I know, a cheap argumentative shot. I seldom cite others to prove a point, unless I first state facts, then give a link for collaboration.

I also apologize for jumping from an argument is support of the RLN to arguments in support of ID (par. 3 - 7), two related, but separate issues.

Regarding Kirk Cameron's banana fervor, I somewhat agree. I see design inferences where most others don't, including various synergistic relationships which are generally attributed to convergent evolution, but which I sometimes attribute to design, or in the case of change over time, re-design.

Most speciation events are simply naturally occurring adaptive alterations, to adapt to a changing environment. But more radical body-plan revisions, land mammal to aquatic cetacean for example, show signs of designer input, much of which could have been 'cut-and-try', rather than 'poof' style modifications. Thus, the uncovering of intermediates, and the lengthy time periods involved.

@Jerykk

i am trying to understand your position.
you state you cant regulate addictive substances.
yet we regulate:cigarettes,alcohol.both of these are addictive and both are regulated.

you also infer that if illegal drugs were decriminalized the situation would become far worse.

in relation to what,exactly?
are you positing that if illegal drugs were made legal,illicit drug use would rise? can you provide some evidence to back that up? because i cannot find any...at all.

you appear to actually agree with @SquidCap in regards to the fact that people are going to do what they are going to do but disagree with the idea of regulating the illicit drug trade.

non-regulation=black market=criminality=violence=waste of resources directed towards non-violent citizens doing something they enjoy in the privacy of their own home,with their own body.

so i agree with @SquidCap,i am just unclear where your disagreement lies.
please clarify.

Admirable, perhaps, to still cling to said belief, but not convincing in the least, considering it is something that is neither deniable nor undeniably a possibility. Concluding science to be "proof" of God is merely a logical trap to be avoided.

I say that the presence of design features in living systems is proof of a designer, and that is a logical conclusion. Further, ether life is designed or it isn't; how would you tell whether it was or wasn't? And why would you rule it out and on what basis you would do so? "Because science" is not a meaningful answer to the question. There are good reasons to believe it was designed, and it isn't just flipping a coin.

which your logical leaps and bounds are not able to compete with, no matter how hard your brain tries to find a hidden pattern in anything you can grasp for, like a man drowning in an ocean of possibilities.

Anyone can infer anything from something of similar value, ergo inference without a scientific basis is silly.

What we have observed is that information only comes from minds, and when we find a genetic code inside of our own cells, it is logical to postulate a designer from that discovery; that isn't much of a leap. To say otherwise is simply your own bias speaking. It is not inference without a scientific basis; the basis is our observation and lack of any credible theory to explain the presence of genetic information in our cells. There is no mechanism found in nature which has ever been observed to create it.

Far from conclusive, but the idea of a designer-god (demiurge) was at one time a thought provoking perspective on existence.

However, your statement is best expressed as a belief made through faith; NOT a conclusive argument made through PROOF, the definition of which you're incorrectly ascribing your statement to.

Which makes it less thought provoking now that we have more advanced ways of reasoning and pondering the universe. i.e. the scientific method.

Admirable, perhaps, to still cling to said belief, but not convincing in the least, considering it is something that is neither deniable nor undeniably a possibility. Concluding science to be "proof" of God is merely a logical trap to be avoided.

EDIT:
"...therefore the inference to the best explanation is that which points to a mind, and therefore a designer."

Also, just because our theories of abiogenesis are not as sophisticated as our theories of evolution, does not suddenly mean that a designer is the final, undeniable conclusion. If that were the case with science we'd drop all of our theories in conclusion that it must be a god. We can't connect our theory of gravity to abiogenesis, therefore it is God. Laughable conclusion based in logical fallacy.

The only thing that infers such an explanation is your mind saying it is so. Similar to my inference that trees being phallic and in abundance, necessitate a giant penis god. You fail to see that science isn't merely based upon human logic and pattern recognition, it is based in mathematical observation -- which your logical leaps and bounds are not able to compete with, no matter how hard your brain tries to find a hidden pattern in anything you can grasp for, like a man drowning in an ocean of possibilities.

Anyone can infer anything from something of similar value, ergo inference without a scientific basis is silly.

There is no theory which can explain how natural selection gets you from non-life to life, to a cell with genetic information. Natural selection is therefore not adequate to explain the information in DNA. What we have observed is that information only comes from minds; therefore the inference to the best explanation is that which points to a mind, and therefore a designer.

Not only that, he knows he's tasting 'shitty' coffee. How about a double blind taste test with some so-called 'good' coffee. At least then we could infer whether he has a clue or not.

She's in the passing lane going the same speed as the massive truck next to her in the travelling lane. And she thinks the guy who gave her the finger is the bigger asshole? Sigh.

I assume this is the States because her speedometer looks like it's in miles. What's the speed limit likely to be where they are? Any likely inferences? It's probably 50, yeah? Which would make her going under the limit in the passing lane.

Where did I infer that; ""shit works okay, why should we bother trying to do better?" Nowhere. You appear to have missed my comment; "But we are getting there." Which, obviously, implies things are being done.
As for your patronising; " When you have seen enough information/had enough experiences." Not that it matters, but I have been around the world 3 times. I have seen - first hand - the sad state of some countries and try to do my bit.
FYI, technology and healthcare DOES actively reduce abuses. Also, we source from cheaper countries so that our goods are cheaper. Does that include bad working/remuneration packages? Sadly it does. But fair trade agreements are starting to tackle the issues. As badly off as some workers are, do you propose that we don't deal with the companies that exploit them? That would not be in their interest as they would have no income at all. And it would not be in our interest as we all like affordable goods. In that regard you are right, we are ALL complicit, but then we are all after making our money go further for our families.
Life is not fair my friend but, as I said, we are getting there.

@lantern53

ah my friend.
you seem to have fallen into the propaganda trap.
allow enoch to chat with you for a bit.

are you comfy? need a drink? coffee? a beer?

ok,then let us begin

this is not a political ideology.
this is not right nor left.(seriously limiting terms anyways).

this is about the full picture.

so let us discuss WHAT propaganda actual is,rather than what we are TOLD it is.
propaganda is simply manipulated information presented in a way to appeal to our irrational and emotional response rather than our rational and reasonable.

when i use the term "manipulated" i am not inferring or implying an outright conspiracy (though often-times it may possibly be a conspiracy) but rather a set goal to illicit the desired response.

and there is always an element of truth in propaganda but the truth being presented is controlled and manipulated.which is apparent in your commentary.

corporations use this tactic and we call it mass marketing but the first usage was that of the state to control its own citizenry.america being the major and first to pioneer this tactic.see:edward bernaise and the council of propaganda (later changed to the council of public relations).

so let us break down your examples which i assume are an attempt by you to discredit the assertions in dr wasfi's speech in this video.

1.to point out the crimes against humanity is a straw man argument.
it is irrelevant.
it is a last ditch effort by the american government to excuse and/or validate an illegal war of aggression:
a.no weapons of mass destruction
b.no connection to al qaeda
c.almost 1 trillion lost (literally,they cant account for that money)

so the american government points to the atrocities of saddam hussein and says "look! look at what a bad person he is"!

SQUIRREL!

which brings us to your next point.

2.the atrocities you are referring to were well know when saddam was a paid participant by multiple government agencies.
let me say that again for you:
saddams atrocities were WELL known and was on the american government payroll.
did saddam gas the kurds?------yes
who sold him the gas components?---we did.

so when my government,in a last ditch effort to absolve its complicity in the wreckage that is iraq by pointing to the awful and horrific acts saddam perpetrated on his own people as somehow making the invasion of iraq a righteous act is utter..and complete..hypocrisy.

they KNEW what he was doing and did nothing because it was politically expedient for them to do so.they wished to corral iran and the ends justified the means.see:Zbigniew Brzezinski-the grand chessboard

there are many MANY accounts where the american government turned a blind eye to the suffering of other nation-states citizens because it did not align with our interests.

i find the whole situation morally repugnant and it angers me even further when i see the propaganda twisting my fellow countrymen into believing this is somehow a morally just way to deal with despots,tyrants,zealots.

when it was MY country who put them in power in the first place!

the rationalizations are so deeply cynical and hypocritical that it creates an almost vacuum of cognitive dissonance.

and this is my main point in regards to your commentary.
it is a rationalization given to you by those who wish to continue to oppress,dominate and control those who are powerless.

it gives a semblance of morality where there is none.

because if we took your commentary to its logical conclusion:that sometimes war is necessary to rid the world of "evil" (an arbitrary term based on perspective),then why are we not in those countries that ALSO oppress,kill,maim,torture and immiserate their citizens?

answer:because it does not serve the interests of this government.

so the only usage of emotional heart string pulling is to give americans a sense of moral superiority,while not dealing with the actual reality.

you are being manipulated my friend.
and they have given you a convenient myth to hold onto.

by my commentary i am not dismissing the great works of my country nor am i saying that my country is inherently evil.
i served my country and did my duty.

but i also will not turn a blind eye to the reality on the ground just because i find that information..uncomfortable.

many times the truth is uncomfortable and it takes courage to look at it with clear eyes and a critical mind.

i always stick to the axiom:governments lie

as for your nazi reference,
i invoke godwins law.
the death camps were not even a known reality till the war was almost over and were not the reasons for the war in the first place.
so the context is irrelevant.

as always,
eyes open...
and stay sharp.

@lantern53 keepin it frosty since 1982.stay awesome my man

Not meant as passive aggressive, I thought this was public knowledge I got from your public posts. I was going to aplolgise in case I was wrong, but I can see from posts already made that it was public knowledge here. Please don't berate sifters for repeating information you've given many of them (without telling them to not spread the info)...that is VERY paranoid, rude, and passive aggressive. It's not like you could be 'found' in the megalopolis that it H town unless you wear a Chingalera shirt everywhere, but it wasn't my intent to piss you off with that. Now that you've 'asked' (in your own angry, insulting way) I'll try to not do it again...at least not with that specificity.
I think you need to see your knee Dr.
...and actually, it was because I read, and denied your repeating knee jerk berating of all of my country because your tiny unpleasant experience has given you a foul taste in your mouth about it. (I feel it's likely because one tends to get back what one puts out that you can't stand people.) I was, once again, reminding you that we don't all live in the hyper-populated police state you consistently move into and then bitch non-stop about...that's also not very fucking cool, or smart, DUUUUUUD!
EDIT: ...and I see from my actual post that I didn't say YOU lived there, just that it's a police state, you inferred that it was about where YOU lived.

"as an anarchist i believe all systems of authority and power to be illegitimate until proven otherwise."

I have a different take, in my preferred anarchism. The only one I see as functional, all voluntary hierarchies and authorities are perfectly legitimate. I am free to submit or not to any authority I choose to for my benefit and that is my legitimate right. Also private property owners have a legitimate authority over their property. I can do whatever I want with my property (without violating anyone else's self-ownership and property rights). And under the same conditions, I can legitimately enter into any agreements I want with anyone I want. That would be legitimate private property anarchy.

As of now, the government makes what is naturally legitimate, into something arbitrarily illegitimate, based on the whims of legislators and bureaucrats.

"the burden is on those who profess authority."

I understand what you are saying. And don't think the burden is on anyone. Do not initiate violence on anyone's person of property. Simple. That's it. There's nothing else to prove or not. If anything it is the "burden" to prove you own what you own, in cases of ownership disputes. For that, there is legal precedent on who has the burden of ownership proof etc.

"because even as an anarchist i have to recognize that there needs to be a system which keeps the hands on the scales that keeps the playing field even and the kids playing nice."

The only thing that can interfere and wreck a private property anarchy is aggression, i.e., the initiation of violence against anyone's person and/or property. To prevent that you have legal enforcement and arbitration services (courts). Just like now. Except that there wouldn't be a state monopoly over these. A private law society can work just as well or better than having a monopoly of law enforcement and courts. Monopolies are always inefficient and costly. Always. For any and all goods and services. No exceptions.

"these systems are for the people,by the people and run by the people."

There is not such thing as "the people," in any practical sense. Show me "the people" and I'll show you an abstraction. There are only individuals. "The people" cannot run anything. Even you and I disagree. How are we "the people?" (Furthermore, to have a truly non-violent society, individuals would have the choice as to whether or not to engage in agreements with other individuals. Unlike now, where people are forced into agreements by which "majorities" -- whether actual or rigged -- impose their will upon the minorities. That's what you call "democracy.")

"BUT..you stop there. are you implying that we have a free market now?"

No, we don't have a free market now. We have pockets in which free markets function, however.

"did you actually infer that america begot its wealth and power purely through free market exchanges?"

Yes, mostly it did.

"have you even been paying attention?"

What the fuck does that mean?

"corporate america has been exploiting third world countries for over a century!"

No, some corporations with the help of the US and/or foreign governments have been exploiting some people in third world countries, enriching those corporations and government officials in the US and mostly in third world countries. But this is what made these corporations and government officials wealthy, not what made America as a whole a wealthy nation. America is no longer a wealthy nation as a whole (particular companies are not "America"), but an indebted nation, because of things like these, which go hand in hand with military expenditures too. The average person profits nothing from these corporations and politicians exploiting third world (or any) countries. So no, this does not make America wealthy.

The free market, however (which this exploitation is not), did make America a wealthy nation with rapid economic improvement for the average person (with the regrettable exceptions of African and Native Americans).

"and our government has been the fist that punched the:exploitation,ruination and demise of those countries.hell thats the reason WHY they are third world!"

If you are arguing that the government has been responsible for all this evil, then you are preaching to the choir. Although I take issue with the idea that it is "our government." I don't own it, nor would I want to.

"its shameful and if thats your idea of a free market.
well..you can fucking keep it."

I don't think you have been paying attention, @enoch. No, I don't think we have a free market and you cannot have a free market if there is a government interfering with it. So I don't know what your, "you can fucking keep it," bullshit is about.

"you only seem to address one part of the equation.
or are you oblivious to the harm that corporate america has wrought for the past century?"

Corporate American is a corporatist system, kind of fascist if you want to get technical. It is a mix of private business with government-granted privilege. That is not a free market. Let me say it again, in case you missed it, a truly free market cannot exist while a government monopoly grants privilege to some businesses. That is crony-corporatism, fascism. A free market can only exist as market anarchy. Corporations exploit because of government privilege, be it granted by the US government/state or third world governments/states.

"who or what will keep that behemoth in check?"

Private law based on the rights to contracts and the right of freedom from aggression to person and/or property, enforced by a private legal enforcement system.

The state has not and will not "keep that behemoth in check" as you call it. In fact, the state is the "behemoth." It is absurd to expect the state to police itself. It has not and it will not. That plan is a failure. But "good luck with that."

(btw, I you want to know the real reasons third world countries are third world, particularly Latin America, I suggest you read Alvaro Vargas Llosa's well researched book, "Liberty For Latin America," and see how 500 of state intervention/abuse has led to the current situation. If you want to lecture me about why Latin America is "third world," you'd better do some more research first and really know your stuff. I am quite familiar with the situation there.)

"what do you think will happen when you take regulation off the table?"

When you take government-granted privilege off the table, things get better and corporations and (more importantly) governments cannot abuse individuals, as some corporations and virtually all governments now do. And you replace those privileges (euphemistically called "regulations") with laws based on non-aggression and enforcement of rights to self-ownership and property.

All "exploitation" comes from aggression. All of it.

Aggression means initiating violence. Without government support, no one can initiate violence without becoming a criminal. And criminals shall be dealt with accordingly. But as long as governments/states grant aggression privileges, then you have legalized crime.

"do you understand what feudalism actually is?"

Perhaps you'd like to restate this in a non-condescending way. If you have something to say about feudalism, then say it. Explain whatever you want to explain...

"we are living in what is now being called a "neo-feudalism" state."

I don't care to have a state, so you can take this complaint to the statists. (Good luck with that.)

"you point to the government but not to the invisible hand that owns it.which is corporate america"

"Corporate America" could do little harm if any, if it weren't for some corporations' use of government. Government serves no purpose other than to allow those who control it take from those who don't. The only solution to this is to not have that tool/weapon available to whomever takes control of it. Corporations don't own it. They just use it as much as possible (just like unions do, just like all sorts of special interest groups do, just like voting blocks do, and mostly just like politicians and bureaucrats do, and even citizens who "game" the system in one way or another).

"then again.i am a pretty crappy capitalist."

That likely makes you a "pretty crappy anarchist" too.
No offense intended.
Libertarian socialist kind of contradicts itself, does it not?
Take what you want from this message or not.
Good luck.

@Trancecoach
um..did you just take an analogy i made and make that your entire premise to defend your position?

sighs.
look man.
i am an anarchist.
i am not defending the government.
why you assume that i do not know..but if i gave that impression,then i apologize.

let me posit this for your perusal.

as an anarchist i believe all systems of authority and power to be illegitimate until proven otherwise.
the burden is on those who profess authority.

as an anarchist i agree that a free market can work quite well,BUT you have never once posited the counter balance to that equation.
because even as an anarchist i have to recognize that there needs to be a system which keeps the hands on the scales that keeps the playing field even and the kids playing nice.

these systems are for the people,by the people and run by the people.
and if they begin to falter and become suspect in regards to corruption.
they shall be discarded in favor of a new system.

so when you say the government is too large and bloated and needs to be made smaller..i agree.
BUT..you stop there.

are you implying that we have a free market now?
did you actually infer that america begot its wealth and power purely through free market exchanges?
have you even been paying attention?

corporate america has been exploiting third world countries for over a century!
and our government has been the fist that punched the:exploitation,ruination and demise of those countries.hell thats the reason WHY they are third world!
hundreds of thousands of humans dying and suffering so we can have cheap crap to buy.
its shameful and if thats your idea of a free market.
well..you can fucking keep it.

you only seem to address one part of the equation.
or are you oblivious to the harm that corporate america has wrought for the past century?

who or what will keep that behemoth in check?
what do you think will happen when you take regulation off the table?
(and i am not making a case FOR regulation by the way.kinda sad i have to caveat that).
do you understand what feudalism actually is?
we are living in what is now being called a "neo-feudalism" state.
or as sheldon wholin called "inverted totalitarianism".

you point to the government but not to the invisible hand that owns it.which is corporate america.

so i am really trying to understand your position but if you are not willing to acknowledge that very real dynamic i dont know how i can take your position seriously.

then again.i am a pretty crappy capitalist.
exploitation aint my thing.
though i dig libertarian socialist.
has a ring ya?

Yes, it was for you, just a conversational question, not part of any argument I was mounting.

About your "prerequisite" question: In what sense? Our current policing system inevitably leads to police officers committing felony acts and other officers witnessing these acts and then ignoring them, which itself is a crime, I believe. I'm asking your opinion as to whether that's acceptable. Maybe it is, and maybe it isn't.

To your second question, no, I didn't infer anything personal at all. I have nothing whatsoever to do with the police.

Were you directing this question at me?

If so, sincere request for clarification: Do you purport such is a prerequisite in reality?

...and....

Did you infer any reference to yourself or to the bortherhood of peace officers? If so, it was not my intent. Rather, the old saw from Hamlet.