Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Saturday, June 03, 2006

Hillibilly "logic" from debunkers.org

Over on debunkers.org Steve V took it upon himself to attempt to debunk my post about evolutionism and the fossil record. Reading his post it became obvious he hasn't a clue as to what the real debate is about or what I originally posted. Much of his response doesn't even make sense and other parts are flat-out wrong.

Evolutionists commonly use the fossil record and evidnence for their “theory”. However fossils canNOT tell us anything about a mechanism. Therefore in any debate pertaining to a mechanism, such as ID vs. evolutionism, the fossil record is totally useless.


Steve V:
. The claim, or premise of the argument is that the fossil record is used to support the theory of evolution.

Commonly used. Is there anyone who doubts this claim?

Steve V:
The support for this claim though is supposedly refutes a much more precise claim: the fossil record cannot be used in a discussion of the mechanism of ID vs. evolution.

I will stand by that.

Steve V:
While the latter might be true (I’ll argue later that it isn’t depending on which aspect of ID you are talking about), that does not mean that the fossil record doesn’t support evolutionary theory.

That it can be and is used does not mean it is scientifically correct to do so.

Steve V:
The fossil record is used primarily as a source of evidence for speciation.

Speciation, even in all its ambiguity, isn't being debated. For example even Creationists have understood speciation takes place since the time of Karl von Linne. He was searching for the originally Created Kinds when he developed binomial nomenclature. He would eventually place the Created Kinds at the level of Genus So if what you say is true then my premise is confirmed. And seeing that much of your "argument" is based on speciation, ie trivial variations withinn a given genera, consider your BS exposed for what it is.

Steve V:
This is done by looking at bones found in the right section of rock, and the look to see if the bones are similar to other bones found previously. Scientists can then track changes in the dinosaurs and make inferences as to which sets of bones are related to other sets of bones.

Today science tells us that similarities can come about via both convergent and divergent "evolution".

It also totally ignores the following:

“The validity of the evolutionary interpretation of homology would have been greatly strengthened if embryological and genetic research could have shown that homologous structures were specified by homologous genes. Such homology would indeed be strongly suggestive of “true relationship; of inheritance from a common ancestor”. But it has become clear that the principle cannot be extended in this way. Homologous structures are often specified by non-homologous genetic systems and the concept of homology can seldom be extended back into embryology. The failure to find a genetic and embryological basis for homology was discussed by Sir Gavin de Beer, British embryologist and past Director of the British Museum of Natural History, in a succinct monograph Homology, a Unresolved Problem.”
Michael Denton

“The concept of homology is absolutely fundamental to what we are talking about when we speak of evolution- yet in truth we cannot explain it at all in terms of present day biological theory.”
Sir Alistor Hardy


Bald assertions:

Steve V:
As for the use of the fossil record as evidence in favor of evolutionary theory and against ID one only has to look to Dembski’s new law of thermodynamics. That is the Law of Conservation of Information. Basically, this law asserts that new information (e.g. speciation) cannot come about purely by natural means.

Seeing that both intelligence and design are natural, I would say you don't understand the debate.

Since the fossil record indicates otherwise (i.e., it supports the purely natural theory of evolution) this is evidence against ID.

Just claiming the fossil record indicates a purely natural ToE, is not scientific and is based on your PoV.

The debate is unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes vs. intelligent, directed (goal oriented) processes.

The part I like the best is the very deceptive:

Steve V:
As for the notion that the fossil record is the only place that we observe evolution that is pure nonsense. Evolution is observed everytime parents reproduce.

Context- next time read Grasse and figure out the context. He was using "evolution" in the context of evolution #6. IOW your claim that "Evolution is observed everytime parents reproduce", taken in context is a flat-out lie. However it appears you are also clueless. But ignorance is not an excuse.

He also prattles on about the fossilization process- points I have already made. So what was his point?


Then we have this total BS:

This idea that the mechanisms of evolution are not observed anywhere save the fossil record is just flat out wrong.

That is not what I said nor implied. Perhaps Steve should take a reading comprehension course. What I did say was that fossils cannot tell us anything about the mechanism. Did the organisms "evolve" because they were designed to do so? Or did they "evolve" due to random mutations culled by NS? Can't tell from the fossils. And guess what? There isn't any scientific data that demonstrates RM & NS can do anything except to slightly modify an already existing organism! And the ONLY mutations that call be called "random" are point mutations caused by copying errors.

And why is it that evolutionitwits ALWAYS conflate "intermediate" with "transitional"? Is it that they do not understand the difference? Or is it that they cannot comprehend the difference?

Not only is it obvious Steve V doesn't understand what is being debated, he uses the tried and true deceptive tactics inherent in all evoltionitwits.

13 Comments:

  • At 1:33 AM, Blogger Steve said…


    Speciation, even in all its ambiguity, isn't being debated. For example even Creationists have understood speciation takes place since the time of Karl von Linne. He was searching for the originally Created Kinds when he developed binomial nomenclature. He would eventually place the Created Kinds at the level of Genus So if what you say is true then my premise is confirmed. And seeing that much of your "argument" is based on speciation, ie trivial variations withinn a given genera, consider your BS exposed for what it is.


    Do you even know how verification of the theory takes place. It isn't merely enough to say, "Oh this data fits my theory." You have to look at the data for not just your pet theory, but also the competing theories. That would also entail evolutionary theory as well.

    Seeing that both intelligence and design are natural, I would say you don't understand the debate.

    Uhhmmm where did I say that design and intelligence aren't natural? However, it is the IDists who assert that the design that is observed, and the intelligence inferred is a type of rarified design, i.e. a design outside of nature. You did the part about nature not being sufficient to produce no new information? That means the new information comes from something outside of nature.


    Just claiming the fossil record indicates a purely natural ToE, is not scientific and is based on your PoV.

    The debate is unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes vs. intelligent, directed (goal oriented) processes.


    Uhhhmmm, the part where I said the theory of evolution was natural implies an undirected proccss that is non-goal oriented and not requiring intelligence, so you have this exactly wrong.

    Context- next time read Grasse and figure out the context. He was using "evolution" in the context of evolution #6.

    Boy you need lots of help here. Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution is "just a theory". Evolutionary theory has several mechanisms at work. All of these mechanisms have been observed both in the lab and in nature. So this bit about "context" is just handwaving.

    IOW your claim that "Evolution is observed everytime parents reproduce", taken in context is a flat-out lie. However it appears you are also clueless. But ignorance is not an excuse.

    No it isn't. Definition "#6" includes all the mechanisms like gene flow, genetic drift, random mutation, natural selection, etc. Hence my statement is completely truthful. Statements that we only see "#6" in the fossil record is the actual lie.

    That is not what I said nor implied.

    That was indeed the point. You wrote that we don't observe marine invertebrate transitional fossils and that this means the fossil record doesn't support the "evolutionists" claims. As I demonstrated this is just completely wrong. A lack of evidence neither confirms nor undermines a theory. This is well established and can be shown mathematically.

    What I did say was that fossils cannot tell us anything about the mechanism. Did the organisms "evolve" because they were designed to do so? Or did they "evolve" due to random mutations culled by NS? Can't tell from the fossils.

    What kind of gibberish is this? Designed to evlove? If that is really what you meant, then it renders your postion completely unverifiable. Evidence in favor of one theory, is also evidence in favor of your theory. If you meant something else, the fossil record is indeed indirect evidence in favor of evolution.

    And guess what? There isn't any scientific data that demonstrates RM & NS can do anything except to slightly modify an already existing organism!

    Save for the speciation events, and that the fossil record points to pretty substantial change from things like dinosaurs to birds.

    Not only is it obvious Steve V doesn't understand what is being debated, he uses the tried and true deceptive tactics inherent in all evoltionitwits.

    Ahh, I see you are out of ammunition, and that you probably didn't even understand my post.

     
  • At 9:17 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Steve:
    Do you even know how verification of the theory takes place.

    Yes I do. I also know the theory of evolution cannot be verified. Heck we don't even know what makes an organism what it is- which is what we need BEFORE determining that one population can "evolve" into another.

    Seeing that both intelligence and design are natural, I would say you don't understand the debate.

    Steve:
    Uhhmmm where did I say that design and intelligence aren't natural?

    When you say nonsense like this:

    "Basically, this law asserts that new information (e.g. speciation) cannot come about purely by natural means."

    It is obvious you think both are outside of nature. It is also obvious you don't understand the debate.

    Steve:
    However, it is the IDists who assert that the design that is observed, and the intelligence inferred is a type of rarified design, i.e. a design outside of nature.

    That is false. However it is obvious that natural processes could NOT be responsible for the origin of nature as natural processes only exist IN nature. Therefore even your anti-ID scenario requires something outside of nature. And THAT is why the debate is unintelligent

    Steve:
    You did the part about nature not being sufficient to produce no new information?

    No one has ever observed nature creating information.

    Steve:
    That means the new information comes from something outside of nature.

    Humans are part of nature and we create new information all the time. Which refutes your nonsense.

    The debate is unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes vs. intelligent, directed (goal oriented) processes.

    Steve:
    Uhhhmmm, the part where I said the theory of evolution was natural implies an undirected proccss that is non-goal oriented and not requiring intelligence, so you have this exactly wrong.

    LoL! We have already determined that both design and intelligence are natural. Therefore there is a difference. And if you choose to ignore or conflate the difference that just further exposes your deception.

    Context- next time read Grasse and figure out the context. He was using "evolution" in the context of evolution #6.

    Steve:
    Boy you need lots of help here. Evolution is a fact.

    That allele frequencies can change is a fact. That humans "evolved" from non-humans is a belief.

    Steve:
    The theory of evolution is "just a theory". Evolutionary theory has several mechanisms at work. All of these mechanisms have been observed both in the lab and in nature. So this bit about "context" is just handwaving.

    Steve totally blows the context of my post, I expose him for it and he accuses me of handwaving. Ya see Steve what we have observed in no way can be extrapolated into what evolutionitwits claim. THAT is a fact.

    That is not what I said nor implied.

    Steve:
    That was indeed the point.

    No it was NOT and YOU do not get to decide what my point is. Try to stay in context- I understand that is difficult for you.

    Steve:
    You wrote that we don't observe marine invertebrate transitional fossils and that this means the fossil record doesn't support the "evolutionists" claims.

    Right and taken in context my point is that we don't see the transitions requiredif inverts "evolved" into an entirely different population. Again pointing to trilobites "evolving" into trilobites just further exposes the desparation of your position.

    What I did say was that fossils cannot tell us anything about the mechanism. Did the organisms "evolve" because they were designed to do so? Or did they "evolve" due to random mutations culled by NS? Can't tell from the fossils.

    Steve:
    What kind of gibberish is this? Designed to evlove?

    Yes. I take it you don't understand ID at all. Typical.

    Steve:
    If that is really what you meant, then it renders your postion completely unverifiable.

    And just how can we verify that random variations culled by NS led to the diversity of life from some unknown population of single-celled organisms that just happened to have the ability to asexually reproduce? It can't be done.



    And guess what? There isn't any scientific data that demonstrates RM & NS can do anything except to slightly modify an already existing organism!

    Steve:
    Save for the speciation events, and that the fossil record points to pretty substantial change from things like dinosaurs to birds.

    LoL! The fossil record can NOT tell us anything about a mechanism! THAT is a fact.

    Steve:
    Statements that we only see "#6" in the fossil record is the actual lie.

    Then it is a good thing I never said that. However it is obvious you have a reading comprehension issue.

     
  • At 3:44 PM, Blogger Steve said…

    Yes I do. I also know the theory of evolution cannot be verified. Heck we don't even know what makes an organism what it is- which is what we need BEFORE determining that one population can "evolve" into another.

    This idea that we have to understand A, before we can go onto B is bogus. There is nothing that says we can't study both parts at the same time, or tackle B before A. At last you had better provide a better reason that, "We can't".

    Seeing that both intelligence and design are natural, I would say you don't understand the debate.

    I've never denied, in fact, I've explicitly stated the exact oppsoite. Intellignce and design are natural. What I do dispute is the kind of rarified design and intelligence you and other IDCists claim exists.

    When you say nonsense like this:

    "Basically, this law asserts that new information (e.g. speciation) cannot come about purely by natural means."

    It is obvious you think both are outside of nature. It is also obvious you don't understand the debate.


    Then I suggest that your beef is with William Dembski as he is the one that came up with his "4th" law of thermodynamics. He is the one that put forward the notion of conservation of information and the natural process are insufficient to create new information.

    And just so it is totally obvious, I think that intelligence and design are part of nature. Man is intelligent and designs things. Stonehendge is a good example, as is Mt. Rushmore. Both are great examples of human intelligence and design and since humans are part of nature, so is intelligence and design.

    Humans are part of nature and we create new information all the time. Which refutes your nonsense.

    No, it refutes Dembski's nonsense.

    LoL! The fossil record can NOT tell us anything about a mechanism! THAT is a fact.

    Okay, lets go through this slowly. We have a Theory X. Theory X, as postulated, works via mechansims W, Y, and Z. From this we develop hypothesis, H1. We go out and collect data that verifies H1. This in turn confrims Theory X, and processes W, Y and Z (conditionally). Hence you are wrong.

    Then it is a good thing I never said that.

    No and I didn't say you did. However, you did quote another source, approvingly, who did make such a statement. From your May 29 9:06 post,


    The fossil record is just "I would not have seen it if I didn't already believe in it." Yet even the great zoologist Pierre-Paul Grasse, said the FR is the ONLY place where we "observe" evolution.

    As a reminder- evolutionism is evolution #6:


    Sorry, but this is another fact that shows you are wrong. Again.

     
  • At 6:47 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Steve:
    What I do dispute is the kind of rarified design and intelligence you and other IDCists claim exists.

    Please provide evidence for such a claim or admit you are making it up. And what is an "IDCist"?

    It is obvious you think both are outside of nature. It is also obvious you don't understand the debate.

    Steve:
    Then I suggest that your beef is with William Dembski as he is the one that came up with his "4th" law of thermodynamics. He is the one that put forward the notion of conservation of information and the natural process are insufficient to create new information.

    It is obvious you misunderstand Dembski and choose to misrepresent his arguments in order to attempt to refute him. Very typical.

    Humans are part of nature and we create new information all the time. Which refutes your nonsense.

    Steve:
    No, it refutes Dembski's nonsense.

    Provide the evidence that it does or admit you are clueless.

    LoL! The fossil record can NOT tell us anything about a mechanism! THAT is a fact.

    Steve:
    Okay, lets go through this slowly. We have a Theory X. Theory X, as postulated, works via mechansims W, Y, and Z. From this we develop hypothesis, H1. We go out and collect data that verifies H1. This in turn confrims Theory X, and processes W, Y and Z (conditionally). Hence you are wrong.

    Sounds good on paper but in reality the ToE has nothing like that. And THAT is a fact.

    And again rather than doing any research you continue to choose misrepresentation. Try taking Grasse IN CONTEXT. We do NOT observe single-celled organisms "evolving" into the diversity of life ANYWHERE except in the fossil record. We do NOT observe dinos "evolving" into birds anywhere except in the FR. We do NOT observe whales "evolving" from land animals anywhere except in the FR. IOW Grasse was correct when taken in context.

     
  • At 1:13 PM, Blogger Steve said…

    Please provide evidence for such a claim or admit you are making it up. And what is an "IDCist"?

    It is obvious you think both are outside of nature. It is also obvious you don't understand the debate.


    Joe,

    I have repeatedly said that intelligence and design are part of nature. This is something like the 3rd or 4th time I've written on your site (I think). So please stop with this kind of false statemtents.

    IDC = Intelligent Design Creationist.

    As for the notion of rarified design look at the stuff by Gonzalez. His views pretty much require a supernatural designer. His designer isn't merely fiddling with E. coli falgella, but is instead setting universal constants, placing the earth in just the right spot (or putting life on just the right spot), and so forth. This is s a being who controls the very things we consider laws.

    It is obvious you misunderstand Dembski and choose to misrepresent his arguments in order to attempt to refute him. Very typical.

    Humans are part of nature and we create new information all the time. Which refutes your nonsense.


    Again, your problem is with Dembski. I don't see the issue you have here. I agree with you that humans are part of nature and that they are intelligent. Further, I agree this refutes the implications of the "4th" Law of Thermodynamics as proposed by Dembski.

    Sounds good on paper but in reality the ToE has nothing like that. And THAT is a fact.

    No, this is a false statement. There is evidence of the mechanisms, and there is evidence of change in living organisms, both micro and macro. Hence the inference is valid. There is no such mechanism/inference for IDC since IDC relies on refuting evolutionary theory alone.

     
  • At 6:58 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Steve:
    I have repeatedly said that intelligence and design are part of nature.

    Again YOU said the following:

    "Basically, this law asserts that new information (e.g. speciation) cannot come about purely by natural means."

    And you said that implied unintelligent processes.

    Also you are wrong about what Dembski says. I asked for the evidence and you failed to provide any. Go figure...

    The evolutionary definitions of micro and macro are useless in this debate. The talk origins definitions make it such that even YECs accept macro.

    The ONLY data we have is for slight variations in existing organisms. That is the ONLY observable, testable and verifiable data. And we don't even understand those mechanisms.


    Steve:
    There is no such mechanism/inference for IDC since IDC relies on refuting evolutionary theory alone.

    Thank you for continuing to expose your ID ignorance. There isn't any "refuting evolutionary theory" because there isn't such a thing. Also design is a mechanism. And there are specific mechanisms of design. One such mechanism is front-end loading- see "evolving Inventions", Scientific American 2003.

    However ID is not about any specific mechanism. That is because the only way to make that determination in the absence of direct observation or designer input is by studying the design.

    ID is about detecting and understanding the design. From there we may be able to figure out the missing parts- the mechanism and the designer- or at least a mechanism.

    ID and Mechanisms

    To say that ID has no proposed mechanism means only that we don't specifically know how ID was implemented. So what? Do we have any good reason to think that if ID was implemented at the origin of life (for example), then we should be able to determine how ID was implemented? Of course not. The truth of ID does not entail the ability to describe the process of design. Thus, the inability to describe the actual process that was implemented is essentially meaningless apart from its rhetorical appeal.

     
  • At 1:41 AM, Blogger Steve said…

    Joe,

    For crying out loud what is wrong with you?

    When I wrote,

    "Basically, this law asserts that new information (e.g. speciation) cannot come about purely by natural means."

    That was me describing Dembski's claims, not my own! Let me explain it this way, I was conveying the idea of Dembski's 4th Law of Thermodynamics. I was NOT describing my own views. You have made an error in regards to what I have written and you have responded to that error. Hence your entire argument is based on a faulty premise.

    Get it?

    The evolutionary definitions of micro and macro are useless in this debate. The talk origins definitions make it such that even YECs accept macro.

    Well, the only problem with this is that most YECists don't accept evolutionary theory's claim of macro evolution. You can keep asserting this as fact, but I have yet to see a YECist make such a statement.

    Thank you for continuing to expose your ID ignorance. There isn't any "refuting evolutionary theory" because there isn't such a thing.

    You've just made my point yet again. You have just repudiated evolutionary theory with the idea that some how IDC must therefore win by default.

    By the way, regarding this:

    No one has ever observed nature creating information.

    I thought that you said design and intelligence and humans are all part of natural/are natural and that new information crops up all the time. Contradict yourself much?

    To say that ID has no proposed mechanism means only that we don't specifically know how ID was implemented. So what? Do we have any good reason to think that if ID was implemented at the origin of life (for example), then we should be able to determine how ID was implemented? Of course not. The truth of ID does not entail the ability to describe the process of design. Thus, the inability to describe the actual process that was implemented is essentially meaningless apart from its rhetorical appeal.

    Which shows the utter vacuity of IDC. When evaluating a theory we use the following:

    Prob(Theory X|Data) = [Prob(Data|Theory X)*Prob(Theory X)]/Prob(Data)

    Whithout knowing the mechanism there is no way to talk about

    Prob(Data|Theory X).

    Thus, there is no way to evaluate, in a meaningful manner, IDC. This is why Dembski came up with his Explanatory Filter and poo-poos likelihood methods.

     
  • At 8:30 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Steve:
    For crying out loud what is wrong with you?

    You are the problem. Don't project your short-comings onto me.

    Steve:
    "Basically, this law asserts that new information (e.g. speciation) cannot come about purely by natural means."

    That was me describing Dembski's claims, not my own!


    You are misrepresenting Dembski. How many times do I have to tell you that?

    The evolutionary definitions of micro and macro are useless in this debate. The talk origins definitions make it such that even YECs accept macro.

    Steve:
    Well, the only problem with this is that most YECists don't accept evolutionary theory's claim of macro evolution.

    The problem with that is it is obvious you don't understand what is being debated.

    Steve:
    You can keep asserting this as fact, but I have yet to see a YECist make such a statement.

    From talk origins:

    "In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch") or the change of a species over time into another (anagenesis, not nowadays generally used). Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, is also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to the origin of those higher taxa."

    YECs have accepted speciation, even in all its ambiguity, since the time of Linne- over 200 years ago. Therefore the definition provided is useless in the debate.

    The YEC definition of macroevolution is different. It is by that definition that YECs operate:

    evolution, biological n.
    1) “microevolution”—the name used by many evolutionists to describe genetic variation, the empirically observed phenomenon in which exisiting potential variations within the gene pool of a population of organisms are manifested or suppressed among members of that population over a series of generations. Often simplistically (and erroneously) invoked as “proof” of “macro evolution”; 2) macroevolution—the theory/belief that biological population changes take (and have taken) place (typically via mutations and natural selection) on a large enough scale to produce entirely new structural features and organs, resulting in entirely new species, genera, families, orders, classes, and phyla within the biological world, by generating the requisite (new) genetic information. Many evolutionists have used “macro-evolution” and “Neo-Darwinism” as synonymous for the past 150 years.

    Steve:
    You have just repudiated evolutionary theory with the idea that some how IDC must therefore win by default.

    Wrong again. That thought never crossed my mind.

    Now Steve demonstrates his lack of reading comprehension:

    Steve:
    By the way, regarding this:

    No one has ever observed nature creating information.

    Steve:
    I thought that you said design and intelligence and humans are all part of natural/are natural and that new information crops up all the time.

    LoL! Humans are natural in that they exist in nature. Humans aren't nature. Back to grade school for Steve- reading IS fundamental.


    To say that ID has no proposed mechanism means only that we don't specifically know how ID was implemented. So what? Do we have any good reason to think that if ID was implemented at the origin of life (for example), then we should be able to determine how ID was implemented? Of course not. The truth of ID does not entail the ability to describe the process of design. Thus, the inability to describe the actual process that was implemented is essentially meaningless apart from its rhetorical appeal.

    Steve:
    Which shows the utter vacuity of IDC.

    Why because you don't understand logic and reasoning? When arcaeologists make a find and determine the object is an artifact they do NOT need to know the mechanism that brought it into existence first. That is determined by studying the artifact.

    However reality demonstrates there is no way to evaluate the theory of evolution. Random variations have only been demonstrated to slightly modify existing organisms.

     
  • At 12:40 PM, Blogger Steve said…

    You are misrepresenting Dembski. How many times do I have to tell you that?

    No I'm not, and even if it were true those ideas wouldn't be my ideas as you have claimed. Face it you were wrong, now have the guts to admit it.

    The problem with that is it is obvious you don't understand what is being debated.

    Well if you are talking about your own made up definitions that change as you need them to change then I suppose you are correct.

    YECs have accepted speciation, even in all its ambiguity, since the time of Linne- over 200 years ago. Therefore the definition provided is useless in the debate.

    No this is misleading at best. The Creationist go with the notion of "kinds" and argue that each of the original "kinds" were front loaded, hence they can change and adapt to their environments. However, these same Creationists reject the notion of speciation. They don't see it as meaningful since when an animal population speciates it is staying within its "kind". Same thing for genus, and other higher orders of classification.

    Basically, this renders the Creationists view immune to evidence. Since even observing a new genus or family wouldn't invalidate this type of thinking. When presented with such evidence the Creationists simply shrugs and says, well, they were of the same kind, so no change.

    However, that doesn't make speciation irrelevant as you'd like to claim. Since speciation is a prediction of evolutionary theory observing this kind of prediction confirms the theory.

    LoL! Humans are natural in that they exist in nature. Humans aren't nature. Back to grade school for Steve- reading IS fundamental.

    Ahh, nice variant of the No True Scotsman fallacy. I think it is you that is in need of a review of elementary logic and fallacies. Sorry, if humans are part of nature, and they create new information, then new information occurs naturally.

    Why because you don't understand logic and reasoning? When arcaeologists make a find and determine the object is an artifact they do NOT need to know the mechanism that brought it into existence first. That is determined by studying the artifact.


    Yes they do. That is they use the fact that humans have known about wood carving, pottery, smelting, and so forth, and that they are looking at human ruins to make such an inference. They aren't using Dembski's filter. Nobody uses Dembski's filter, not even Dembski.

    However reality demonstrates there is no way to evaluate the theory of evolution. Random variations have only been demonstrated to slightly modify existing organisms.

    This is soooo funny. On one hand you argue that speciation isn't a big deal, that it isn't a problem. But on the other you argue stridently that speciation has never been observed, can't happen, etc. You contradict yourself so much that I have to admit this is great fun.

     
  • At 10:16 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    We will take care of Steve V's misrepresenation of Wm. Dembski first:

    You are misrepresenting Dembski. How many times do I have to tell you that?

    Steve:
    No I'm not, and even if it were true those ideas wouldn't be my ideas as you have claimed. Face it you were wrong, now have the guts to admit it.

    From page163 of “No Free Lunch”:

    “The Law of Conservation of Information is not saying that natural causes in tandem with intelligent causes cannot generate CSI but that natural causes apart from intelligent causes cannot generate CSI.”

    This now should be a closed issue but I predict that Steve will flail away with some other nonsense.

     
  • At 10:46 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The problem with that is it is obvious you don't understand what is being debated.

    Steve:
    Well if you are talking about your own made up definitions that change as you need them to change then I suppose you are correct.

    I use commonly accepted definitions that stay as they are.

    YECs have accepted speciation, even in all its ambiguity, since the time of Linne- over 200 years ago. Therefore the definition provided is useless in the debate.

    Steve:
    No this is misleading at best.

    It is only misleading to YOU because you don’t understand the real position taken by Creationists (YEC).

    Steve:
    The Creationist go with the notion of "kinds" and argue that each of the original "kinds" were front loaded, hence they can change and adapt to their environments.

    They also accept that random mutations do occur and do have an effect.

    Steve:
    However, these same Creationists reject the notion of speciation.

    That is false. Anyone who has read “Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study” knows you are wrong.”

    Steve:
    They don't see it as meaningful since when an animal population speciates it is staying within its "kind". Same thing for genus, and other higher orders of classification.

    Just because it is staying “within” its kind” does not negate the fact that YECs accept speciation.

    Steve:
    Basically, this renders the Creationists view immune to evidence. Since even observing a new genus or family wouldn't invalidate this type of thinking. When presented with such evidence the Creationists simply shrugs and says, well, they were of the same kind, so no change.

    Perhaps but that is irrelevant.

    Steve:
    However, that doesn't make speciation irrelevant as you'd like to claim. Since speciation is a prediction of evolutionary theory observing this kind of prediction confirms the theory.

    Speciation is also a prediction of the Creation theory AND theistic evolution AND ID.

    LoL! Humans are natural in that they exist in nature. Humans aren't nature. Back to grade school for Steve- reading IS fundamental.

    Steve:
    Ahh, nice variant of the No True Scotsman fallacy. I think it is you that is in need of a review of elementary logic and fallacies. Sorry, if humans are part of nature, and they create new information, then new information occurs naturally.

    Try to stay focused. Humans creating information is NOT the same as nature creating information. I know you have a penchant for misrepresentation but everyone can see what you are doing.

    Why because you don't understand logic and reasoning? When archaeologists make a find and determine the object is an artifact they do NOT need to know the mechanism that brought it into existence first. That is determined by studying the artifact.

    Steve:
    Yes they do.

    No they do NOT for the reason provided. The ONLY way to determine a mechanism in the absence of direct observation or designer input is by studying the design in question. THAT is a fact.

    Steve:
    That is they use the fact that humans have known about wood carving, pottery, smelting, and so forth, and that they are looking at human ruins to make such an inference. They aren't using Dembski's filter. Nobody uses Dembski's filter, not even Dembski.

    Dembski used it in “No Free Lunch”. Also the EF is the BEST process we (humans) have for determining design (intelligent design) without being biased towards that end. I am also sure that anyone in any design-centric field uses the EF to some degree. It just cannot be avoided.


    However reality demonstrates there is no way to evaluate the theory of evolution. Random variations have only been demonstrated to slightly modify existing organisms.

    Steve:
    On one hand you argue that speciation isn't a big deal, that it isn't a problem. But on the other you argue stridently that speciation has never been observed, can't happen, etc.

    Now what lies are you telling? I never said nor implied that speciation has never been observed or that it can’t happen. The thought never crossed my mind.

     
  • At 10:47 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I noticed that Steve has again completely ignored the topic- that fossils cannot tell us anything about a mechanism. Oh well...

     
  • At 4:44 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Seeing that both intelligence and design are natural, I would say you don't understand the debate.

    Steve:
    Uhhmmm where did I say that design and intelligence aren't natural?

    The debate is unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes vs. intelligent, directed (goal oriented) processes.

    Steve:
    Uhhhmmm, the part where I said the theory of evolution was natural implies an undirected proccss that is non-goal oriented and not requiring intelligence, so you have this exactly wrong.

    So out of one side of your mouth you say that "natural implies an undirected proccss that is non-goal oriented and not requiring intelligence" while out of the other maintaining "Uhhmmm where did I say that design and intelligence aren't natural". The two sides of your mouth should get together. The amazing thing is that this appears in the same post- ONE PARAGRAPH to the next!

    Steve:
    He (Wm. Dembski) is the one that put forward the notion of conservation of information and the natural process are insufficient to create new information.

    From page163 of “No Free Lunch” by Wm. Dembski:

    “The Law of Conservation of Information is not saying that natural causes in tandem with intelligent causes cannot generate CSI but that natural causes apart from intelligent causes cannot generate CSI.”

     

Post a Comment

<< Home