year old (seriously - my 15 year daughter is way past your science knowledge).Do you really think you can convince anyone here you have anything at all of value? You seriously think you can convert anyone? No? Then why look the fool - better to keep quiet and have people wonder about you than open your mouth and remove all doubt!

Hi Crash,There was initially only two degrees I wanted to do - biochemistry or brewing (yes - there was one British Uni that back in 1979 offered a 3-year BSc in brewing - Herrriot Watt Uni in Edingburgh). Unfortunately both courses wanted a 'B' in chemistry - which as you now know - I didn't get. Biology only needed a 'C' in chemistry at the time - ever since my father has wound me up by saying I took a 'soft' science.....I guess he was right....but it could have been much worse....I could have took Theology!

Oh dear.... Offline for 3 days, and when I return another 180 posts later in this thread;Blathering? My post says very simply "You have the scientific knowledge of a (very) small child and you are arguing here with practicing scientists - don't you think you are (overwhelmingly) out of your league?"You make my point for me when you post tripe such as thinking that matter phases are the stuff of chemistry - my daughter learnt that this year in junior grade basic physics class.I bet you think the Big Bang was a chemical explosion don't you!What a crock! Do you happen to sell used-cars for a living by any chance?I repeat again - "Stick with the faith threads because here you just look a jackass - apart from the fact that you have no intention to learn.I've also noticed that when one of our esteemed science posters finally rams home a point that even you (finally) can't refute - you meekly "acknowledge" the reply - you don't even have the guts to say "OK - fair do's I've learnt something new today."You know - when you do realise that you are actually learning some new things (as opposed to blindly refuting everything on principle) you may actually begin to enjoy what you are finding out.....the rest of us do.

Hi everyone.....FANTASTIC DISCOVERY.......Scientists (especially cosmologists) have been aching for years to have a singularity close at hand to work with - to test all those exotic space-time hypotheses. But the paradox has been - a singularity large enough to meaningfully explore would be deadly due to its proximity.We were wrong....the singularity has been with us all along. it goes by the name of ICANT - and it consumes huge amounts of data with absolutely nothing coming back out...for all practical purposes it satisfies the working description we have of black holes (although rumour has it that it spews out huge amounts of word-salad through a companion 'white gusher' end of a possible worm hole.Both ends of this worm-hole apparently are currently occupying a cyber-time (this worm-hole has done away with the physical absurdity known as space-time) area currently labelled "evolutionary debate board", though it is possible the tunnel could rotate to other cyber regions.Occasionally a companion hole (virtual pairing??) known as Boulder-Dash swings through the cyber-time into the local cluster, consuming yet more data-time and equally returning nothing - but as before a virulent white gusher has been evidenced spewing particularly chaotic word-salad. Other black-holes pop up from time to time - possibly as a result of Hawking Radiation.Latest theories abound on what happens when enough of these itinerant holes coalesce. One possibility is that scientific advancement may be 'gobbled-up' in a sort of time-reverse shift. The best-fit maths model suggests that this would result in a time-reverse of approximately 4350 years. At this point of the space-time rip we would inexplicably see a wooden boat floating alone in a vast sea, with rain pouring down incessantly.Those with good eyesight may notice graffiti daubed on the side of the boat - "Dumbass evilutionists....!"...............................................................................................................Sorry for the diversion folks - sometimes all you can do is smile!!Edited by Drosophilla, : No reason given.