By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Do You Believe in God or a Higher Power?

WessleWoggle said:
Nirvana_Nut85 said:
WessleWoggle said:
Nirvana_Nut85 said:
WessleWoggle said:
Nirvana_Nut85 said:
WessleWoggle said:
The problem is I.D. supporters that are fucking stupid assholes though on average. They twist around scientific facts and use half quotes and misinformation to make their case sounds like it has any grounds at all, which it doesn't cause there's absolute bullwank when it comes to actual proof of creation or I.D.

All I.D. creationists bullshitters do... They show you flaws in the evolution theory, and say, oh, there's some problem with that one theory, so therefore there's an intelligent creator!!! WOOHOO!!! Big leap in logic.

The problem is the things they point out ARE ALREADY EXPLAINED IN SCIENCE, most the time. I've been WAY around the fucking block watching back and forth refutations of creationism on youtube, and read quite a bit off bullshit websites too. I don't fully believe in evolution, and the big bang, but atleast there's logic and years of scientific research behind them, where as I.D. is a unjustified claim, THAT IS UNPROVABLE.
Nirvana_Nut85 said:
They'll say well I.D is a ridiculous theory and from their perspective it may very well be but I find it ridiculous that they wont even allow proper debates to be held and at least give the I.D guys a chance to give their side.
I.D. Is ridiculous to anyone who gives a damn enough to actually look up the facts behind their bullshit.

Why SHOULD they give I.D. side a chance? Do they have a peer reviewed scientific study that show proofs for I.D.? NO!

Can they show proof of I.D., that you can, test, observe, and repeat? NO!

LET ME ASK YOU, HOW THE FUCK, DO YOU TEST, OBSERVE, or REPEAT INTELLIGENT DESIGN OR CREATION?

Until someone answers that, it's not science. At all. Do not pass go, do not collect 200$.
Lets remember now that Evolution is not a scientific fact, it is a theory he did.

Your biggest problem is that you sound just like every other person who claims they can debunk I.D, from the evolutionist side. When your give answer a statement made by someone you you use swear and use BOLDED letters and expect people to listen as if you were giving an educated response instead of an adolescent rant(or a fanboy rant for that matter).

Honestly if your taking you I.D information off of youtube then there is your first fail. You should check out http://www.frontlinescience.com/. Dr. Kazmer Ujavorsy, has come up with some really interesting theories and below I'll give you some exerts from an article from the American Chronicle as well as a link to that.

"Dark energy, that drives the expansion of the universe, is one of the deepest and most exciting puzzles in modern science. We posit that dark energy is the field manifestation of the parent seed of the universe, just as the cosmic vacuum’s zero-point energy. They all originate from the cosmic seed’s biophoton emissions, which blackbody radiation provides a holographic biofield for the generation of the physical universe. Based on the fact that the biophotonic radiation emitted by DNA is coherent, we predict that the cosmic seed's biophotonic field or "dark energy" is equally coherent."

"The elusive Higgs boson – so vital to the Standard Model of particle physics that it is dubbed "the God particle" – is identical with the genotype of the phenotype universe, and each human genome is its reproduction. Based on this identification we posit that mass-giving is life-giving because the elementary particles that come into contact with the cosmic seed's biofield or quantum vacuum receive their mass and property as a result of that interaction. "

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/18585

Read the article and his site, then you'll be at least able tohave an educated look at the I.D side of the story before making retarded comments like "Do not pass go, do not collect 200$"
First off I'd like to thank you, I now have a more educated look at why I.D is even bigger bullshit after reading the links you posted.

I'm disapointed that you couldn't argue I.D. for yourself, but then again I've never met anyone who could, they just give me a website link that sways me in no way, and seems to degrade logically and intertwine religion into itself as it goes on.

I do not like your second bullshit website link, it's a prime example of this degrading logic and religious interception I speak of...

First, it starts off with some evolutionist bashing, then gives a false definition of supernatural. Then it bursts into a TON of logical fallacies based on that other unsupported claims it's given, that are themselves based upon unknowns and speculation. Then, by the end, it starts preaching, and even mentions Jesus, goody goody.

The whole thing is one big logical fallacy, it's just so wrapped up in bullshit, but that's beside the point... It FAILED to do what I asked of you, show me how you observe, test, then repeat, the theory of intelligent design.

IT's still NOT SCIENCE. DO NOT PASS GO, DO NOT COLLECT 200$

Please explain your actual understanding of why I.D. is a science. The websites you have given me are laughable with many logical fallacys, and bullshit I.D. philosophy and preaching I've already heard. You're just like all the other I.D. supporters I encounter, giving me a link of something that by the end degenerates into religion. The site you have given me have not shown why I.D. is science. Like I said earlier, it's philosophy at best, bullwank at worst.

I'll write it again:
LET ME ASK YOU, HOW THE FUCK, DO YOU TEST, OBSERVE, or REPEAT INTELLIGENT DESIGN OR CREATION?

The websites you gave, did not answer that, and actually did more to discredit itself as science than it did to prove it. By the way, the sentance was bolded, because it was the main point. You're not my kind of dude, if you think my thoughts are of any less value because I like to curse and make things in BOLD. The fact that you would insult me for it makes me think less of you all ready(I'm sure you don't care what I think of you, my opinion is probably rock bottom already from your lack of understanding of me and the way I think)

PS: I'm sorry about this hostility, it has more to do with I.D. debates from the past than with you. I want to make peace not war. But it's hard when what you give me seems to be bullwank. I haven't read everything off the first website you gave me but I really have no desire to do so because, my point is that I.D. is not science and it doesn't seem your website states any of the observable evidence behind I.D. theory.
First let me ask you a question, how is 5 paragraphs of ranting considered a good argument without giving a proper reason as to why you claim it is bullshit. You did not address what Dr.Ujavorsy was saying but just claimed it was again "bullshit" without stating scientific facts as to why it is but more or less giving your own opinion.

Read through all of the the articles he had published through that site, he does bring up some interestesting points and claims some of his theories can be tested. I'm obviously no scientist an I have an average understanding of it, but, at that same point I just believe that it makes more sense to me that we were created through intelligent design, instead of by chance.It's also that I believer that Evolution and the support of it is New World Order propaganda but that a completely different subject that I'm sure you don't want to go into.

I don't really consider it hostility I just don't think that in this sort of discussion we need to swear and bold letters to insult the view of one another. Given another subject I'd probably be swearing right back : ) Read through the articles, the guy isn't an idiot, and personally I find he has some compelling points on I.D
I don't give a damn about DR DOUCHBAG, or his fucking theorys. I disagree about needing to swear and bold, it makes it funner! Hahahahahaha.

I want YOUR understanding and opinion, and I want YOU to tell me these things you claim can be tested. I DO NOT want to read more overdrawn confusing bullshit that is crammed up the ass with logical fallacies. This is a big problem I encounter with I.D. supporters. They can't tell me anything themselves. I can TELL YOU EVERYTHING I BELIEVE AND WHY. I CAN TELL YOU EVERYTHING I FIND BELIEVEABLE AND WHY. You are not demonstrating your ability to do the same!!!

I don't believe in evolution, but I can still tell you the ACTUAL, OBERVABLE, TESTABLE, properties that makes us think evolution is believable as a theory. I.D. HAS NONE OF THIS. All I have to say, is that INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS BULLSHIT, until YOU can show me some observable, testable, proof for it. Also, do it WITHOUT having a billion paragraphs of word twisting and logical fallcies beforehand, like your DAMNED website, and your damned DOCTOR DOUCHEY.

By the way, I'm only heavy on the swearing when I get called on it. You had to push it and mention it again!

Intelligent design is still NOT SCIENCE. DO NOT PASS GO, DO NOT COLLECT 200$ I just had to say it again.

You say you don't like to think we were created by chance. Well good for you *thumbs up*

What exactly does that have to do with anything we were talking about? Why do you I.D. supporters always have to chuck that in somewhere? It was irrelivant to the discussion, at this point. I AM NOT TRYING TO ARGUE EVOLUTION, but it's MUCH more believable as theory. It has both PHYSICAL and BIOLOGICAL evidence. IT ALSO HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CHANCE.

Evolution is new world order propaganda? Explain how that even makes any sense at all. I'm not that well adept with NWO theorys, all I know is that everything I've ever read about it is complete bullshit. If there really was a NWO we wouldn't know anything about it. If there really is some giant conspiracy, we sure as fuck aren't going to find out. They have the technology, and if there plan was getting exposed in any way, that shit would be gone faster than you could blink.

You say your guy isn't an idiot. I disagree. I'm an idiot, you're an idiot, and he's an idiot.
Swearing and bolding everything  to make a supposed point doesn't give you credibility, in fact it just makes you sound like an assclown, thats about it.

I'm sure you've heard as you've claimed all the talking points before, the human eye, thermal dynamics, carbon-14 ect, ect. If you would really like me to  go over them for you though I would be happy to.

Now I have a question to ask you, instead of insulting Dr.Ujavorsy, why didn't you take the time to explain why it is bullshit to me since you know your "science" that well. Explain to me why his theories are out to launch, or wait? You didn't bother to read it because it was too long for you to take in all at once, well, if you need a few days to go over the articles then by all means but at least read what the guy has to say before babbling on like a bewildered idiot.

As for the whole New World Order thing, you obviously haven't read anything about it or else you wouldn't be claiming it's bullshit. I really hope you not getting your opinion about it from what you see off youtube because I wouldnt exactly call that proper research.

Anywyas I`m off to bed but I'll explain to yah tomorrow how Evolution is New World Order propaganda.
Aww, assclown? I was going for douchebag. Grr, have to work on that I guess.

I didn't take the time to explain why it's bull, because I don't want to refute some fucked up dude, I want to refute you. I'll try to follow your logic if you post it, but I don't want to try to follow Dr. doucheys logic again, it's just too tedious. I'm being lazy, yes.

I'll admit my knowledge of NWO is rusty. I used to look up that shit all the time. But after you've seen so much of it, it eventually all turns to bullshit. I don't like to remember things I consider bullshit. I believe the NWO nonsense is just that, nonsense.

Even if all the shit about NWO is true, it's not a new world order. It's the same world order. They're the oppressors and we're the oppressed, just like always. The only thing 'new' would be the way they're going to opress us.

I'm not getting my info off youtube, KNOW HOW TO READ WEBSITES TOO, I'm sorry I ever mentioned youtube. I only ever said I've been way around the fucking block in arguments with people there, not that I got my info from there.

Removed a bunch of dead space.  And you two might want to consider removing some of the older stuff in the quote nest.  It can be easily done by clicking the button showing a red box being removed, which says "Delete row", while the cursor is in the oldest quote box. 

And hey, while I'm at it: 

@ WessleWoggle:  I think this would go a lot easier without the excessive bolding and underlining of random statements, and the cursing.  Also, you've been repeating yourself a lot, and it might be better just to ask him to respond to something he didn't than to simply keep saying it over again. 

@ Nirvana_Nut85:  His cursing, bolding, repetition, etc. do not negate the fact that he has made substantial points that you have not responded to.  You must respond to these and not just say "oh it's all in the website, here's the link".  No.  You're not going to make others do your research for you and have to guess what your arguments even are.  If nothing else, find what you're talking about on that damn website and tell us about what it said. 

So, here's the most notable thing he said that I don't think you responded to (which others have also mentioned):  How do you test, observe, or repeat intelligent design? 



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

Around the Network
WessleWoggle said:
Final-Fan, thanks for getting back to the main point. ^_^

I actually forgot that it was the main point.

lol



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

Nirvana_Nut85 said:

Swearing and bolding everything  to make a supposed point doesn't give you credibility, in fact it just makes you sound like an assclown, thats about it.

I'm sure you've heard as you've claimed all the talking points before, the human eye, thermal dynamics, carbon-14 ect, ect. If you would really like me to  go over them for you though I would be happy to.

Now I have a question to ask you, instead of insulting Dr.Ujavorsy, why didn't you take the time to explain why it is bullshit to me since you know your "science" that well. Explain to me why his theories are out to launch, or wait? You didn't bother to read it because it was too long for you to take in all at once, well, if you need a few days to go over the articles then by all means but at least read what the guy has to say before babbling on like a bewildered idiot.

As for the whole New World Order thing, you obviously haven't read anything about it or else you wouldn't be claiming it's bullshit. I really hope you not getting your opinion about it from what you see off youtube because I wouldnt exactly call that proper research.`

Anywyas I`m off to bed but I'll explain to yah tomorrow how Evolution is New World Order propaganda.

 

 

 

Can we drop the Dr.Ujvarosy stuff? We've already ripped up enough of his "scientific" twaddle (I'm starting to like that word) to prove that he really has no credibility.



No, I do not believe in a god or higher power. I think the idea of god is just a remenant from the days when humans needed an answer but no-one could provide one. Since then so much evidence has been gathered to disprove gods existence that I find it hard to believe at all.

I don't understand how people can believe in the idea of god... especially the god they believe, how can someone claim that one god is real and one isn't. It's like saying 'you shouldn't worship that pile of stones, this pile is bigger'.



@ WessleWoggle and Final-Fan

The claim has been made that ID has no place in science and is never used in the study of science. This is not true. In fact, all of the following areas of science use evidence of ID as the major or sole means of study. Even though the designer is not a supernatural agent, but intelligent humans, the principles involved in studying these areas of science can be applied to the study of supernatural ID.

Archeology: Is that rock formation natural or due to intelligent design?
Anthropology: Do sharp, pointed rocks occur naturally or are they designed by intelligent beings?
Forensics: Intelligent cause of death or natural circumstances?
SETI: Are those radio signals natural or caused by intelligent beings?

ID is already used in many areas of science. In archeology, we know that stones don't naturally occur in square shapes piled on top of each other. They show signs of intelligent design (although the designer is not supernatural). A recent example is an underwater rock formation off the coast of Cuba. According to the discoverers, the formation consist of smooth, geometrically shaped, granite-like rocks that are laid out in structures resembling pyramids, roads and other structures at more than 2,000 feet in a 7-3/4 mile-square area. How does it exhibit intelligent design? Natural formations of rocks do not have geometric shapes arranged in recognizable structures.

Likewise, rocks do not naturally have pointed ends with patterns of chips along the sides. This pattern is extremely unlikely through natural processes, so we say that it exhibits intelligent design. In the science of forensics, scientists examine patterns of trauma, for example, to determine if it has a natural or intelligent cause. ID is already used in many areas of science.

Probably the best example is the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI). Radio waves can be produced by a variety of natural and "intelligent" processes. Naturally-produced radio waves exhibit patterns of changes in wavelength that are due to random or periodic variation over time. There is no pattern that would indicate any kind of intelligence designed the signal. However, over short periods of time, the pattern could occur by chance with the probability inversely related to the length of time that the signal demonstrates a pattern. Therefore, by examining the signal statistically, scientists can determine if its cause is intelligent or natural. Thus far, intelligent design theory has eliminated (falsified) all extraterrestrial examples of radio waves monitored as being the product of intelligent design.

Characteristics of a successful ID model
A reasonable ID model must possess all of the following characteristics:

The intelligent Designer is identified
The model is detailed
The model can be refined
The model is testable and falsifiable
The model can make predictions

How does the biblical ID model score on the above characteristics? The intelligent Designer is identified as the Creator God of the Bible. The biblical model of creation is detailed in that the major creation events are listed in a temporal sequence. Dozens of creation passages make specific claims about the nature of the world. The model can be refined by putting together all the biblical creation passages into a coherent, detailed model. Many skeptics claim that ID models cannot be tested, but then go on to state that the biblical descriptions of nature are incorrect. You can't have it both ways! A biblically-based ID model is eminently testable and falsifiable. Contrary to the claims of opponents, the biblical model does make predictions. For example, it claims that all men are descended from one man, Noah, whereas women come from up to 4 different blood lines (see Genesis 6). One would predict from this claim that males would have lower genetic variability on their y-chromosomes, compared to the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), which is passed on exclusively through women. Published scientific studies confirm this biblical prediction, since the last common ancestor dates for the y-chromosome tend to be less than that for mtDNA (see Evolutionary Descent of Mankind Theory- Disproved by Molecular Biology).

Characteristics of Christian supernaturalism

Naturalism vs. Supernaturalism

Characteristic-(Anti-Supernatural)  (Supernatural)

Cosmology (AS-eternal multiverse) (single transcendent beginning )
Time infinite (AS-space time foam)   (finite duration)
Laws of physics (AS-breakdown at 10-43 sec.) (fixed)
Fine tuning (AS-explained by infinite # universes) (extreme fine tuning designed)
Probability (AS-only likely events will occur creation) (creation involved miracles that could not occur by chance)

(Couldn't make a proper table obviously but first set of brackets is Antisupernatural, second set Super Natural)

The table above gives some of the characteristics of Christian supernaturalism compared to naturalism. Contrary to atheistic assertions, the Christian ID model does not claim that the universe is perfect. The idea that a perfect God would not create a universe less than "perfect" is logically flawed. The biblical model states that the universe is flawed - for the purpose of allowing humans choice.


Because of the nature of the laws of physics, it seems likely that none of the characteristics in the above table can be absolutely known. However, there are a number of predictions that each theory makes, which can be tested by further study of the universe and life on the earth.

What are some specific predictions made by the two models?

Predictions of Naturalism vs. Christian ID

Characteristic  (Anti-Supernatural)  (Christian ID)

1. Single transcendent beginning (AS-will be refuted) (ID-evidence will increase)
2. Fine tuning ("design" will be shown to be an artifact, due to incomplete knowledge) (ID-more examples of extreme fine tuning will be found, indicating true design)
3. Uniqueness of earth (AS-many rocky planets with oceans and continents will be found) (ID-earth-like planets will be found to be rare ornon-existent)
4. Existence of life in the universe (AS-life will be found to be abundant in our galaxy, since it is simply the properties of chemistry and physics) (ID-extraterrestrial life will be rare or non-existent and advanced life will be found only on earth)
5. Prebiotic chemistry (AS-a naturalistic scenario for the origin of all biochemical pathways and replicative molecules will be found(ID-the universe was designed to support living systems, but their creation required ID by God)
6. Origin of Life (AS-Life emerged late, during ideal environmental conditions. Life began as simple systems (pre-bacteria) Life emerged early under adverse conditions. Life has always been complex
7. New designs in nature (AS-Complex new designs would be rare and develop slowly whereas simple transitions would be common) (ID-No restriction on designs with the possibility that new designs would be created "overnight" )
8. Mass extinction (AS-events Slow recovery) (ID-No restrictions on "recovery" period as new species are created )

 Science tells us that:

There is no evidence for more than one universe or more than one creation event.
Examples of fine tuning continue to increase. Some parameters designed to within a part in 10120.
No other rocky planets have been found. Most planets found are large gas giants orbiting very close to their stars.
No other life found. SETI has been completely unsuccessful.
It is impossible to chemically produce many basic molecules required for origin of any living system.
Naturalistic synthesis of either biochemical nor replicative pathways have not been described. In fact, many scientists think that they could not have arisen by any naturalistic means.
Contrary to the expectations of evolutionary theory, the fossil record is replete with complex transitions and new designs whereas simple transitions (intermediates) are rare. Evolutionary theory would expect the opposite to be true and to be reflected in the fossil record.
Evolution predicts slow recovery following extinctions and that those recoveries will be filled by the species surviving the extinction event. However, the fossil record indicates rapid recovery with completely different designs and species appearing within a period of tens of thousands of years or less.



" Rebellion Against Tyrants Is Obedience To God"

Around the Network
Rath said:
Nirvana_Nut85 said:
 

Swearing and bolding everything  to make a supposed point doesn't give you credibility, in fact it just makes you sound like an assclown, thats about it.

I'm sure you've heard as you've claimed all the talking points before, the human eye, thermal dynamics, carbon-14 ect, ect. If you would really like me to  go over them for you though I would be happy to.

Now I have a question to ask you, instead of insulting Dr.Ujavorsy, why didn't you take the time to explain why it is bullshit to me since you know your "science" that well. Explain to me why his theories are out to launch, or wait? You didn't bother to read it because it was too long for you to take in all at once, well, if you need a few days to go over the articles then by all means but at least read what the guy has to say before babbling on like a bewildered idiot.

As for the whole New World Order thing, you obviously haven't read anything about it or else you wouldn't be claiming it's bullshit. I really hope you not getting your opinion about it from what you see off youtube because I wouldnt exactly call that proper research.`

Anywyas I`m off to bed but I'll explain to yah tomorrow how Evolution is New World Order propaganda.

 

 

 

Can we drop the Dr.Ujvarosy stuff? We've already ripped up enough of his "scientific" twaddle (I'm starting to like that word) to prove that he really has no credibility.

Well if you consider half assed opinions ripping through theories then.....

 



" Rebellion Against Tyrants Is Obedience To God"

@Nirvana

Did you believe in God before you first heard about ID, or did you hear about ID which then convinced you to believe in God?



@ Nirvana_Nut85: 

When I told you to tell us the arguments on the website that you agree with, I didn't have copypasta in mind, but whatever. 

But before I spend time on a rebuttal of RICH DEEM's argument, I want to make sure you are in complete agreement with the quoted material.  (And by the way, next time give your source.) 

Rich Deem does NOT believe in what is generally known as Intelligent Design; rather, he believes in an intelligent design theory based on "a biblically-based ID model" which appears to depend on a literal interpretation of the Bible (for example, the entire human race being descended from Noah).  This is in stark contrast from the better-known Intelligent Design that puts more distance between itself and the Bible, and which Rich Deem holds in contempt: 

Excuse me, but your characterization of what my page says is absolutely false and deceptive. According to your blog, my site proclaims that "Intelligent Design is “A testable, falsifiable, predictive biblical creation model”" This is not what the page says. In fact, it says that ID is not a scientific theory because it lacks a model and fails to predict. So, you either 1) can't read or 2) are a liar. Either way, we have a problem here!
Rich Deem

So read it again, and make sure:  do you agree with the material you quoted in every particular?  Because I'm not interested in spending time on something you didn't even write if you're just going to abandon it when I rebut it and throw some other thing at me.  (Speaking of which, have you nothing to say on my criticism of "Dr." Ujvarosy?)

And if I do rebut it I expect you to either make counterarguments, or concede the points, or admit you can't rebut (without conceding), as appropriate for each point of course. 



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

Final-Fan said:

@ Nirvana_Nut85: 

When I told you to tell us the arguments on the website that you agree with, I didn't have copypasta in mind, but whatever. 

But before I spend time on a rebuttal of RICH DEEM's argument, I want to make sure you are in complete agreement with the quoted material.  (And by the way, next time give your source.) 

Rich Deem does NOT believe in what is generally known as Intelligent Design; rather, he believes in an intelligent design theory based on "a biblically-based ID model" which appears to depend on a literal interpretation of the Bible (for example, the entire human race being descended from Noah).  This is in stark contrast from the better-known Intelligent Design that puts more distance between itself and the Bible, and which Rich Deem holds in contempt: 

Excuse me, but your characterization of what my page says is absolutely false and deceptive. According to your blog, my site proclaims that "Intelligent Design is “A testable, falsifiable, predictive biblical creation model”" This is not what the page says. In fact, it says that ID is not a scientific theory because it lacks a model and fails to predict. So, you either 1) can't read or 2) are a liar. Either way, we have a problem here!
Rich Deem

So read it again, and make sure:  do you agree with the material you quoted in every particular?  Because I'm not interested in spending time on something you didn't even write if you're just going to abandon it when I rebut it and throw some other thing at me.  (Speaking of which, have you nothing to say on my criticism of "Dr." Ujvarosy?)

And if I do rebut it I expect you to either make counterarguments, or concede the points, or admit you can't rebut (without conceding), as appropriate for each point of course. 

First off I thought that I had given the link at the bottom, my bad, I wanted to use this as an example to show you how you observe, test, then repeat, the theory of intelligent design as you bolded so many times!

Second, your rebuttles are merely you giving your opinion in an ignorant manner without yourself backing up your own claims of why it is false with scientific facts (gotta give me something to work with here for fucksakes) I mean lets be honest, do you really think you did an actual good job of refuting anything? really, all you did was claim that it had already been refuted and then moved on to some other asinine comment. So therefore since you couldn't come up with anyhting intelligent to say regarding my previous example I gave you soemthing a little more simple in hopes of you using "Scientific Facts" to attempt to rebut it and what do I get....

Absolute fuck all so back up your fucking argument using science so that I can give you a more appropriate argument.

 Excuse me, but your characterization of what my page says is absolutely false and deceptive. According to your blog, my site proclaims that "Intelligent Design is “A testable, falsifiable, predictive biblical creation model”" This is not what the page says. In fact, it says that ID is not a scientific theory because it lacks a model and fails to predict. So, you either 1) can't read or 2) are a liar. Either way, we have a problem here!
Rich Deem

(that wasn't even added by the guy)

P.S THe only thing I do agree with is that I.D (all of it) is creationism in some sort of manner.

 



" Rebellion Against Tyrants Is Obedience To God"

tombi123 said:
@Nirvana

Did you believe in God before you first heard about ID, or did you hear about ID which then convinced you to believe in God?

 

 Been believing in the big guy alot longer than I knew about I.D



" Rebellion Against Tyrants Is Obedience To God"