The Power of the New Intelligent Design...

We all have an opinion. It necessarily colours our perceptions.And why bring up an idea like separate special creations if you aren't interested in arguing for it?But okay, you're not interested in arguing for anything. You are interested in arguing against evolution, but you have no model to take its place. Is that correct? Do you have any observations which do not fit the data as far as the ToE is concerned? But you easily fall into insulting people who have only been respectful towards you. Duly noted.You can't have it both ways sensei. You can't complain about trolls one minute and respond to good faith attempts to engage you in meaningful debate with abuse the next. I would like to second what Tangle was trying to tell you; you can either engage in good faith discussion or you can shout into the void. Your choice.Mutate and Survive

There is no dispute about common ancestry. It is a demonstrable fact. Seeing the nested pattern is yet another fact in evidence supporting the process. The two subjects are inextricably linked. Yes, this discussion is about the nested hierarchy and the common ancestry it helps to prove.

Empty claims. You don't even understand what proof means.

If you are interested in colours and personal perceptions, then maybe science is not for you.I just listed all different views that exist about the origin of biological species. Why would I leave out any view, especially a view that a lot of people hold?I've received disrespectful comments after just asking a few questions. And even you are accusing me of a lot of things.What do you even mean by "no model to take its place"? I listed all possible more or less plausible options I know of.I know you evolutionist are so proud of your pretty model, and you go around dancing, thinking look at us what a pretty mode we have and you don't have.I don't care about which model is prettiest or whatever. Only relevent question is, which is correct. But that seems to be the last question you evolutionists are asking.

Irony? So far, in 193 posts here you have not presented any supporting evidence for anything you have said. You don't seem interested in convincing anyone that you have something to say, so why are you here?

There is a pop culture definition and there is a math definition. There is no scientific definition. Did you know there were different definitions of that word? Can you tell which one I was using?

Everyone has biases sensei, including me and including you. The scientific method is there to cut through those biases, not pretend they don't exist.
​ I'm aware of the various ideas out there, I was just wondering what your take is. Most people who come to a debate board do so because they have a specific idea they are interested in discussing. This thread, for instance, is supposed to be about Intelligent Design. If you're not criticising or defending ID, what are you hoping to accomplish here? Do you mean to tell us that you don't even have an opinion? You've received no disrespectful comments from me yet you chose to insult me anyway. And I am accusing you of nothing. I'm just trying to get an idea of what you're trying to say, because honestly, it's not entirely clear what you're trying to communicate here. But you stand by none of them yourself right? You just mentioned them in passing? Seriously? You have no opinion on the subject? None at all? Is that really what you're trying to say? That's exactly what I'm asking. I'm trying to encourage you to pick a topic and examine the evidence, rather than get lost in the long grass of petty bickering. I'm trying to get a handle on what you are actually arguing for, if anything.If there is a theory or idea for which you wish to advocate, tell us about it.Alternatively, if there is no idea you wish to advocate for and you only wish to attack the ToE, then help us out; what is wrong with the ToE? What do you think the predictions of the theory are? How do they fail to match observation?If you're not interested in either, well I have to wonder what it is that you're trying to accomplish.Mutate and Survive

I'm just discussing what is being discussed, without fixed goal. See if I can find one evolutionist who argues based on facts.But you don't seem to have interest in that either.

Discuss away then.There has been plenty of discussion here on the subject of nested hierarchies. Do you think that the observations of nested hierarchies are somehow flawed? If so how? How exactly do the observations fail to meet the predictions of the ToE?Mutate and Survive

You don't seem to know how it works, do you?In a model where the sun orbits around Earth, we can predict that we see the sun rising every morning and going under every evening. Observations from Earth fit that prediction perfectly.Do you believe that the sun orbits around Earth?
Are observations of sunrise and sunset flawed? Do they fail to meet the predictions of Sun orbiting around Earth?If you are stuck at simple observations from Earth only, without advanced tools, you will never learn about the real orbits.So good luck sticking to some nested pattern and asking all the wrong questions.

If you accept that the observations of nested hierarchies support the case for evolution then feel free to say so. We can then move on to the many other lines of evidence for the ToE.I never said that this was the only evidence we had for the ToE. It isn't. Enlighten me then, O sensei; what are the right questions?Mutate and Survive

I said what I said.Feel free to move on.

That response reads as a graceless way of admitting that you have no point to make, no critique to bring, nothing, in fact, to say at all.You claim to want to address the evidence, but when invited to do so, you clam up.So again; Do you think that the observations of nested hierarchies are somehow flawed? If so how? How exactly do the observations fail to meet the predictions of the ToE?Mutate and Survive

Wow, I already responded to that. But you prove yourself to be as ignorant as can be. So let me repeat one step at a time. As that seems to be all you can handle. But I doubt you can even handle that.Do you believe that Sun orbits around Earth?

Funny how you accuse me of having no point after proving that you missed my previous point completely. I had enough of your dumb accusations. You evolutionists keep demonstrating that you lack the basic sense of logic.