On 9/10/2021 1:41 PM, Dale wrote:
> The Top-9 of Intelligent Design.
My guess is that Dale isn't as mentally incompetent as his posts portray
him to be. It is just an excuse to disrupt discussion that he doesn't
want to deal with in an honest and straight forward manner.
> 1) Life from Life is observed everywhere.
This actually has about nothing in terms of support for the creationist
intelligent design scam as it exists today. It is true that every
instance where we have made observations #1 is true, and it has resulted
in Cell theory, and biological evolution. Most of the time IDiots are
denigrating this observation because they can't deal with what it means
in terms of the current diversity of life on earth.
It is true that we have not observed every possible instance, but that
biology has worked this way since the first lifeform existed is inferred
from what observations we have made.
#1 is much better evidence for biological evolution than it is for
IDiocy, and is one of the reasons why we have ID perps like Behe and
Denton who think that biological evolution was used to design life on
earth. Denton claims that no interference was needed, but Behe claims
that his designer tweeked things every once in a while.
> 2) Life from Non-Life has yet to be observed.
This also is no support for intelligent design creationism. The only
support that it lends is that their intelligent designer might still
exist in the gaps in our knowledge. This is based on denial and is not
positive evidence for anything. MarkE found out that he didn't want to
believe in the intelligent designer that would fit into the abiogenesis
gap that he was creating. That is true for the majority of IDiots in
existence today. They do not want to believe in the designer that would
have created life on the earth under conditions that would have existed
3.8 billion years ago.
> 3) The Creator would be another form of Life.
This statement is false. If anyone tells you that they know what the
creationist Creator is they are lying to you. There have been zero
credible observations of such a Creator, and definitely no reproducible
observations that have been made to make any such claim. Since the
statement is false in terms of what we understand about the Creator it
is likely less of any type of support for IDiocy than the first two for
which their support of IDiocy is about zero.
> 4) While "the beginning" might not have been observed ...
> 5) ... at least (1) has observations.
Why divide these into two? These two do not support intelligent design
creationism. The beginning of the observable universe was not observed,
but inferred from the observations that we can make. The observations
that have been made have never supported IDiocy. The ID perps claimed
otherwise, but then they started running the bait and switch 20 years
ago, were found to be lying in the court room of the Dover case, and
Johnson admitted that they didn't have what they claimed after that
loss. The basis for the creationist ID scam was that IDiots could do
the same science as everyone else and support the existence of their
creator, but they found out that they didn't want to do the science and
make the observations because the evidence indicated that they didn't
want to know the answers that they would get. No ID science ever got
done. No observations were ever made to test their God hypothesis.
Some of them claimed that junk like irreducible complexity could be
scientifically tested, but no such testing was ever attempted.
These two are a big fat zero for IDiocy.
> 6) Saying "it had to happen" adds no observation to (2).
It had to happen is a statement of fact. This statement of fact is
neutral, and lying to yourself about it does not support IDiocy. No
matter if life formed under natural conditions or was created
abiogenesis had to have occurred because life exists and left evidence
of its existence stretching back billions of years. As stupid as it may
be, intelligence involved abiogenesis is still abiogenesis. There is no
evidence that life could have existed before the Big Bang had stabilized
enough to form atoms, stars and planets.
> 7) An experiment might eventually provide an observation of (2), but ...
No one cares. Even if we are eventually able to create life in the lab,
that doesn't mean that it is the way that life arose on this planet.
Abiogenesis is among the weakest of scientific endeavors. It may never
amount to anything in terms of what actually happened. All they can
expect to figure out is the most likely scenario, and everyone should
know that the most likely isn't always the one that actually happens.
No matter how unlikely something is, if it happens, it happens.
This lends about zero support for IDiocy. Denial is just denial. It
may make you feel better about your option, but it is still just denial.
> 8) ... it doesn't prove the Creator didn't use (2).
News flash for the mentally incompetent: How long has theistic
evolution been an option among creationist?
This lends about zero support for IDiocy. Denial is just Denial. What
you need is something like IC that your designer is supposed to have
done. The sad thing is that IC was proposed, but it turned out that the
vast majority of IDiots didn't want to demonstrate that their designer
was involved in Behe's IC systems because they didn't want to know what
any such designer did over a billion years ago to design the flagellum
in bacteria, and they didn't want to know what their designer did around
half a billion years ago to design the blood clotting and adaptive
immune system in vertebrates.
God-of-the-Gaps stupidity is just stupidity. It isn't any valid
evidence for IDiocy.
> 9) In fact, the experimenter would be a form of Life creating Life.
This is not evidence for IDiocy. If we manage to do it, all it means is
that it is possible that life can be created from non living materials.
The Reason To Believe IDiots are claiming that creation of lifeforms is
still going on. They claim that examples like anolis lizards evolving
new traits on various islands is recurrent creation. What they need to
do is set up experiments to try to detect this recurrent creation.
Hermetically sealed containers, might trap critters that are being
popped into existence by the creator, but no one is trying to test the
claims, mainly because they are so tragically lame claims that they
aren't worth testing.
This is about zero evidence for IDiocy. It did not make the Top Six put
out by the ID perps, so it is worse than the junk that you are running
from and can't deal with. The Top Six are just the same god-of-the-gaps
stupidity that the scientific creationist came up with and failed as
science over 30 years ago. God-of-the-gaps denial is just denial and
doesn't support much of anything.
The Top Six has degenerated over the years in terms of what the ID perps
have dropped out of the Top Six, but it is stil just as tragically lame
as your top 9 above.