My responses are in bold type.
In the "contest" thread on UD, arrington says:
20.1
Barry Arrington
September 13, 2011 at 9:07 am
No prize. You have not demonstrated that the creation of a simple living thing is, in principle, more than an exercise in super-sophisticated physics and chemistry that is, in principle, beyond the capacity of, for example, human bio-engineers. The contest is not about the design of “all living things.” It is about the design of “a living thing.”
Then what the fuck is the point of your so-called "contest"? All you're doing is saying that TOTALLY NATURAL EVOLUTION can design living things, or "a living thing" if you want to get nitpicky. After all, the billions of years of evolution could be described as an "exercise in super-sophisticated physics and chemistry that is, in principle, beyond the capacity of, for example, human bio-engineers".
You're actually arguing AGAINST your own pet 'theory'!
And what's with the "a simple living thing" bullshit? Is a living thing always "simple"? You get all nitpicky when someone says living things or all living things but you changed "a living thing" into "a simple living thing"! And aren't you IDiots always saying that ALL living things are complex, in fact so incredibly complex that they couldn't have been designed and created by anything other than your chosen supernatural god?
21.1.1.1.1
Barry Arrington
September 13, 2011 at 1:26 pm
If by “intervention” one means “design,” I suppose it does. One might even say that the design hypothesis requires at least one instance of design. Yes, Mark. That is glaringly obvious, but I don’t see how it advances the ball.
What it does is show that you IDiots believe that a supernatural being (god) designed and created the universe and all the life within it. So, the "creationists in a cheap tuxedo" is an accurate description of you morons. The hole you're digging is getting really DEEP.
21.1.1.2.2
Barry Arrington
September 13, 2011 at 1:30 pm
“The problem is the contest doesn’t address the burning issue, which is whether the ID hypothesis requires at least one supernatural intervention.”
This statement is absurd. The contest is: “UD hereby offers a $1,000 prize to anyone who is able to demonstrate that the design of a living thing by an intelligent agent necessarily requires a supernatural act (i.e., the suspension of the laws of nature).”
If that does not address the issue of whether the ID hypothesis requires at least one supernatural intervention, it is difficult to imagine what would.
What's absurd is that your so-called contest doesn't make any sense, that you've deleted some responses, that you can't make up your mind about the wording or definitions, that you're mysteriously arguing against your own IDiotic beliefs, that you IDiots block many people from even responding, and that you had and have no intention of paying up no matter what anyone says. You're a liar, a dumbass, and a fraud barry arrington.
21.1.1.4.1
Barry Arrington
September 13, 2011 at 4:45 pm
Actually Petrushka, I and others have demolished the infinite regress argument so many times on this site that we no longer bother addressing it. It is boring.
You haven't demolished anything except your own beliefs and the so-called 'ID theory/inference'.
25.1.1
Barry Arrington
September 13, 2011 at 4:13 pm
MI, you are still focused on the wrong end of the process. The issue is not whether “living things” were originally designed by a supernatural act. The issue is whether, in principle, A living thing, can be designed by a non-supernatural agent (such as a human being). You have not begun to demonstrate that this is necessarily impossible.
In principle? Another change? What's next?
And I'm glad that you agree that a living thing can be "designed, by a non-supernatural agent". Totally natural evolution is a non-supernatural agent, and it is responsible for the 'design' of living things.
agent:
a : something that produces or is capable of producing an effect : an active or efficient cause
b : a chemically, physically, or biologically active principle (Merriam-Webster)
In the "contest" thread on UD, arrington says:
20.1
Barry Arrington
September 13, 2011 at 9:07 am
No prize. You have not demonstrated that the creation of a simple living thing is, in principle, more than an exercise in super-sophisticated physics and chemistry that is, in principle, beyond the capacity of, for example, human bio-engineers. The contest is not about the design of “all living things.” It is about the design of “a living thing.”
Then what the fuck is the point of your so-called "contest"? All you're doing is saying that TOTALLY NATURAL EVOLUTION can design living things, or "a living thing" if you want to get nitpicky. After all, the billions of years of evolution could be described as an "exercise in super-sophisticated physics and chemistry that is, in principle, beyond the capacity of, for example, human bio-engineers".
You're actually arguing AGAINST your own pet 'theory'!
And what's with the "a simple living thing" bullshit? Is a living thing always "simple"? You get all nitpicky when someone says living things or all living things but you changed "a living thing" into "a simple living thing"! And aren't you IDiots always saying that ALL living things are complex, in fact so incredibly complex that they couldn't have been designed and created by anything other than your chosen supernatural god?
21.1.1.1.1
Barry Arrington
September 13, 2011 at 1:26 pm
If by “intervention” one means “design,” I suppose it does. One might even say that the design hypothesis requires at least one instance of design. Yes, Mark. That is glaringly obvious, but I don’t see how it advances the ball.
What it does is show that you IDiots believe that a supernatural being (god) designed and created the universe and all the life within it. So, the "creationists in a cheap tuxedo" is an accurate description of you morons. The hole you're digging is getting really DEEP.
21.1.1.2.2
Barry Arrington
September 13, 2011 at 1:30 pm
“The problem is the contest doesn’t address the burning issue, which is whether the ID hypothesis requires at least one supernatural intervention.”
This statement is absurd. The contest is: “UD hereby offers a $1,000 prize to anyone who is able to demonstrate that the design of a living thing by an intelligent agent necessarily requires a supernatural act (i.e., the suspension of the laws of nature).”
If that does not address the issue of whether the ID hypothesis requires at least one supernatural intervention, it is difficult to imagine what would.
What's absurd is that your so-called contest doesn't make any sense, that you've deleted some responses, that you can't make up your mind about the wording or definitions, that you're mysteriously arguing against your own IDiotic beliefs, that you IDiots block many people from even responding, and that you had and have no intention of paying up no matter what anyone says. You're a liar, a dumbass, and a fraud barry arrington.
21.1.1.4.1
Barry Arrington
September 13, 2011 at 4:45 pm
Actually Petrushka, I and others have demolished the infinite regress argument so many times on this site that we no longer bother addressing it. It is boring.
You haven't demolished anything except your own beliefs and the so-called 'ID theory/inference'.
25.1.1
Barry Arrington
September 13, 2011 at 4:13 pm
MI, you are still focused on the wrong end of the process. The issue is not whether “living things” were originally designed by a supernatural act. The issue is whether, in principle, A living thing, can be designed by a non-supernatural agent (such as a human being). You have not begun to demonstrate that this is necessarily impossible.
In principle? Another change? What's next?
And I'm glad that you agree that a living thing can be "designed, by a non-supernatural agent". Totally natural evolution is a non-supernatural agent, and it is responsible for the 'design' of living things.
agent:
a : something that produces or is capable of producing an effect : an active or efficient cause
b : a chemically, physically, or biologically active principle (Merriam-Webster)
