It allows me to watch new and interesting sports that I ordinarily would not be able to see. I find it fascinating.

You lay out your argument first in this: "My basic premise is that conservative thought is guided by deductive reasoning and liberal thought is governed by inductive reasoning." How are you not attempting to postulate that liberals use inductive reasoning in thought and conservatives use deductive reasoning in thought? I do not see how you can interpret your premise any other way.

My counter-premise is that sometimes the liberal thought process is guided by inductive reasoning, sometimes it is guided by deductive reasoning. In parallel, sometimes the conservative thought process is guided by inductive reasoning, sometimes it is guided by deductive reasoning. I gave you an example of how conservatives use inductive reasoning in everyday speech. To give you a more recent example one only has to look at the recent Mass. election. Conservatives are hailing Scott Brown's recent victory as indication to a referendum on Obama's policies. How is that not inductive reasoning? Furthermore, to counter your Egypt/terrorist remark, a typical conservative thinker would be more likely to conclude through inductive reasoning that all Muslims are terrorists and bent on western annihilation.

FWIW ... Obama's slogan was never "Hope and Change" but "Hope", "Change We Need", "Change We Can Believe In". Contrasting, a few of GWB's 2000 slogans included "Real Plans for Real People" and "Reformer with Results". All sweeping generalizations/inferences and just as 'inductive' as you would put it.

I am confused as to what you are trying to argue then. The obvious answer to what I think you are trying to argue is: sometimes liberals/conservatives use inductive reasoning and sometimes liberals/conservatives use deductive reasoning.

An example of conservative (and liberal) inductive reasoning is through the heavy use and manipulation of poll data.

Your argument is based on inductive reasoning ... and are you not a conservative yourself?

@allonzo1

First, I think your Hitler point was in response to DClary's argument since you are going after his 'codified dogma' statement. I am not touching your Hitler argument in any way, shape or form.

Second, my position is that in the context of structured, ritualized religion, atheism is not a religion. We are also all atheist in some shape or form.

Lastly, you seem to be upset when others disagree with your logic and the points you are trying to make. In my opinion, I think your arguments are filled with holes, absurd logic and primarily written from your stream of consciousness without much afterthought or organization. That is my opinion. To claim we are 'pot shotters' is incredible considering the fact that you condense so many claims into one posting that we have no choice but to address them individually. To accuse us of not having facts or opinions of our own is idiotic and ironic to say the least. Again, this is arguehow.com ... there will be people who disagree with you and call you out on things. No need to get offended.

"I just don't claim evolution to be a science, nor do the experts."

What experts are claiming evolution not to be a science? Aside from a select few that still cling to their ardent religious beliefs, I would argue that the majority of 'experts' would not balk at stating that evolution is science.

"What i have pointed out is that on a molecular level, science cannot explain why these molecules act like organisms carrying out tasks."

1. Yes, obviously science cannot explain everything we observe today. That is a given. However, science CAN already explain much of what we observe today - more than you seem to give credit to. Furthermore, science will provide the solutions to the problems and questions we have today in the future. That is the essence of the scientific method.

2. Intelligent design most certainly does not explain on a molecular level why organisms behave as they do. I will state again that ID is as far away from the scientific method as one can get. Not only is ID not a solution nor verifiable, but it opens up a slew of other ridiculous problems on its own. Furthermore, because an organism appears to be operating with 'intelligent' guile does not make it so. Applying the construct of 'intelligence' further increases the problem as we must then define what is intelligence and in what context is this intelligence in. ID is similar to how Norse cultures explained the existence and circumstances of thunder and lighting.

3. Evolutionary studies (biological, classical, etc), like any science, is a constantly progressing endeavor. Yes, there are issues within the community regarding how complex processes work, however, this does not signify nor does anyone imply that the solution therefore defaults to a 'designer'. It also does not reduce the fact that organisms are constantly evolving through the process of natural selection. Again, natural selection allows for the immense species diversification we witness today and provides an elegant mechanism as to how we arrived at this given moment without the need of a third-party designer.

@allonzo1

You dismiss evolution in your arguments against by claiming it not to be based on science.

My stance has always been that evolution is science. That it is the best and most elegant solution to the question of life and how we arrived at this given point. As I have already stated, it may not be the final nail in the coffin but it sure is going in that direction. I urge you to read more on this topic. I gave you the term modern evolutionary synthesis as a starting point for your own research.

As for, ID, it is a non-alternative and non-solution. Again, it is pure speculation and mysticism. Your argument fails because you dismiss evolution on grounds for it not being science (in your opinion), yet the 'solution' you offer is the farthest from science as one can possibly get (which you openly embrace).

However, given that ID is NOT science and according to your stance on evolution, ID must also then be rejected by yourself (which you seem not to do). Do you not see the conflict in your arguments? You reject one for not being science and in turn give us one that is out loud laughably, most definitely not science - and on what grounds? - because you just believe.

Yes we are all curious about the world around us. Which is why many of us seek careers, hobbies, interests in science. What we don't do is let superstition and mysticism muddle our view of reality. Give us an alternative against evolution that is grounded, not on late night musings over life.

Cheney is the master of talking big from a distance. Five deferments himself, yet the fastest to pull up the grunts and the weekend warrior reservists for the front line.

"i really can't argue with your points, basically because they don't make any sense. "

Have you re-read anything you have posted by any chance? In one round your argue for ID and immediately in another you dismiss evolution on the grounds that you do not consider it science. How is that making any sense?

"Arguing is much more that just taking what the other person says, twisting it, and restating it in an erroneous manner."

I am arguing against the logic of your speculations. Your arguments conflict even against themselves. If you want to complain that I am twisting words, well, so be it I suppose.

"Take a chill pill and get a life!"

Way to get offended on a web site that is dedicated to arguing.

"Another clear observation is that you have virtually no knowledge beyond newspaper articles about general chemistry or physics, let alone a field as complicated as molecular biology."

Well, I guess we can go on making assumptions all day long.

"Evolution as a theory - yes. Evolution as a science - no way!"

If we are to accept your position that evolution is just a theory and not science, what does that make of your position on intelligent design? Does that not also make intelligent design just a theory and not science as well? In which case, your current position negates your prior arguments regarding intelligent design and we can throw out all of your ID claims - unless we are to suppose that your actual position is that intelligent design is science? If such is the case, I will go ahead and assume you will be pleading insanity. If you stipulate that neither are science, then we enter the speculation black hole in which you can dismiss anything at whim and the only question is, where do we stop? As such, your only logical position is to accept that evolution is science and instead provide us with non-speculative, scientific evidence which repudiates evolution to back your arguments.

"What drives these proteins to act like intelligent operators?"

Modern Evolutionary Synthesis.

"Finally, studying rocks, fossils, and tree diagrams of species is the study of history not science and certainly not enlightening on how new species came into being."

Studying fossil records is not enlightening to how species evolve and came into being? Really? So for your argument, you simply are doing away with all fossil records and all of Earth's prior organic inhabitants of the past several billion years? That is pretty convenient wouldn't you say? I definitely got a kick out of your "implied study of evolution."

Atheism is a state of awareness and repudiation of a given set of dogma. It is not a religion in the same structure of ritualized belief systems such as those that are being implied here (Christianity, et al). All individuals are atheist in some form or another. Christians are atheists in respect to all other gods aside from the god of Abraham. Disregarding a few eccentrics, modern individuals are atheist in respect to Odin, Thor, Ra, Zeus, Athena, Quetzalcoatl, -insert deity here-, etc. Hence, all individuals can claim to be atheist.

"I built my position on providing a number of abnormalities or unique arrangements in chemical and physics laws that i don't think many people have pondered. You have argued well by either diminishing or ignoring altogether what i have said"

No, I have not ignored anything you have said. Natural selection provides the solution - and does so quite well - to what you observe within the context of existence. You choose to side-step the rational explanation of the phenomenons you put forth by providing speculation on mysticism and supernatural creators. I ask for evidence on positions that you propose, such as your statement that limestone is a law of advanced societies or evidence that the existence of wood allowed for shelters which results in ID. I still have not received any of this.

"Debates consist of more than just saying that the opposing side is wrong, but providing reasonable answers to support one's own side."

You have yet to provide ANY reasonable arguments in support of ID (your own position). The only statements you put forth are a stream of consciousness regarding your musings and speculations on everyday experiences and organic matter. You further continue to ignore the tea pot argument and ask where is our proof that ID is false, despite the fact that this is your discussion topic, which you postulated. Speculation is not a reasonable argument in favor of ID.

"Since no proof can be provided by neither you nor me, i am looking for the most reasonable answer."

You seek supernatural explanations and mysticism, how is this reasonable? Natural selection is currently the only rational solution to the problem of existence and as I have stated many times before, is quite elegant. Is it the last word? No, of course not. A more rational, verifiable solution may still crop up. However, as natural selection continues to stand up to criticism and not falter, I find this more and more unlikely as we progress in time. Again, you seem to confuse chance occurrences with natural selection and it seems to be further solidifying mysticism in your statements. Natural selection is not chance.

"If faith is believing in what one cannot see, then in my opinion it take more "faith" to believe that this all happened by accident than by an ID alternative."

Bill Maher says it best, "Faith means making a virtue of not thinking."

Fundamentally, you are presenting arguments based on subjectivity and speculation. I've asked for evidence to your positions and propose natural selection as the solution of how we arrived at this given moment. Natural selection is verifiable, peer reviewable, rational and based on the scientific method. Not only is ID as irrational as Xenu (see Scientology), it also presents more unsolvable problems than answers. It is a non-alternative.

Furthermore, how does ID answer the question of whether or not life is by accident (or not)? This would bring up yet another slew of problems in that one is speaking for and is in personal contact with the given designer(s). Last time this came about we were greeted with Mormonism and Scientology. Conveniently 'intelligent' designer(s) seem to speak English. Just because you believe this isn't all by accident doesn't make it so.

@allonzo1

"Let me see if i have got this right. Since we do not know whether Celestial Katzwinkel is the origin of the unverse or who might have created Celestial Katzwinkel, then we have not recourse but to conclude that Celestial Katzwinkel does not exist. I would like to see a Boolean on that one."

Are you then suggesting that the Celestial Katzwinkel was created out of nothing? In which case, why do we need the CK then? Why not eliminate the CK? Could not the known universe have been created out of nothing from the Big Bang bypassing the CK then?

If you are suggesting that the CK was not created out of nothing, that means a further being/action created the CK. Repeat infinitely.

@allonzo1

That's great that you are in awe of nature. However, the fact that you yourself cannot explain events in nature does not automatically mean reality defaults to a supernatural creator or whatever your current flavor of supernatural creation myths is. We can speculate all day as you are doing, however, this defeats entirely the purpose of this site and makes a mockery of debate. If you can default all arguments to "You just have to believe.", "It's faith." or "I can't explain it, so it must be ID." then what is the point? It is apparent that you are afflicted with the same problem as all creationists: speculate until we are all blue in the face.

"Apparently you think that man can just come up with raw materials just out of necessity."

This assertion was never made by anyone. Again, you fail to understand the process of natural selection.

"But let's not dwell on just limestone. Tell me about carbon and the rain cycle."

Tell you about rain and carbon? How on Earth is this evidence for ID? Again, you dismiss Katzwinkel's tea pot argument and again you simply make comments regarding the minutiae of daily life of Earth. Rain cycles and carbon exists there for it's ID? Oh really? Provide ANY evidence to this assertion that isn't entirely speculative.

Now we have come full cycle back to your original arguments. Wood exists ergo ID. Cement exists ergo ID, etc, etc, etc. Where is the solution to the infinite loop problem? Where is the dismantling of all other creation myths?

Your entire argument boils down to this: "I am in awe of nature. I can not explain why limestone (insert anything organic here) exists the way it is. Eureka, it must be ID."

You just have to believe, aye?

@allonzo1

"i challenge you to describe any evolution of society into an advance stage without huge readily available quantities of limestone."

"One of the examples was that by some quirk of nature if the particular creatures that made limestone had never come into being, then advanced society would never have developed."

You seem to be trying to make an anthropic argument as you are making the premise that without limestone, advanced societies would not have developed. This is entirely subjective and speculative. You are creating a singularity where there is none. Where is it law that limestone is required in the development of advanced societies? Where is your evidence that advanced societies would not have developed without it? The fact that we have developed with limestone does not provide proof that limestone is a requirement of advanced societies. It merely shows one example and that we have adapted and developed with our natural surroundings and have used our resources on Earth to provide a more habitable life.

Has limestone made life more manageable on Earth? Of course. Does that provide adequate evidence for an intelligent designer? Of course not, it is entirely subjective and is absolutely ridiculous. How has limestone developed over time on Earth? Through the process of natural selection. How has our ability to utilize our planet's resources developed over time? Through the process of natural selection. No ID needed.

Furthermore, in your argument you fundamentally admit, through your 'quirk' assertion, that an all-or-nothing catalyst was needed (limestone). This is quite contradictory to natural selection and I state again that you are confusing chance with natural selection.

"Lastly, i ask again. How many coincidence does it take for you to question the game, and there is only one game in town."

Again, you show that you do not understand the differences between chance and natural selection. You also seem to toss aside Katzwinkel's tea pot argument and further press upon us to prove that there is NO intelligent designer, when you have yet to provide any evidence for your own argument.

Is natural selection the 'end all to end alls?' No, but to borrow your phrase, it is the only game in town - and it works really well.

Now, you state there is only one game in town. I am assuming you are speaking of a specific creation myth. I place upon you the challenge of dismantling all other creation myths and solving the infinite loop problem of your own designer and thereby proving once and for all that an intelligent designer(s)'s hand is at work.

@Katzwinkel

Who created the Celestial Katzwinkel? This shows precisely one of the fundamental issues with ID - the problem of the infinite loop. Who created the creator(s)? If we are to say that a being more powerful than the Celestial Katzwinkel is needed to create the Celestial Katzwinkel, this further enhances the problem by requiring an infinite amount of all powerful Katzwinkels and thereby further increases improbability.

@allonso1

I believe you are confused with chance and natural selection. In all of your examples, you seem to be implying that chance is the solution put forth by the non-ID side to the problem of existence and development of life as we know it and that chance cannot solve this problem. You are correct in that chance is a false solution, however, chance is not the solution put forth by the non-ID side, but rather natural selection. Natural selection is not chance.

Natural selection represents the only verifiable solution to the problem of life and works extremely well in solving this problem. Natural selection breaks down the issue of complexity (as you stated previously) into smaller and smaller chunks over vast spans of time. It is a cumulative process of evolution through selection to arrive at any given state at any given time period. Natural selection breaks the barriers of improbability.

"Who appreciates the billions of years that single celled creatures were able to manufacturing limestone so that we could build buildings and roads?"

Natural selection appreciates this. No intelligent designer needed.

@allonzo1

1. I was responding to your specific point (which starts off 'Give me a break. A goofy comment that asserts Intelligent Design...') and not the others. Yes, Katzwinkel is 100% correct, which is why he has 5 creds.
2. To address the others, as I have mentioned previously, much of your 'evidence' is stated ad nauseum by the ID crowd and has been debunked over and over again. To avoid redundancy, I posted a link to the most recent and most popular court case which ALREADY dismantles all of your arguments. Re-hashing old arguments should not win you cred.
3. It is up to you, the believer, to provide direct, unequivocal evidence for the existence of intelligent design or an intelligent creator. So far you have made several generalized statements about the minutiae of existence which do nothing of the sort . Ice floats ergo intelligent design exists? Trees provide shelter and wood for boats equals a creator must be at hand? Scientists are increasingly getting on board with ID? What? Provide direct evidence to ANY of what you assert is due to ID. So far you have done nothing.
4. Your arguments are erratic and seem to be frantically put together last minute. Do we really need to respond to your stream of consciousness?
5. When one fundamentally boils down ID to its most basic premise, it becomes: "You just have to believe." or "It's simply faith." This answer is absolutely unacceptable ... especially as we move forward into yet another decade.

@allonzo1

- "Before the publication of the book Of Pandas and People in 1989, the words "intelligent design" had been used on several occasions as a descriptive phrase, distinct from the modern use as a label for "creationism".

- "The ID movement has its de facto headquarters at the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based, policy-oriented think tank founded in 1990. In 1996, the Discovery Institute added ID to its agenda by opening the Center for Renewal of Science and Culture. In 2002, the words “Renewal of” were deleted from the name, producing the Center for Science and Culture, probably to appear more secular. As documented by Forrest and Gross's examination of the “Wedge Document,” a fund-raising proposal prepared by staff at the Center for Science and Culture, Christian cultural renewal is precisely the goal of the ID movement (12). Although the Discovery Institute has vociferously claimed that ID is a scientific research program and “not creationism,” in reality, many of the movement's claims are derived directly from creation science with no modification."

- "ID was invented as a way to circumvent the constitutional barrier to creation science, but when the constitutionality of ID was tested in Kitzmiller, it met the same fate (11)"

To avoid unnecessary redundancy, arguments put forth on ArgueHow.com in favor of ID have been thoroughly stated and consequentially debunked in the case of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. Citing: Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al.

"I find it offensive. Au naturale baby. That’s how I like em. Swing low, sweet chariots." - Creed Bratton

Not necessarily against, but under the heading of "What have we missed?" Users that create categories which spawn in-depth, long debates should receive cred. Users that create categories that flop should receive crudding.

By putting it on endless repeat for a few days of the year, it gives TBS employees a much needed break.

Mr. Huge; How are you not making a straw-man argument? "The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic." -- Wikipedia

The discussion is on motorcycle helmet laws. Not whether or not people should ride motorcycles or play in the NFL. I DON'T want to prohibit dangerous activities. I never once made that statement. Furthermore, wearing offensive t-shirts does not lead to loss of life. The emotional distress caused through offensive t-shirts is not equivalent to emotional distress caused through death. As I stated before, that is not even in the same ball park.

Furthermore, you switch the argument around and state that helmet laws restrict personal freedoms. Show me. Then you switch the argument around to say I am arguing to prohibit the NFL. Show me where I said no one should play football. The only mention of the NFL I made is that the NFL does not allow players to play without helmets. That is not equivalent to me saying the NFL should be prohibited because they force their players to wear helmets.

You are making a straw-man argument. I am not making the argument against motorcycle riding..or the NFL. I support all modes of two wheel transportation. The NFL does not allow players to play without a helmet. Period. Again, the point is not against riding a motorcycle or partaking in dangerous sports. However, on public highways and roads, as driving is not a right, people are not free to ride as they please. If a motorcyclist dies in a car accident and his or her life could have been spared by simply wearing a helmet, then why should the surviving car driver(s) suffer the emotional distress that goes along with killing someone? I don't see it as inhibiting freedom in any way shape or form. Who is stopping you from riding?

Mr. Huge; It's a point for and not the only reason motorcyclists should wear helmets. That being said, harsh language and loud clothing is not even on the same level as a motorcyclist being killed because they refused to wear a helmet. We have seat belt laws for a reason. Helmet laws are no different.

Brought the Ruby programming language more into the mainstream.

Created an army of fanboys and ignited a mountain of ridiculous framework flame wars all over the Web.

... because people who are for it have a Large Hardons for Large Hadrons.

No simple upgrade from XP to 7.

In the event of a traffic collision, a helmet can mean the difference between walking away and being buried six feet under. Why should those involved in a traffic collision suffer further emotional distress all because of the absence of a simple helmet? Driving is not a right. Helmets and seat belts save lives.

Nikon chose Ashton Kutcher when they could have had Maria Sharapova...

Modern punditry blurs the lines between what is straight-edge, actual journalism based on available facts and opinionated talking points disseminated from political think tanks, PACs and other agenda driven organizations.

More often than not there are multiple sides and angles to every story, punditry exposes and makes accessible these sides to the average person.

Promotes a culture of self-obsessed, narcissistic individuals seeking quick and easy fame through faux-reality scenarios and situations.

Using the term "douchebag" does not illustrate laziness but rather expressive efficiency.

It's neither a sport nor a travel destination...why is it on ESPN and the Travel Channel?

"Faith means making a virtue out of not thinking." - Bill Maher

Needs more slide whistle. Not enough slide whistle to commentary ratio.

She quit a 5k.