Johnydon22 gave me an a typical exam most creationist use in the defence of the intelligent designer. Mind you intelligent designer is just another term used for god

E.G: A house.

So, humans as can be observed have specific parts and systems arranged in highly specific intricate ways (arguably more intricate and precise than any of our designs) that performs specific functions - therefore, is more likely to be designed than not.

The popular one I see here is that “ have you ever seen an iPhone come by a random process?”

I took a look into the history of the intelligent design and one of its popular proponents was William paley who talked about the watchmaker argument .

Some people might use the example of the eyes because it is very complex and if you remove any part of the eyes, it won’t function properly again.

First and first and foremost they commit a special pleading fallacy. Special pleading is an informal fallacy wherein one cites something as an exception to a general or universal principle
If were to accept the human eye is complex and it was created by an ID, then the force behind the creation of the eye must be created by another ID.

Secondly they commit an strawman fallacy
This is just another religious argument from ignorance. Let’s assume that most biological organ couldn’t evolve by natural selection. The only thing this does is to only discredit natural selection and it doesn’t give any evidence for any ID

Thirdly they misrepresent natural selection
Most of all the ID proponents misrepresent evolution by natural selection and this is actually annoying . Most creationist claim that complex organs like the eye can’t come from natural selection. But the truth is we know a lot about the eye and you can read on types of eyes
1) eyespot
2) cup eyes
3)pin eyes
4)lens eyes

The last but not the least flaw the ID proponents commit is the personal incredulity fallacy. Now most creationist don’t understand evolution by natural selection. And because you do not understand it is not an evidence for god it is an evidence of lack of understanding

hakeem4:
Johnydon22 gave me an a typical exam most creationist use in the defence of the intelligent designer. Mind you intelligent designer is just another term used for god

Ok ooo let me see your refutation bro.

The popular one I see here is that “ have you ever seen an iPhone come by a random process?”

ok

I took a look into the history of the intelligent design and one of its popular proponents was William paley who talked about the watchmaker argument .

Some people might use the example of the eyes because it is very complex and if you remove any part of the eyes, it won’t function properly again.

First and first and foremost they commit a special pleading fallacy. Special pleading is an informal fallacy wherein one cites something as an exception to a general or universal principle
If were to accept the human eye is complex and it was created by an ID, then the force behind the creation of the eye must be created by another ID.

This is a very weird argument because it is non sequitur to the primary argument made.

Let me demonstrate:

Primary premise: Wright brothers designed and created the aeroplane
Your refutation: Therefore wright brothers must have also being designed and created by something.

Your refutation didn't address the premise of the argument, it simply created a new one which doesn't really have anything to do with the primary argument.

That the Designer also should have a designer is blatantly irrelevant to the subject being discussed. J.k Rowlins having a designer is irrelevant to the idea that she must have written Harry Potter.

So, brining up that the ID must have a designer is a different argument and has nothing to do with it designing anything if it did in fact design something.

How are you refuting an argument with a point that doesn't really refute the argument but is simply at best creating an entirely different argument?

Don't you think that is weird?

Secondly they commit an strawman fallacy
This is just another religious argument from ignorance. Let’s assume that most biological organ couldn’t evolve by natural selection. The only thing this does is to only discredit natural selection and it doesn’t give any evidence for any ID

Are you arguing against the model i gave you or some other arguments you've had with some religious folks?

Thirdly they misrepresent natural selection
Most of all the ID proponents misrepresent evolution by natural selection and this is actually annoying . Most creationist claim that complex organs like the eye can’t come from natural selection. But the truth is we know a lot about the eye and you can read on types of eyes
1) eyespot
2) cup eyes
3)pin eyes
4)lens eyes

I don't see how this refutes the argument by an ID proponents that the eyes is designed. Again, this is a weird argument because it presumes to preclude design with the presence of variation.

types of cars:
1. SUV
2. Pickup
3. Sedan
4. Crossover
5. Hatch back
6. Wagon.

How again do you presume to refute design by bringing forth variations?

You are repeating the same blunder as on my thread which i showed you.

The last but not the least flaw the ID proponents commit is the personal incredulity fallacy. Now most creationist don’t understand evolution by natural selection. And because you do not understand it is not an evidence for god it is an evidence of lack of understanding

See, understanding A is only important when you are trying to address A

You are not necessarily required to understand A if you are not addressing it but simply proposing B as an answer to the same question A presumes to answer.

It is almost like this.

You: I think humans evolved because of this and this and this.
Someone: You don't understand Intelligent design.

This is exactly what you are doing. You are saying someone doesn't understand evolution because they are proposing design as the answer to the same question evolution presumes to answer.

I must say this your refutation is quite poor, it doesn't really address the argument made by my elaboration of the intelligent design argument. Most of the things you listed here are either non sequitur or simply doesn't logically hold sway.

Loollll..TV01 this is one of the evolutionists that I'm referring to as the problem.Oga Hakeem I've been looking for you for some days now due to the bustle on buda's evolution thread.You have been nowhere to be found which is disappointing since evolution is kinda your area of expertise. You boldly stated as the subject of topic "ID refuted" but you haven't refuted anything to the best of knowledge but recycled the same old fallacy fallacy being commited and arguments.

johnydon22:
Ok ooo let me see your refutation bro.

ok

This is a very weird argument because it is non sequitur to the primary argument made.

Let me demonstrate:

Primary premise: Wright brothers designed and created the aeroplane
Your refutation: Therefore wright brothers must have also being designed and created by something.

Your refutation didn't address the premise of the argument, it simply created a new one which doesn't really have anything to do with the primary argument.

That the Designer also should have a designer is blatantly irrelevant to the subject being discussed. J.k Rowlins having a designer is irrelevant to the idea that she must have written Harry Potter.

So, brining up that the ID must have a designer is a different argument and has nothing to do with it designing anything if it did in fact design something.

How are you refuting an argument with a point that doesn't really refute the argument but is simply at best creating an entirely different argument?

now you’re red herring here. These your examples have nothing to do with what I stated up there. I said they commit the special pleading fallacy in which god god is given an exception. He designed something complex. He’s complex and he must require a complex designer and this will continue to regress

Don't you think that is weird?

Are you arguing against the model i gave you or some other arguments you've had with some religious folks?

back to the model you gave me. You gave me a house. First of all a house is not designed by one person. The design process consist of different designers such as architect, structural engineers, mechanical engineers , electrical etc. Using your model then even if natural selection is wrong then we do not have one designer. We have groups of designers in which there’s no evidence for.

I don't see how this refutes the argument by an ID proponents that the eyes is designed. Again, this is a weird argument because it presumes to preclude design with the presence of variation.

types of cars:
1. SUV
2. Pickup
3. Sedan
4. Crossover
5. Hatch back
6. Wagon.

How again do you presume to refute design by bringing forth variations?

You are repeating the same blunder as on my thread which i showed you.

See, understanding A is only important when you are trying to address A

You are not necessarily required to understand A if you are not addressing it but simply proposing B as an answer to the same question A presumes to answer.

It is almost like this.

You: I think humans evolved because of this and this and this.
Someone: You don't understand Intelligent design.

This is exactly what you are doing. You are saying someone doesn't understand evolution because they are proposing design as the answer to the same question evolution presumes to answer.

or simply doesn't logically hold sway.

when I meant types of eyes I meant the evolutionary stages

EmperorHarry:
Loollll..TV01 this is one of the evolutionists that I'm referring to as the problem.Oga Hakeem I've been looking for you for some days now due to the bustle on buda's evolution thread.You have been nowhere to be found which is disappointing since evolution is kinda your area of expertise. You boldly stated as the subject of topic "ID refuted" but you haven't refuted anything to the best of knowledge but recycled the same old fallacy fallacy being commited and arguments.

truth is that I wouldn’t like to argue with my intelligent design proponent. If you read this article well I stated that ID is just another term for god. And at best most ID proponents don’t have any valid argument to give.

hakeem4:


now you’re red herring here. These your examples have nothing to do with what I stated up there. I said they commit the special pleading fallacy in which god god is given an exception. He designed something complex. He’s complex and he must require a complex designer and this will continue to regress.

Don't you think that is weird?

Actually No. I am not, you are more guilty of it.

Whether God (designer) is designed or not, simply has no bearing on the argument of design.

The argument is; Design is recognized to be likley when something is made of specific parts or systems that perform specific specific function.

And the intelligent design argument follows that premise; Humans have specific parts and systems that perform specific functions.

Conclusion: Humans are likely to be designed.

Bringing in the special pleading to this argument is non sequitur, it has nothing to do with the argument above.

You can only bring it up if the person is failing to maintain the implication of their logic but as a reply to the primary argument of design above? Naaah, not even close.

So, why not wait for the person to commit the blunder of special pleading before bringing out that refutation because this doesn't refute the argument of design.

back to the model you gave me. You gave me a house. First of all a house is not designed by one person. The design process consist of different designers such as architect, structural engineers, mechanical engineers , electrical etc. Using your model then even if natural selection is wrong then we do not have one designer. We have groups of designers in which there’s no evidence for.
when I meant types of eyes I meant the evolutionary stages

See, whether house took 1 or 50,000 people, the argument is that it was designed and this design is deducted due to the presence of specific parts and systems that perform specific functions.

hakeem4:
truth is that I wouldn’t like to argue with my intelligent design proponent. If you read this article well I stated that ID is just another term for god.

Lol it is almost like your problem here is that intelligent design implies God.

And at best most ID proponents don’t have any valid argument to give.

Actually they do have a valid argument. An argument is valid if it follows a consistent logical train of thought.

I believe i have given you quite an elaborate logically valid argument for the design theory of which you are now attempting to refute.

All the arguments seem to spring from the analytical faculties of the mindset while totally ignoring the intuitive aspects of the human system where true answers lie.

Every designed system has a designer. Nothing exists without a Cause. And the Source of the Cause is always 'Conscious Entities'. So, I think the meat of your arguments is not realizing that you are arguing about a singular conscious entity when you have millions if not billions engaging in multiplayer reality experience from outside of it. Are you all really in this world or you are operating the avatar from a different location virtually?

Since I do not like an argument for argument's sake, it is better to say, that I have been, on that spot before, it is tough to escape that egoic phase except and until 'experience' happens. And experience happened to me.

And that is why I always ask: Have you tried stepping outside of your bodies to see the Nature of Reality outside of the so-called Physical Reality?

This world is a Virtual Reality, a very immersive one. It is hosted and rendered from Cosmic Mainframe Computer and our bodies are just avatars being played by our 'Conscious Aspect' (HIgher Self). We are not in our body per sae, our experiences are just feedback loop of the decisions and actions of the Conscious Aspect that exist outside the limited spectrum of the Reality we experience now. The real you, does not look exactly like the you that physically is here.

Well, it is hard for intellectual logical and analytical mind to understand fully, and it is also tough for an intuitive but sleeping avatar to figure this out. The right brain transceives intuitively and the left brain, logically/intellectually, but when both hemisphere syncs, then you stand a greater chance of experiencing the nature of this world from outside of it.

This is NOT the real world, this is a Reality that is hosted and rendered for our experience and there are many other Realities outside this one.

You do not need a God for this world to function the way it does, because the rulesets are computed and the system runs actively and is maintained from outside this reality.

The Universe does not need 'God' as Religions portray to function the way it does, but it needs Consciousness, Conscious Entities, a Computer and a Deep Mind Database of probabilistic possibilities of choices for free will. If there is a God, it is unknowable at this level, because this is just a Simulation within a larger and more advanced Simulation.

I have had an experience of the computer hosting this reality and saw the real me playing this Avatar. New Age people call that other self, the Higher Self. I have no language for it, but I know that is the real me. It is a beautiful world out there where this one is hosted on the other larger consciousness system.

I have seen that world. And this one looks like a bad copy compared to the other Reality that this is computed from.

johnydon22:
Actually No. I am not, you are more guilty of it.

Whether God (designer) is designed or not, simply has no bearing on the argument of design.

The argument is; Design is recognized to be likley when something is made of specific parts or systems that perform specific specific function.

And the intelligent design argument follows that premise; Humans have specific parts and systems that perform specific functions.

Conclusion: Humans are likely to be designed.

Bringing in the special pleading to this argument is non sequitur, it has nothing to do with the argument above.

You can only bring it up if the person is failing to maintain the implication of their logic but as a reply to the primary argument of design above? Naaah, not even close.

So, why not wait for the person to commit the blunder of special pleading before bringing out that refutation because this doesn't refute the argument of design.

See, whether house took 1 or 50,000 people, the argument is that it was designed and this design is deducted due to the presence of specific parts and systems that perform specific functions.

okay thank you for the correction

johnydon22:
Lol it is almost like your problem here is that intelligent design implies God.


Actually they do have a valid argument. An argument is valid if it follows a consistent logical train of thought.

I believe i have given you quite an elaborate logically valid argument for the design theory of which you are now attempting to refute.

then the ID Proponents should give an evidence for any life that did not follow the process of natural selection

Billy0naire:
All the arguments seem to spring from the analytical faculties of the mindset while totally ignoring the intuitive aspects of the human system where true answers lie.

Every designed system has a designer. Nothing exists without a Cause. And the Source of the Cause is always 'Conscious Entities'. So, I think the meat of your arguments is not realizing that you are arguing about a singular conscious entity when you have millions if not billions engaging in multiplayer reality experience from outside of it. Are you all really in this world or you are operating the avatar from a different location virtually?

Since I do not like an argument for argument's sake, it is better to say, that I have been, on that spot before, it is tough to escape that egoic phase except and until 'experience' happens. And experience happened to me.

And that is why I always ask: Have you tried stepping outside of your bodies to see the Nature of Reality outside of the so-called Physical Reality?

This world is a Virtual Reality, a very immersive one. It is hosted and rendered from Cosmic Mainframe Computer and our bodies are just avatars being played by our 'Conscious Aspect' (HIgher Self). We are not in our body per sae, our experiences are just feedback loop of the decisions and actions of the Conscious Aspect that exist outside the limited spectrum of the Reality we experience now. The real you, does not look exactly like the you that physically is here.

Well, it is hard for intellectual logical and analytical mind to understand fully, and it is also tough for an intuitive but sleeping avatar to figure this out. The right brain transceives intuitively and the left brain, logically/intellectually, but when both hemisphere syncs, then you stand a greater chance of experiencing the nature of this world from outside of it.

This is NOT the real world, this is a Reality that is hosted and rendered for our experience and there are many other Realities outside this one.

You do not need a God for this world to function the way it does, because the rulesets are computed and the system runs actively and is maintained from outside this reality.

The Universe does not need 'God' as Religions portray to function the way it does, but it needs Consciousness, Conscious Entities, a Computer and a Deep Mind Database of probabilistic possibilities of choices for free will. If there is a God, it is unknowable at this level, because this is just a Simulation within a larger and more advanced Simulation.

I have had an experience of the computer hosting this reality and saw the real me playing this Avatar. New Age people call that other self, the Higher Self. I have no language for it, but I know that is the real me. It is a beautiful world out there where this one is hosted on the other larger consciousness system.

I have seen that world. And this one looks like a bad copy compared to the other Reality that this is computed from.

Guy, quit smoking, it is not good for your health. Friendly advice .

hakeem4:
truth is that I wouldn’t like to argue with my intelligent design proponent.

It doesn't really have to result in an argument but enlightenment of the "ignorant" on something you're much knowledgeable on.

If you read this article well I stated that ID is just another term for god.

Okay but god in the sense of an intelligence influencing nature and the universe and not the religious understanding of a god with personality traits,seeking worship,sacrifices and offerings etc.

And at best most ID proponents don’t have any valid argument to give.

Well at this point the ID theory and your evolution can explain the origin of life coupled with the big bang theory are pretty much made up of assumptions.
Evolution is still a work in progress(I feel I've said this too many times already) and should not be used as a counter evidence against ID without clarification.This misinforms observers,propagating the idea that evolution refutes the influence of ID which is like saying gravity refutes ID.Next time you use evolution to refute ID try to separate the phenomenon from the origin of life aspect.There are too many things yet to be discovered as regards to evolution.
One of the major reasons for disagreements between evolutionists and creationists is the young earth theory.This theory seeks to refute evolution by stating the earth is not billions of years old but just a few thousand years old.This shows that evolution could not have occurred in such a short time.
I feel you should look up the misconceptions associated with ID by evolutionists.

vaxx:
Guy, quit smoking, it is not good for your health. Friendly advice .

That does not sound daft enough, say something more daft than that, son.

It might interest you to know that some characters in this reality are computer generated to keep the system engaging. I have suspected this all along, cos for such people, they will never 'get it'.

vaxx:
Guy, quit smoking, it is not good for your health. Friendly advice .

Lol..He's got a point tho.Same line of thought I'm currently researching.

Billy0naire:


That does not sound daft enough, say something more daft than that, son.

Your utterances are more stupid as they come. Only deluded idiot will think been able to sew or fasten grammar together even if it is incoherent is something inteligent.


You intrinsic and locution reek.

EmperorHarry:

Lol..He's got a point tho.Same line of thought I'm currently researching.

he is off point... noting concurrent. Just absolutely verbose. Imagine saying such rubbish to a global audience. Or penning it down for scrutiny. Where will you even begin? No head nor tail.

EmperorHarry:
It doesn't really have to result in an argument but enlightenment of the "ignorant" on something you're much knowledgeable on.

if Richard Dawkins and others have tried to do it and people didn’t get enlightened. Then I do not think people would listen to message

Okay but god in the sense of an intelligence influencing nature and the universe and not the religious understanding of a god with personality traits,seeking worship,sacrifices and offerings etc.

What natural selection observed is that no one influences the selection process. Nature does that perfectly

Well at this point the ID theory and your evolution can explain the origin of life coupled with the big bang theory are pretty much made up of assumptions.
Evolution is still a work in progress(I feel I've said this too many times already) and should not be used as a counter evidence against ID without clarification.This misinforms observers,propagating the idea that evolution refutes the influence of ID which is like saying gravity refutes ID.Next time you use evolution to refute ID try to separate the phenomenon from the origin of life aspect.There are too many things yet to be discovered as regards to evolution.
One of the major reasons for disagreements between evolutionists and creationists is the young earth theory.This theory seeks to refute evolution by stating the earth is not billions of years old but just a few thousand years old.This shows that evolution could not have occurred in such a short time.
I feel you should look up the misconceptions associated with ID by evolutionists.

Evolution doesn’t have anything to do with how life came into existence. You are talking about abiogenesis. Neither did Big Bang claim to be the first cause.

Now evolution isn’t an assumption. Do you assume that the sun produces heat ? No. Evolution is a fact!

EmperorHarry:

Lol..He's got a point tho.Same line of thought I'm currently researching.

I researched these stuff for almost 30yrs daily and actively, so when I say most people will not get it, I really mean it. Because they have no resources in time and finances to focus on the research.

I am not trying to make a point, because there is no point to be made in this forum, I do not seek to make a point here, as there is no one I can possibly argue with here.

I am just stating the facts based on what I have seen, experienced and continue to experience. This is a simulated multiplayer reality within a larger conscious system, which must also be simulated. A world within a larger and more advanced world. And one can move from one simulation to another, taking different bodies for specific experiences.

vaxx:
Your utterances are more stupid as they come. Only deluded idiot will think been able to sew or fasten grammar together even if it is incoherent is something inteligent.


You intrinsic and locution reek.

Seems we need a psychiatrist here. Is there something I can do to help you get better?

I will be here, should you need assistance.

Billy0naire:


Seems we need a psychiatrist here. Is there something I can do to help you get better?

I will be here, should you need assistance.

Go help your self. Stop taking that weed. It isn't good for you sir

hakeem4:
if Richard Dawkins and others have tried to do it and people didn’t get enlightened. Then I do not think people would listen to message


What natural selection observed is that no one influences the selection process. Nature does that perfectly



Evolution doesn’t have anything to do with how life came into existence. You are talking about abiogenesis. Neither did Big Bang claim to be the first cause.

Now evolution isn’t an assumption. Do you assume that the sun produces heat ? No. Evolution is a fact!

Evolution is a fact of course.

Big Bang is not true.

Billy0naire:


Evolution is a fact of course.

Big Bang is not true.

Any evidence to refute this ?

vaxx:
Go help your self. Stop taking that weed. It isn't good for you sir

What is weed son? Why not log out and get some meditation time?

hakeem4:

Any evidence to refute this ?

Yes.

Billy0naire:


What is weed son? Why not log out and get some meditation time?

Okay I’m listening

Billy0naire:


Yes.

hakeem4:
if Richard Dawkins and others have tried to do it and people didn’t get enlightened. Then I do not think people would listen to message

Well there are peeps who are open minded and are ready to change their perspective if you would only shine a little more light in their darkness.

What natural selection observed is that no one influences the selection process. Nature does that perfectly

It's still an assumption but Okay!

Evolution doesn’t have anything to do with how life came into existence. You are talking about abiogenesis. Neither did Big Bang claim to be the first cause.

Now evolution isn’t an assumption. Do you assume that the sun produces heat ? No. Evolution is a fact!

Its now your claiming that evolution has nothing to do with origin of life when you use it to support your arguments when refuting ID. The big bang has never been a first cause but it becomes a problem when it is used to refute ID as an alternate "valid" explanation as you have done in the past.

EmperorHarry:
Well there are peeps who are open minded and could just view from a different perspective if you would only shine a littel more light in their darkness.


It's still an assumption but Okay!



Its now your claiming that evolution has nothing to do with origin of life when you use it to support your arguments when refuting ID. The big bang has never been a first cause but it becomes a problem when it is used to refute ID as an alternate "valid" explanation as you have done in the past.

Natural selection and Big Bang are scientific theories! Not an hypothesis oooo
i have never said they’re the first cause.
ID actually started when people saw complex life and they thought how did this things get here. Paley brought about the watch maker argument. Natural selection explains how complex and diverse life came to be. So except they’re using the ID for the first cause argument in which there’s no evidence for that also

vaxx:

Shining your teeth is not an apology for being silly in your utterances. Always be guided.

An artificial intelligence with its own mind created lets say a robot? The robots refer to the artificial intelligence as FATHER. Would it be safe to say the artificial intelligence has no Maker

hakeem4:
then the ID Proponents should give an evidence for any life that did not follow the process of natural selection

Basically all life including microbes is the example

johnydon22:
Basically all life including microbes is the example

but natural selection gives evidence and explains how microbes evolved from still simpler stuffs