The primary flaw in intelligent design

[Mr. Clandestine]

No, the video would not work if you switched the two arguments.

Yes, the video would. I said that this principle would apply directly to those who view themselves as creationists, and in return, it would produce a similar outcome/response. Just because you refuse to believe in it doesn't equate to it being an illogical fallacy, you see?

Evolution is a theory built on observation of the natural world and a logical explanation for what is observed. Creationism/ID is not.

A logical explanation, affirmed by a group of people who think along the same lines. There is no observation that the big bang theory happened...there are only concepts of what it could have looked like, should it have ever actually happened. The same rule applies to creationists. We can't prove to non-believers that our theory is infallible, so we merely project how we think it happened. No different from most of the theories presented in evolutionist propaganda, you understand? It's a nice theory in most respects, but it's largely undocumented because there is very little to document. It was all a generalization to begin with and people ran with it.

Creationism/ID arguments work by poking holes in evolutionary theory and then filling those holes with God or an "intelligent designer."

Okay, let's run with this. Evolutionists/big bang theorists/pragmatists merely survive, yet rarely flourish, in these arguments based on their own secular reasoning. Many point out links that they deem the most coherent to them and stick by their convictions, just like many creationists are prone to do, regardless of whether or not they are factually relevant. The point is, this is a matter of personal opinion...and many, but not all evolutionists understand that their premise behind all this incessant bickering revolves around unattainable truths. Or myths. There are, of course, some facts strewn about, on both sides mind you, but both sides seem reluctant to want to believe one another and are quick to simply point out the others biased sources. I'm not offended by this, though I prefer not to force my beliefs on another person. So why then does it offend so many people when I tell them that I believe God created this universe...as opposed to a big explosion that came from nowhere in particular? I am, after all, just expressing my own personal opinion. It offends them because it's contrary to their personal beliefs. Some people simply don't take that as well as others.

As the video points out, that line of reasoning is a logical fallacy.

That all depends on a persons definition of "logic". Which, in my opinion, can mean a system of applicable reasoning used to further one's sense of knowledge on a particular subject. You consider it a fallacy, I do not. What makes me incorrect? Your opinion on the matter? I don't think so...

It does not in any way rely on holes in the creationism/ID arguments.

Correct, it relies on debasing one theory for another. I won't bother pointing out the holes commonly found by creationists, because I'm sure you don't want to hear it for the umpteen billionth time. You should respect that creationist don't want to hear that "you're right, and we're wrong" because so-called scientists have gathered all sorts of hypothetical scenarios and bundled them all together into a unified (but largely unjustified) theoretical concept. There may be a few bits and pieces of evidence, but it's nothing conclusive...otherwise it wouldn't still be a theory, it would be an irrefutable fact. I can go on to say that numerous historical documents have been recovered in the past that prove that the authors of many biblical documents were true to their word. But does this make my faith in ID an irrefutable fact? No. It makes it a scenario that's plausible to me, and therefore, I'll stand by it.

In order for creationism/ID to be interchangeable with evolution in the video, creationism/ID would have to also have logical arguments based on empirical evidence FOR its conclusions and not rely on holes in evolutionary theory.

As I just said, we have plenty of logical arguments based on empirical evidence recovered from tombs, historical archaeological sites, and the like. I don't rely on holes in evolutionary theory, I merely point them out when an evolutionist has the lack of courtesy to do the same for me. Otherwise, I'm perfectly happy to simply disagree with that person and move on.

I'm not going to get into the logical arguments and empirical evidence FOR evolutionary theory in this thread, because they are so well covered in other threads. But I will assert that if you go check the arguments in those threads, or better yet, research outside this forum, you will find plenty of empirical evidence for the theory.

Please, don't insult my intelligence by making irrational assumptions like this. Assumptions that my only logical arguments are derived from arguments found in the Spirituality section of Cannabis.com! But, based on this little quip, I'll just assume that this is the only place where you are able to make solid conclusions of your own arguments, and that you should also reach out to threads/websites/documents other than those presented here. There's a whole wealth of knowledge outside of Cannabis.com, you know...:wtf:

And I will also assert that if you search those same threads or search outside this forum, you will not find empirical evidence FOR an intelligent designer. The most you will find are examples of phenomena that supporters of creationism/ID claim are not explained by evolutionary theory, and the claim that those holes in evolutionary theory are evidence in favor of creationism/ID.

Make assertations all you want, everyone is entitled to their own opinions. I've found plenty of empirical evidence pointing to an intelligent designer, but would I expect you to believe it? Definitely not. You're dead-set in your own beliefs, just as I am...and it would be inconsiderate of me to try and take that from you. Your assertation is pretty funny, though...because all you're able to present is identical phenomena that correlates indirectly to the theories you're trying to pass off as infallible! So-what if a scientist stumbled upon a fossil of a species that appears to have possibly evolved? For all they know, they may have uncovered an entirely different animal altogether. After all, it's just bones and partially definable characteristics that they assume are from the same class of animals. Forget that they've been dead for thousands of years (or according to some scientists, billions of years), and that their arguments are rendered baseless by the fact that few scientists were actually studying/documenting these animals during the time they were alive...it all happened after the fact. Nevermind that, though...it's merely conjecture, and can still be passed off as plausible.

Scientists are discovering new species all the time, will continue to do so, and will probably continue to claim that it all somehow correlates to the initial origin of species in some obscure manner. They'll be right as long as there are people out there willing to believe it. Because it's just not possible for me to prove them wrong.

...just like it's not possible for you to prove me wrong. Get over it, there's no need to become offended because someone on par with your critical reasoning skills can actually believe in this 'nonsensical fallacy' and get away with it. I must just be an idiot who's got a way with words. No other way to explain it...right?

Mr. Clandestine Reviewed by Mr. Clandestine on 11-09-2007. The primary flaw in intelligent design This is what I've been saying all along, but I've yet to have a creationist even counter me on the issue. Creation "science" is entirely based on a false-dilema, with no actual empiracle evidence to back up these claims of an "intelligent designer". I encourage every person, creationist or otherwise, to watch this video and actually, seriously, consider the logic. This, right here, is why I get frustrated by people arguing that creationism and evolution are on equal grounds, as valid as the Rating: 5