Intelligent Reasoning

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

Tuesday, July 10, 2007

Are You ID Ignorant? Take the Quiz and find out!

The following is a brief 5-question quiz that will determine whether or not you are ID ignorant. So far Dazza McTrazza has taken it and failed miserably (0-5). The blipey tried to stand up for DM but it also failed miserably.

See how you fare (please explain your answers):


1) Is ID based on religion? (or is it religious/ a religion)

2) Is ID based on scientific data?

3) Is sheer dumb luck really a valid explanation for all we observe?

4) What predictions can be made from the design inference?

5) Is ID anti-evolution or anti-the blind watchmaker?


Thanks to DM for pointing out a typo.

posted by Joe G @ 7:54 AM  

34 Comments:

  • At 11:16 AM, Blogger Dazza McTrazza said…

    OK, OK you've convinced me - I'll try again.

    1) Is ID based on religion? (or is it religious/ a religion)

    This time I'm still plumping for yes but as evidence for my answer I refer you to the Wedge Document. Straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak.

    2) Is ID based on scientific data?

    I suppose I can change to a qualified yes - it's based on a misinterpretation of the data - but based on the data nonetheless.

    3) Is sheer dumb luck really a valid explanation for all we observe?

    I'm not sure how I got this wrong - since I did say No. Neither of course is some sheer dumb designer though.

    4) What predictions can be made from the design inference?

    I'm still saying whatever predictions make the gang happy.
    Your response: Wrong again. Imagine that. This shows that DM needs to at least watch those videos.

    TPP makes specific predictions based on the design inference.

    ...and those predictions are...?

    And if I were to point you to a video as some kind of evidence - would you think that's the best way to prove a point?

    5) Is ID anti-evolution or anti-the blind watchmaker?

    I guess it depends on which ID proponent you ask. Since there is no actual formal theory of ID, it's rather hard to tell.

     

  • At 1:04 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    1) Is ID based on religion? (or is it religious/ a religion)

    This time I'm still plumping for yes but as evidence for my answer I refer you to the Wedge Document. Straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak.

    And what do you think that document says about ID and religion?

    See also:

    The Wedge Document- So What?

    IOW you suffer from a classic case of reading something into the document that was never there.

    Do you even understand what it takes to be considered a religion. religious? Obviously not.

    Once again:

    Does ID say anything about worship (who, how, why, when or where)?

    No.

    Is ID based on any religious texts?

    No.

    Does ID require a belief in "God"?

    No.

    Can an atheist be an IDist?

    Yes.

    IOW far from the horse's mouth you pulled something from some anal pore.

    2) Is ID based on scientific data?

    I suppose I can change to a qualified yes - it's based on a misinterpretation of the data - but based on the data nonetheless.

    Please show us how ID misinterprets the data.

    Please present any data which demonstrates that a population of single-celled organisms can evolve into something other than single-celled organisms via any proposed evolutionary mechanism

    Then we can see who misinterprets the data.

    3) Is sheer dumb luck really a valid explanation for all we observe?

    I'm not sure how I got this wrong - since I did say No. Neither of course is some sheer dumb designer though.

    I posted how you got it wrong. Ya see in the absence of an intelligent agency sheer dumb luck is all you have.

    IOW YOUR position relies on sheer dumb luck.

    Well I guess you could try to pull some multiverse scenario out of your ass.

    Feel free to correct me if you think your position doesn't rely heavily, if not entirely, on sheer dumb luck or the multiverse scenario from your anus.


    4) What predictions can be made from the design inference?

    I'm still saying whatever predictions make the gang happy.

    As I responded to you before "The Privileged Planet" makes several predictions that are based on the design inference.

    What are those prtedictions? If you weren't inclined to be willfully ignorant you would know.

    But anyway here is one:

    “The most decisive way to falsify our argument as a whole would be to find a distant and very different environment that, while quite hostile to life, nevertheless offers a superior platform for making as many diverse scientific discoveries as does our local environment.. The opposite of this would have the same effect- finding an extremely habitable and inhabited place that was a lousy platform for observation.”

    IOW the prediction is that if we find complex living organisms on another planet, that planet will have most, if not all, of the same factors present that the Earth does.

    See also The Privileged Planet


    5) Is ID anti-evolution or anti-the blind watchmaker?

    I guess it depends on which ID proponent you ask.

    I doubt you could find one that says that ID is anti-evolution.

    Again the book "Darwinism, Design and Public education" makes it very clear (as does all of Behe's writing) that ID can only be considered anti-the blind watchmaker.

    Ya see DM, "evolution" is only a change in allele frequency over time within a population. Not even YECs dispute that.

    Thanks again for exposing your ID ignorance. It appears you don't know very much about the theory of evolution either. No surprise there as most evos are in that same boat.

     

  • At 2:13 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Of note:

    "The differences between Biblical creationism and the IDM should become clear. As an unashamedly Christian/creationist organization, ICR is concerned with the reputation of our God and desires to point all men back to Him. We are not in this work merely to do good science, although this is of great importance to us. We care that students and society are brainwashed away from a relationship with their Creator/Savior. While all creationists necessarily believe in intelligent design, not all ID proponents believe in God. ID is strictly a non-Christian movement, and while ICR values and supports their work, we cannot join them."- John Morris, president of the Institute for Creation Research in this pdf. (bold added)

     

  • At 3:45 PM, Blogger Dazza McTrazza said…

    And what do you think that document says about ID and religion?

    Gee whiz I don't know - maybe something like: To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

    Does that sound religious to you at all?

    Please present any data which demonstrates that a population of single-celled organisms can evolve into something other than single-celled organisms via any proposed evolutionary mechanism

    Again - yours is the minority position - please present any data which demonstrates that a population of single-celled organisms can be designed into anything other than single-celled organisms via any design mechanism.

    I posted how you got it wrong. Ya see in the absence of an intelligent agency sheer dumb luck is all you have.

    I sense a logical fallacy here. How does no design equal sheer dumb luck? Is it sheer dumb luck that apples fall to the ground? Is it even remotely possible that the properties of matter, space, time, energy, etc make the apple's fall inevitable? Was it sheer dumb luck that produced the designer or was it another designer? Who designed that designer?

    IOW the prediction is that if we find complex living organisms on another planet, that planet will have most, if not all, of the same factors present that the Earth does.

    Gee - that's a really easy experiment - I'll go grab my light-speed spaceship right now and get on with it. I mean, honestly - can ID make a falsifiable prediction that doesn't require a NASA budget to falsify? I could just as easily say that evolution predicts that random mutations and natural selection will cause speciation of at least 100 new species in the next million years. Go disprove it.

    I doubt you could find one that says that ID is anti-evolution.

    Seems a little contrary to: Please present any data which demonstrates that a population of single-celled organisms can evolve into something other than single-celled organisms via any proposed evolutionary mechanism

    Either you're all lying - or just don't realise you're contradictory.

    Of note:

    The same people who support ID generally support creationism, baraminology, anti-global warming, HIV denial, holocaust denial and all kinds of hocus-pocus. Please see www.uncommondescent.com for more information.

    Side note from original post:

    You actually mean see how you fare not fair. I wonder if you'll be able to admit you're wrong on at least this small point?

     

  • At 9:21 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And what do you think that document says about ID and religion?

    Gee whiz I don't know - maybe something like: To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

    Does that sound religious to you at all?

    But that conflates what some IDists want with ID. And that is just plain stupid.

    By that "logic" the theory of evolution is an atheistic theory just because Dawkins stated that Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.

    I take it you didn't read the response to that document. You know the response from the horse's mouth.

    Please present any data which demonstrates that a population of single-celled organisms can evolve into something other than single-celled organisms via any proposed evolutionary mechanism.

    Again - yours is the minority position

    So you are saying that you can't.

    Thanks.

    It is very telling when the majority position can't even substantiate its claims. One must wonder how it came to be the majority position. It certainly wasn't because of anything scientific.

    I posted how you got it wrong. Ya see in the absence of an intelligent agency sheer dumb luck is all you have.

    How does no design equal sheer dumb luck?

    I said in the absence of an intelligent agency sheer dumb luck is all you have.

    Where did the laws that govern nature come from in the absence of an intelligent agency?

    "Chance alone," the Nobel Prize-winning chemist Jacques Monod once wrote, "is at the source of every innovation, of all creation in the biosphere. Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, is at the very root of the stupendous edifice of creation."

    From "Rare Earth" written bu two non-IDists:

    The main conclusion of Rare Earth is that Earth is a very special place. Many circumstances and events had to happen just right for Earth to remain a healthy habitat for advanced life. It appears the our planet won the comic lottery and we should cherish our very special place and time in the Universe.

    IOW your position is nothing but sheer dumb luck! And you didn't even know that.

    It must be nice to live in ignorance.

    IOW the prediction is that if we find complex living organisms on another planet, that planet will have most, if not all, of the same factors present that the Earth does.

    Gee - that's a really easy experiment - I'll go grab my light-speed spaceship right now and get on with it. I mean, honestly - can ID make a falsifiable prediction that doesn't require a NASA budget to falsify?

    It is a falsifiable prediction. And they make more. But if you choose willful ignorance you will never know of them.

    Does the theory of evolution make any predictions beyond change or stasis? No.

    I doubt you could find one that says that ID is anti-evolution.

    Seems a little contrary to: Please present any data which demonstrates that a population of single-celled organisms can evolve into something other than single-celled organisms via any proposed evolutionary mechanism

    Either you're all lying - or just don't realise you're contradictory.

    Again you expose your ignorance. Amazingly you seem quite proud of being ignorant.

    One more time:

    From the “Contemporary Discourse in the Field Of Biology” series I am reading Biological Evolution: An Anthology of Current Thought, edited by Katy Human.

    The following are just from the introduction:

    Evolution can be described with a seven-word phrase: genetic change, over time, within a population. page 6

    The book just happens to be part of a peer-reviewed series on various sciences.

    The same people who support ID generally support creationism, baraminology, anti-global warming, HIV denial, holocaust denial and all kinds of hocus-pocus. Please see www.uncommondescent.com for more information.

    I know many IDists who do not support Creation. Baraminology is not anti-evolution. The anti-global warming crowd just disputes the cause. If we are holocaust deniers then people like you are the ones who caused it.

    Hocus-pocus is what the theory of evolution relies on! It needs those magical mystery mutations.

    I have been to uncommon descent. You are obviously a loon who can't stand to see its faith tampered with.

    And if the best you can do is pick on typos then you have already lost.

     

  • At 9:25 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And if I were to point you to a video as some kind of evidence - would you think that's the best way to prove a point?

    It would be nice if you could point me to anything which supports your position.

    It is already obvious that you can't point me to the scientific data which demonstrates that a population of single-celled organisms can evolve into something other than single-celled organsims. Which means the theory of evolution can't even get out of the starting gate- scientifically speaking.

     

  • At 5:09 PM, Blogger Dazza McTrazza said…

    By that "logic" the theory of evolution is an atheistic theory just because Dawkins stated that Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.

    No, by that logic, evolution would be an atheistic theory if the NCSE stated that its reason for promoting evolution was to replace theistic explanations with materialistic ones. I do concede your point that it does not necessarily relate to what any one ID proponent might believe, however it is the major think-tank for the ID movement and, as such, is not a terribly ridiculuous place to try and ferret out motives. I note that in the document linked to there is a tremendous amount of hand-waving and back-pedalling, but with all of the quotes they specifically explain and attempt to refute, the most damaging one, imho, (quoted above), does not even get mentioned.

    It is very telling when the majority position can't even substantiate its claims. One must wonder how it came to be the majority position. It certainly wasn't because of anything scientific.

    OK - how about here? You nicely ignored my follow-up btw - here it is again:

    please present any data which demonstrates that a population of single-celled organisms can be designed into anything other than single-celled organisms via any design mechanism.

    Where did the laws that govern nature come from in the absence of an intelligent agency?

    As stated, they could be a natural result of the very essence of existence. Nothing problematic there. This is certainly not a decided matter, but just because a chemist who won his Nobel prize over 40 years ago has an opinion and two authors feel that Earth is a special place, I don't think you can really claim a slamdunk for design theory by any means. Neither of your quotes state anything about sheer dumb luck, so please do provide a reference to where sheer dumb luck is accepted by any evolutionary theorist.

    You also ignored my questions again:

    Was it sheer dumb luck that produced the designer or was it another designer? Who designed that designer?

    It is a falsifiable prediction. And they make more. But if you choose willful ignorance you will never know of them.

    I would love to see them - please point me in the direction of these falsifiable predictions - or if you could just tell me, it would be a lot quicker.

    Does the theory of evolution make any predictions beyond change or stasis? No.

    I think I answered that on your latest post.

    Evolution can be described with a seven-word phrase: genetic change, over time, within a population. page 6

    And design can be described as goddidit. Evolution can also be described as this.

    It also appears to be a long read for you. Much like the commenter there, I'm not seeing why this person is any kind of authority nor what data she is pointing to.

    I know many IDists who do not support Creation. Baraminology is not anti-evolution. The anti-global warming crowd just disputes the cause. If we are holocaust deniers then people like you are the ones who caused it.

    Good for you - I've seen many more who do support creation. Baraminology really rather needs the whole 10,000 year old earth idea which is entirely contrary to the theory of evolution, apart from being unbelievable tripe.

    As for the last sentence, are you implying that evolutionists caused the holocaust? I'd be interested to see your evidence for this. As a rebuttal I present this.

    And if the best you can do is pick on typos then you have already lost.

    It is duly noted that, exactly as predicted, you did not accept that you made an error - merely a typo.

     

  • At 10:28 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    By that "logic" the theory of evolution is an atheistic theory just because Dawkins stated that Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.

    No, by that logic, evolution would be an atheistic theory if the NCSE stated that its reason for promoting evolution was to replace theistic explanations with materialistic ones.

    That's wrong. The NCSE is about as dishonest an organization as there is. They would never admit to such a thing. And theistic explanations have already been replaced by materialistic ones.

    Where did the laws that govern nature come from in the absence of an intelligent agency?

    As stated, they could be a natural result of the very essence of existence.

    Pure drivel. Ya see natural process and natural results can only occur in nature. And without those laws already in place nature wouldn't be.

    IOW it appears you are totally clueless.

    This is certainly not a decided matter, but just because a chemist who won his Nobel prize over 40 years ago has an opinion and two authors feel that Earth is a special place, I don't think you can really claim a slamdunk for design theory by any means.

    I didn't say nor imply it was a slam dunk for ID. However it is obvious that those scientists understand their position much better than you do. And that opinion is shared by many other scientists.

    Neither of your quotes state anything about sheer dumb luck, so please do provide a reference to where sheer dumb luck is accepted by any evolutionary theorist.

    Chance is sheer dumb luck. Winning the cosmic lottery is also sheer dumb luck. Genetic accidents are sheer dumb luck.

    Was it sheer dumb luck that produced the designer or was it another designer? Who designed that designer?

    Until we can study the designer we won't know. That is why ID is only concerned with the design.

    But thanks for continuing to expose your ID ignorance.

    It is a falsifiable prediction. And they make more. But if you choose willful ignorance you will never know of them.

    I would love to see them - please point me in the direction of these falsifiable predictions - or if you could just tell me, it would be a lot quicker.

    Then stop being so lazy and read the book. Or do you enjoy arguing from ignorance?

    Evolution can be described with a seven-word phrase: genetic change, over time, within a population. page 6

    And design can be described as goddidit.

    But ID doesn't say anything about "God".

    By your logic my car can be described as "goddidit" for it was designed. The whole of archaeology- "goddidit"! Forensic science? "goddidit".

    Again my definition canme from a peer-reviewed series on the subject.

    Baraminology really rather needs the whole 10,000 year old earth idea which is entirely contrary to the theory of evolution, apart from being unbelievable tripe.

    That is false. Baraminolgy doesn't say anything about the age of the Earth and being contrary to the ToE is NOT the point. Evolution is more than the theory of evolution.

     

  • At 10:38 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Ummm neither one of your talk origins links supports anything you posted.

    As usual the TO sites just spew more nonsense.

    As for your wiki reference on evolution:

    "In biology, evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population from generation to generation."

    Which is pretty much what I stated. However any objective person would go with a peer-reviewed definition over an open-source definition.

     

  • At 4:40 PM, Blogger Dazza McTrazza said…

    That's wrong. The NCSE is about as dishonest an organization as there is. They would never admit to such a thing. And theistic explanations have already been replaced by materialistic ones.

    Dishonest? I did you the favour of linking to the document that I felt backed up my claim about the DI - i.e. that they are a religious organisation. Please provide your evidence that the NCSE is as dishonest an organisation as there is. Theistic explanations have not been replaced by materialistic ones as a whole. There are, as I'm sure you're aware, theistic evolutionists who would take rather large exception to that statement. Theistic explanations (or rather theistic declarations) regarding the diversity of life on earth have, however, been replaced by materialistic explanations - and rightly so.

    AND AGAIN you have totally ignored my question:

    please present any data which demonstrates that a population of single-celled organisms can be designed into anything other than single-celled organisms via any design mechanism.

    I assume, though, that you have conceded my point that it is reasonable to infer that ID is based on religion when the major ID think-tank uses phrases like the one quoted in a previous comment. So I must at least get one point on the test, so far - I can't be wrong if the texbook gives the wrong answer can I?

    Pure drivel. Ya see natural process and natural results can only occur in nature. And without those laws already in place nature wouldn't be.

    But if nature has always existed, that's not a problem. Your position, on the other hand, requires something to exist outside of nature. This something must have existed before existence. You tell me who has the paradox on their hands.

    I didn't say nor imply it was a slam dunk for ID. However it is obvious that those scientists understand their position much better than you do. And that opinion is shared by many other scientists.

    Why is it obvious that they understand their position better than I do? They have an opinion; I have an opinion. Is this how ID works? Who has the best opinions?

    Chance is sheer dumb luck. Winning the cosmic lottery is also sheer dumb luck. Genetic accidents are sheer dumb luck.

    Winning the cosmic lottery is sheer dumb luck for the one thing that wins it - but not sheer dumb luck, necessarily, that something wins it - much like the real lottery. Genetic accidents are very far from sheer dumb luck, assuming by accidents you mean mutations. If it were totally down to sheer dumb luck a gene could mutate into a pencil, or the genes of a dead person could mutate into those of a living one. Instead we find genes mutate using processes that are quite well understood by (gasp) evolutionary theorists. By using a blanket term like sheer dumb luck, you are grossly oversimplifying reality.

    Until we can study the designer we won't know. That is why ID is only concerned with the design.

    But thanks for continuing to expose your ID ignorance.

    Great - so your designer could be subject to the same sheer dumb luck that you (wrongly) claim evolutionary theory to be victim of - but it's okay for the designer because we're not going to study him? Seems a little unjust, no?

    Then stop being so lazy and read the book. Or do you enjoy arguing from ignorance?

    I see - so the only prediction you can be bothered to put on here is the one that is the least practical to actually accomplish? For all the really easy predictions to falsify, you send me elsewhere - doesn't say a lot for the theory now does it? Just a link to one plausibly falsifiable prediction will do.

    But ID doesn't say anything about "God".

    By your logic my car can be described as "goddidit" for it was designed. The whole of archaeology- "goddidit"! Forensic science? "goddidit".

    Again my definition canme from a peer-reviewed series on the subject.

    My point was you can simplify anything you want as far as you want. Not having access to the book (I can barely find mention of it anywhere except on bookseller wesbites), it's hard to say what the intention of the authors was - but I think even you would admit that evolutionary theory consists of much, much more than just genetic change over time in a population. But, it's far easier to spout rhetoric about oversimplifications than about the actual 150 odd years of research, isn't it?

    Evolution is more than the theory of evolution.

    Hrm - you seem to have already agreed with me. Hooray!

    Still no response to this:

    As for the last sentence, are you implying that evolutionists caused the holocaust? I'd be interested to see your evidence for this. As a rebuttal I present this.

     

  • At 10:42 PM, Blogger Hawks said…

    Funnily enough, I posted a "Test your knowledge about Intelligent Design" quiz a while back. You can take it at http://homepages.slingshot.co.nz/~hawks/IDquiz.html

     

  • At 8:47 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Dishonest? I did you the favour of linking to the document that I felt backed up my claim about the DI - i.e. that they are a religious organisation.

    And I linked you to the DI's explanation of that document. The DI states they are not a religious organization. And they back up that claim.

    The NCSE is dishonest because they conflate ID with Creation. Anyone who does that is either very ignorant or very dishonest.

    I assume, though, that you have conceded my point that it is reasonable to infer that ID is based on religion when the major ID think-tank uses phrases like the one quoted in a previous comment.

    Only someone who is ignorant of ID and religion would think that.

    Ahain what some people want to do with ID has no bearing on ID. Only an imbecile would think that it did.

    if nature has always existed, that's not a problem.

    Science has demonstrated that nature, ie the universe, had a beginning.

    Winning the cosmic lottery is sheer dumb luck for the one thing that wins it - but not sheer dumb luck, necessarily, that something wins it - much like the real lottery.

    If only one ticket is sold then it is sheer dumb luck. And tat is the scenario we are dealing with.

    Genetic accidents are very far from sheer dumb luck, assuming by accidents you mean mutations.

    All accidents are sheer dumb luck.

    If it were totally down to sheer dumb luck a gene could mutate into a pencil, or the genes of a dead person could mutate into those of a living one.

    How does that follow anything?

    Instead we find genes mutate using processes that are quite well understood by (gasp) evolutionary theorists. By using a blanket term like sheer dumb luck, you are grossly oversimplifying reality.

    LoL!! ALL the ToE and evolutionists do is to oversimplify reality. And not one evolutionary theorist can tell us what mutations were responsible for what changes!

    And again DM misses my point about evolution vs the theory of evolution completely!

    You are so dense you are like a black hole.

     

  • At 8:48 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    To Hawks-

    From what I can tell you are ignorant of ID.

    So exactly what kind of "ID quiz" could YOU come up with?

     

  • At 9:35 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Yup, just as I thought. Only a complete ID ignoramus could come up with an "ID Quiz" like that.

    Thanks for expopsing your ID ignorance.

    It also appears you have the same level of knowledge when it comes to the ToE.

     

  • At 9:55 AM, Blogger Dazza McTrazza said…

    Before I respond, I was wondering if you could answer the two questions that I have asked twice already:

    please present any data which demonstrates that a population of single-celled organisms can be designed into anything other than single-celled organisms via any design mechanism.

    and

    are you implying that evolutionists caused the holocaust? I'd be interested to see your evidence for this.

    Thanks in advance.

     

  • At 10:52 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I will start answering questions when my opponents do.

    IOW if you don't like my tactics just look in the mirror to find the answer as to why I use them.

    And seeing that you, and every evolutionist, has failed to answer any questions pertaining to what is being debated, I won't ever have to answer anything.

    Ya see the theory of evolution and Common Descent are the reigning paradigm. However it is becoming very obvious that both acquired that status via non-scientific reasoning.

    As for the holocaust YOU said that IDists were deniers. YOU never supported that claim.

    Common Descent says all living organisms owe their collective common ancestry to some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms, yet there isn't any data which shows such transformations are even possible.

    IOW thanks again for demonstrating how utterly void of substance your faith is.

    More on NCSE dishonsty- I read on their website that they say ID was being mandated to be taught in Dover schools. That is a lie. The only thing was a simple staement read once a year or semester, with a reference to a book.

    Eugenie Scott has a book which talks about Galileo. Not once does she say that geocentrism was a scientific concept nor does she state that Galileo was a Creationist who used science as a tool for uncovering and understanding "God's" handywork.

     

  • At 11:55 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    please present any data which demonstrates that a population of single-celled organisms can be designed into anything other than single-celled organisms via any design mechanism.

    Just so you know- that is not my position. Dr Behe may be the person you should ask.

    All I know from examining the data that I have is that living organisms show all the qualities of being intentionally designed. They consist of information-rich data processing systems which are mostly self-correcting. They fit all the design criteria laid on the table.

    Time to call a duck a duck and move on the the meat of the research.


    But anyway-

    Main Entry: re·li·gion
    Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
    Function: noun
    Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Anglo-French religiun, Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
    1 a : the state of a religious (a nun in her 20th year of religion) b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
    2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
    3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
    4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
    - re·li·gion·less adjective


    Does ID say anything about worship (who, how, why, when or where)?

    No.

    Is ID based on any religious texts?

    No.

    Does ID require a belief in "God"?

    No.

    Does ID say anything about the supernatural?

    No.

    Can an atheist be an IDist?

    Yes.

    Does ID say to follow the data?

    Yes.

     

  • At 4:42 PM, Blogger Dazza McTrazza said…

    As for the holocaust YOU said that IDists were deniers. YOU never supported that claim.

    How about this?

    Now, back to your statement:

    If we are holocaust deniers then people like you are the ones who caused it.

    Please expound.

    Just so you know- that is not my position. Dr Behe may be the person you should ask.

    Well, I would love to, but the only forum I know to address him on has comments disabled, so I'll have to ask you - what is your/ID's position? From all the wonderful data you have, show me that it is possible to design all of the organisms that exist today. Or even one of them.

    Life is designed by a designer - make a prediction that would actually be useful to anyone, anywhere at any time, i.e. not that planets would have to be like ours to sustain life. Show me how the design hypothesis would aid medicinal research. Show me how the design hyopthesis would help any aspect of science whatsoever. Show me something... anything! Because as far as I recollect, the world of biology has been progressing extremely well in the last 150 years - and noone has needed a design hypothesis to do it.

     

  • At 9:30 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    As for the holocaust YOU said that IDists were deniers. YOU never supported that claim.

    How about this?

    How about it? All I read was one NON-IDIST said we were deceived about the numbers of dead at ONE camp.

    so I'll have to ask you - what is your/ID's position?

    That is all over this blog and I even posted a small summary:

    All I know from examining the data that I have is that living organisms show all the qualities of being intentionally designed. They consist of information-rich data processing systems which are mostly self-correcting. They fit all the design criteria laid on the table.

    Time to call a duck a duck and move on the the meat of the research.

    There is only ONE reality to our existence.

     

  • At 6:15 PM, Blogger Hawks said…

    Joe,

    Yup, just as I thought. Only a complete ID ignoramus could come up with an "ID Quiz" like that.

    Thanks for expopsing your ID ignorance.

    It also appears you have the same level of knowledge when it comes to the ToE.

    Wow. You have just displayed some really intelligent reasoning. Oh no, wait. There is no reasoning what-so-ever displayed. You have merely made some assertions without even trying to back them up...

     

  • At 12:26 AM, Blogger Hawks said…

    What I meant in the previous comment is that you should detail WHY the quiz was bad for measuring ID knowledge. Specifically, which question was bad and why?

     

  • At 6:28 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Since you appear to be serious:

    1. What is the Complex Specified Information (CSI) of DNA polymerase? (for example, the polA gene in Mycoplasma mycoides is 305 amino acids long).
    A. 20^305
    B. 4^305
    C. 305
    D. There is not enough information to answer the question

    You should have just asked what is the CSI of the polA gene in Mycoplasma mycoides which is 305 amino acids long?

    So the first question isn't properly phrased and that displays a lack of tester knowledge on the subject.

    Next why give us choices? Why not just let the person give a number and the reasoning?

    (2 bits per nucleotide x 3 nucleotides per amino acid x 305 amino acids) and that is max CSI. I say that because some amino acids may not be required.

    2. What can ID say about the alledged designer(s)?
    A. It is God
    B. It is not God
    C. It likes "junk" DNA
    D. It is intelligent

    Again- why those choices? Why any choices?

    The honest answer is that ID is not about the designer. And that reality says the only way to possibly make any determination about the designer in the absence of direct observation or designer input, is by studying the design in question.

    And that is the core of ID- first detect design and then study it.

    3. Humans often like beautiful things. Does the designer, according to ID, like beautiful things?
    A. Yes
    B. No
    C. Only higher art forms
    D. ID says nothing about this

    The answer is "D" but why the choices?

    4. Humans create rubbish heaps to get rid of it's waste materials. Where did the designer put it's junk?
    A. In our DNA
    B. Outer space
    C. At the bottom of the sea
    D. ID says nothing about this

    "D" and it is a leading question.

    5. What does ID say about the designers intents, purposes and desires?
    A. Pretty much what the bible says
    B. Humans can be used as model-organisms to find out
    C. That it intended to make humans
    D. ID says nothing about this

    Another "D".

    ID's virtue is to separate the designer from the design.

    If we knew the designer we wouldn't have a design inference.

    6. Which of the following is ID in accordance with?
    A. The bible
    B. a 4.5 billion year old Earth
    C. that we are living in the Matrix
    D. All of the above

    Why only those choices? My choice is that ID is in accordance with reality.

    7. What does ID predict regarding the existence of "junk" DNA?
    A. That there should be lots
    B. That there should be some
    C. That there should be none
    D. All/none of the above

    That there may be some. Again your choices suck.

    8. What does ID predict regarding the existence of gaps in the fossil record?
    A. That there should be lots
    B. That there should be some
    C. That there should be none
    D. All/none of the above

    Any question with answer of "all/ none of the above" is lame.

    ID doesn't say anything about the fossil record.

    Q 9. Which of the following is ID NOT in accordance with?
    A. Evolution as science has explained it so far
    B. Cosmology as science has explained it so far
    C. Geology as science has explained it so far
    D. That there has never been any intelligent intervention what-so-ever

    Just poor wording.

    What has geology explained?
    Geologists seem to be the slowest to come around when it comes to ground-breaking (pun intended) ideas.

    What has evolution explained?

    And what do you mean by "evolution"? Which is part of the problem- the word has several meanings.

    What has cosmology explained?

    That's right- it has explained that the Earth is a privileged planet.

     

  • At 7:47 PM, Blogger Hawks said…

    You, more than once, asked the question why I supplied multiple choice answers. The reason is, obviously, that one of those answers is correct. I though that was quite obvious.

    Q1:
    You should have just asked what is the CSI of the polA gene in Mycoplasma mycoides which is 305 amino acids long?

    So the first question isn't properly phrased and that displays a lack of tester knowledge on the subject.

    Next why give us choices? Why not just let the person give a number and the reasoning?

    (2 bits per nucleotide x 3 nucleotides per amino acid x 305 amino acids) and that is max CSI. I say that because some amino acids may not be required.

    Eeeer, the question is most certainly properly phrased. The point of it is to show that you can't calculate the CSI of an enzymatic function without knowing all sequences that could possibly perform stated function. Hence, the right answer is D. 0 points to Joe.


    Q2:
    The honest answer is that ID is not about the designer. And that reality says the only way to possibly make any determination about the designer in the absence of direct observation or designer input, is by studying the design in question.

    And that is the core of ID- first detect design and then study it.

    ID positively demands that there is/was an intelligent designer. Remebmer, we are talking about intelligent design, so the answer is D. 0 points again.


    Q3:
    The answer is "D" but why the choices?
    CORRECT. 1 point to Joe.


    Q4:
    "D" and it is a leading question.
    CORRECT. 1 point to Joe. Is the question leading? Sure. But if you have proper knowledge about ID, this should not throw you.


    Q5:
    Another "D".
    Very good, Joe. 1 point.


    Q6:
    Why only those choices? My choice is that ID is in accordance with reality.

    0 points. The correct answer is D. Why would you think that ID would not be in accordance with A, B or C?


    Q7:
    That there may be some. Again your choices suck.
    The choices were perfect. And D is correct since ID has nothing to say about the case at hand (unless you make some assumptions about the designer, which as you yourself pointed out, ID doesn't). 0 points.


    Q8:
    Any question with answer of "all/ none of the above" is lame.

    ID doesn't say anything about the fossil record.

    That's a D, I take it. Correct. 1 point.


    Q9:
    Just poor wording.

    What has geology explained?
    Geologists seem to be the slowest to come around when it comes to ground-breaking (pun intended) ideas.

    What has evolution explained?

    And what do you mean by "evolution"? Which is part of the problem- the word has several meanings.

    What has cosmology explained?

    That's right- it has explained that the Earth is a privileged planet.
    The test was about your knowledge about ID, nothing else. 0 points.


    That's a paltry four out of nine. That's not very impressive. Granted you did display some knowledge in your comments, but this was irrelevant to the questions at hand. You did an EXTREMELY poor justification for why I am ignorant about ID, but you did manage to display a lot of ignorance yourself.

     

  • At 10:09 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You, more than once, asked the question why I supplied multiple choice answers. The reason is, obviously, that one of those answers is correct. I though that was quite obvious.

    The answers are not correct. And most of the questions are misleading.

    q1:
    Eeeer, the question is most certainly properly phrased. The point of it is to show that you can't calculate the CSI of an enzymatic function without knowing all sequences that could possibly perform stated function. Hence, the right answer is D. 0 points to Joe.

    The question is only properly phrased if you are an idiot.

    The way I re-phrased the question would be much better.

    Also what you said is false.

    Please substantiate your answer:

    The point of it is to show that you can't calculate the CSI of an enzymatic function without knowing all sequences that could possibly perform stated function.

    With something from ID literature.

    q2:
    2. What can ID say about the alledged designer(s)?

    The honest answer is that ID is not about the designer. And that reality says the only way to possibly make any determination about the designer in the absence of direct observation or designer input, is by studying the design in question.

    ID positively demands that there is/was an intelligent designer.

    ID doesn't say anything about the designer. Nothing at all.

    That's my point.

    Again you could reference some ID lit that supports you.

    q6:

    Please reference the ID lit to support your answer.

    7. What does ID predict regarding the existence of "junk" DNA?

    That there may be some. Again your choices suck.

    The choices were perfect.

    Perfectly stupid.

    And D is correct since ID has nothing to say about the case at hand (unless you make some assumptions about the designer, which as you yourself pointed out, ID doesn't).

    One can make assumptions about the designer. ID doesn't care but IDists do. And IDists can do whatever it takes to figure out what it is they are investigating.

    Also IDists have made predictions about alleged "junk DNA".

    Had you read the ID literature you would have known that.

    And actually when I took your quiz I scored 9 of 9. But that was because I was trying to answer as if I was taught about ID from someone like you who obviously knows very little about it.

    Now in this thread I corrected the mistakes you made.

    You may see that as I got the answers wrong but in fact the etster doesn't know squat about ID.

     

  • At 10:11 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You did an EXTREMELY poor justification for why I am ignorant about ID, but you did manage to display a lot of ignorance yourself.

    I just shredded your quiz. And I know that you cannot substantiate your answers with something from ID literature.

     

  • At 6:45 PM, Blogger Hawks said…

    Please substantiate your answer:

    The point of it is to show that you can't calculate the CSI of an enzymatic function without knowing all sequences that could possibly perform stated function.

    With something from ID literature.

    Your leaders are unfortunately to sneaky to come out and actually admit to something like this. But hey, prove me wrong. Do calculate the CSI of a biological enzymatic function.


    The way I re-phrased the question would be much better.

    Yeah, because that actually allows you to do the calculation. But if that is what it takes to be able to calculate CSI, then the concept is also totally useless. Example:

    Joe says: Hey guys, the CSI of this enzyme is 10^600. This is soooo unlikely. Therefore it was designed.

    Me: Yes, but even among the enzymes that have been sequenced so far, there is huge variability. In fact, there is hardly a single amino acid that has been conserved. There seems to be an extraordinary amount of possible sequences that could perform the enzyme's function. How could you possibly say what the CSI is? Couldn't it be that there are numerous combinations of amino acids where the probability of each arising falls well within the universal probability bound?

    Joe: It doesn't matter. We can easily calculate the CSI of a polypeptide. It doesn't really matter what this has to do with reality.



    q2:
    Me: ID positively demands that there is/was an intelligent designer.

    Joe: ID doesn't say anything about the designer. Nothing at all.

    This is from uncommondescent: "The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection." The cause is the designer. It is intelligent. Crikey, I can't believe you are disputing this point.

    q6:

    Please reference the ID lit to support your answer.

    Eeer, See how ID is explained above? ID holds that complex things are designed intelligently. "God" could have created everything according to biblical genesis, could he not? God could have set the universe up at the big bang, could he not? God could be a programmer and made the simulation you are living in, could he not? Why would I need reference that? ID does not forbid it, does it? If it does, YOU have to show why it does!!


    q7 :
    One can make assumptions about the designer. ID doesn't care but IDists do. And IDists can do whatever it takes to figure out what it is they are investigating.

    You do realize that you just argued FOR my point, don't you? The "ID doesn't care but IDists do" bit(?). But yes, you can make assumptions, it's just that ID doesn't and ID doesn't give you any reason to use one assumption over the other. Luskin's et al's fondness for claiming that there should be junk DNA stems from their assumption that the designer would do that. But another person who assumes a perfect designer could come to the conclusion that there should be NO junk DNA. I.e., ID predicts junk as much as it predicts no junk. As far as predictions go, that is nothing but useless.


    Also IDists have made predictions about alleged "junk DNA".

    Had you read the ID literature you would have known that.

    I do know that. Unfortunately for the "predictors", the prediction does not come from ID. In order for you to predict something you have to say why one outcome is more likely that the other. ID does NOT do this.

    Anyhow, this is what Dembski has to say about ID's ability to predict:
    Yet unlike natural laws, which are universal and uniform, designers are also innovators. Innovation, the emergence to true novelty, eschews predictability. Designers are inventors. We cannot predict what an inventor would do short of becoming that inventor. Intelligent design offers a radically different problematic for science than a mechanistic science wedded solely to undirected natural causes. Yes, intelligent design concedes predictability.


    I just shredded your quiz. And I know that you cannot substantiate your answers with something from ID literature.

    I have in some instances. In the other, all that is needed is some basic logic. ID, unlike yourself, is not beyond logic, surely?

     

  • At 9:23 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    But hey, prove me wrong. Do calculate the CSI of a biological enzymatic function.

    I did.

    The way I re-phrased the question would be much better.

    Yeah, because that actually allows you to do the calculation. But if that is what it takes to be able to calculate CSI, then the concept is also totally useless.

    Only to you and oher people who refuse to understand the concept.

    Example:

    Joe says: Hey guys, the CSI of this enzyme is 10^600. This is soooo unlikely. Therefore it was designed.

    Don't put words in my mouth.

    Ya see the real argument is that we have observed intellignet agencies constructing information rich systems. And we have never seen such systems arise via nature, operating freely.

    Dr Behe says:
    "The conclusion of intelligent design flows naturally from the data itself-not from sacred books or sectarian beliefs. Inferring that biochemical systems were designed by an intelligent agent is a humdrum process that requires no new principles of logic or science. It comes simply from the hard work that biochemistry has done over the past forty years, combined with consideration of the way in which we reach conclusions of design every day."

    The criteria for inferring design from the microscopic biological evidence is as Michael J. Behe, Professor of Biochemistry at Leheigh University, puts it in his book Darwin 's Black Box: "Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components"

    Me: Yes, but even among the enzymes that have been sequenced so far, there is huge variability. In fact, there is hardly a single amino acid that has been conserved. There seems to be an extraordinary amount of possible sequences that could perform the enzyme's function. How could you possibly say what the CSI is? Couldn't it be that there are numerous combinations of amino acids where the probability of each arising falls well within the universal probability bound?

    Just show us one enzyme arising via nature, operating freely and you have refuted the CSI scenario.

    Joe: ID doesn't say anything about the designer. Nothing at all.

    This is from uncommondescent: "The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection."

    And that supposedly says that ID says something about the designer?

    You are daft.

    ID holds that complex things are designed intelligently.

    The word "intelligent" is just to differentiate between "apparent" (as in the design is illusory) on one side and "optimal" on the other.

    Intelligent Design is Not Optimal Design

    "God" could have created everything according to biblical genesis, could he not? God could have set the universe up at the big bang, could he not? God could be a programmer and made the simulation you are living in, could he not? Why would I need reference that? ID does not forbid it, does it? If it does, YOU have to show why it does!!

    But ID does not require a belief in a "God". If the Bible were falsified tomorrow ID wouldn't be fazed.

    If physics demonstrated the Solar System was only 15,000 years old, ID wouldn't be fazed.

    One can make assumptions about the designer. ID doesn't care but IDists do. And IDists can do whatever it takes to figure out what it is they are investigating.

    You do realize that you just argued FOR my point, don't you? The "ID doesn't care but IDists do" bit(?). But yes, you can make assumptions, it's just that ID doesn't and ID doesn't give you any reason to use one assumption over the other.

    No I didn't argue for your point and ID does give us good reasons to pick one assumption over another.

    BTW it wasn't Luskin's prediction. Jon Wells said it back in the 90s. And he gave the reasoning.

    The blind watchmaker doesn't have an explanation for DNA sequences which over-see operations. You can't explain how command and control systems arose via culled genetic accidents.

    Unfortunately for the "predictors", the prediction does not come from ID. In order for you to predict something you have to say why one outcome is more likely that the other. ID does NOT do this.

    The prediction did come from ID and IDiosts have stated why one outcome is more likely than the other.

    What Dembski is saying about ID and predictions is that it is true that we cannot predict what any given designer will design. However we can make predictions about the design.

     

  • At 10:54 PM, Blogger Hawks said…

    Me:But hey, prove me wrong. Do calculate the CSI of a biological enzymatic function.

    Joe: I did.

    No you didn't. You calculated the CSI of one specific enzyme, not the CSI of the function. Jeepers.


    Ya see the real argument is that we have observed intellignet agencies constructing information rich systems. And we have never seen such systems arise via nature, operating freely.

    Just show us one enzyme arising via nature, operating freely and you have refuted the CSI scenario.


    Ya see, this has nothing to do with the question at hand.


    Joe: ID doesn't say anything about the designer. Nothing at all.

    Me: This is from uncommondescent: "The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection."

    Joe: And that supposedly says that ID says something about the designer?

    Yes, that it is/was intelligent.


    You are daft.

    You are a moron.


    ID holds that complex things are designed intelligently.

    The word "intelligent" is just to differentiate between "apparent" (as in the design is illusory) on one side and "optimal" on the other.

    I supplied a quote to support my position. You didn't.


    Intelligent Design is Not Optimal Design

    But ID does not require a belief in a "God". If the Bible were falsified tomorrow ID wouldn't be fazed.

    If physics demonstrated the Solar System was only 15,000 years old, ID wouldn't be fazed.

    Which was precisely my point. ID is in accordance with all these scenarios. So why are you disputing it?


    No I didn't argue for your point and ID does give us good reasons to pick one assumption over another.

    Do tell.


    The prediction did come from ID and IDiosts have stated why one outcome is more likely than the other.

    Any apart from that humans are known to do similar things? I.e. the assumption is that the designer did what humans tend to do?


    What Dembski is saying about ID and predictions is that it is true that we cannot predict what any given designer will design. However we can make predictions about the design.

    No, read the quote again.

     

  • At 9:34 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Wm Dembski stated:
    Yet unlike natural laws, which are universal and uniform, designers are also innovators. Innovation, the emergence to true novelty, eschews predictability. Designers are inventors. We cannot predict what an inventor would do short of becoming that inventor. Intelligent design offers a radically different problematic for science than a mechanistic science wedded solely to undirected natural causes. Yes, intelligent design concedes predictability.


    I said:
    What Dembski is saying about ID and predictions is that it is true that we cannot predict what any given designer will design. However we can make predictions about the design.

    Now if one can reason, one would be able to see that what I said directly follows what Dembski stated.

    The following is the key senetnce:

    "We cannot predict what an inventor would do short of becoming that inventor."

    IOW hawks, it is obvious that you are the moron.

    Then we have:

    Hawks:
    You calculated the CSI of one specific enzyme, not the CSI of the function.

    The original question had NOTHING to do with the function.

    1. What is the Complex Specified Information (CSI) of DNA polymerase? (for example, the polA gene in Mycoplasma mycoides is 305 amino acids long).

    "The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection."

    Joe: And that supposedly says that ID says something about the designer?

    Yes, that it is/was intelligent.

    That's the IMPLICATION. ID doesn't say anything about the designer(s).

    You are confusing the implications with ID. Bad move.

    The prediction did come from ID and IDists have stated why one outcome is more likely than the other.

    Any apart from that humans are known to do similar things? I.e. the assumption is that the designer did what humans tend to do?

    Humans are not known to design living organisms. And humans are not known to design solar systems either.

    IOW all ID requires is what intelligent agencies can do coupled with what nature, operating freely, would do.

    Then once design is determined we can make predictions about that design. Then future research will either confirm or refute those predictions.

    For example in the book "The Privileged Planet" the authors make several predictions based on their design inference.

     

  • At 2:49 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Page 362 of "No Free Lunch" by Wm. Dembski:

    "Intelligent design offers one obvious prediction, namely, that nature should be chock-full of specified complexity and therefore should contain numerous pointers to design."

    He goes on to say:

    "What's more, once designed systems are in place, operational, and interacting (as with an economy or ecosystem), intelligent design predicts certain patterns of technological evolution, notable among these being sudden emergence, convergence to ideality, and extinction."

    Then in the following paragraph comes your quote-mine. However the finishing senetnce of your quote-mine reads:

    "It offers predictability concerning the presence of design and the evolution of already existing designs, but it offers no predictability about fundamentally novel designs."

    Yes hawks, you are ID ignorant.

     

  • At 12:39 AM, Blogger Hawks said…

    "Intelligent design offers one obvious prediction, namely, that nature should be chock-full of specified complexity and therefore should contain numerous pointers to design."

    Oh, my god. It is even worse than I thought. ID does not predict this at all. Shocking. ID says that only intelligence can produce specified complexity. It says nothing at all about how much of it we are supposed to find. Holey gamoley!!!!

    "What's more, once designed systems are in place, operational, and interacting (as with an economy or ecosystem), intelligent design predicts certain patterns of technological evolution, notable among these being sudden emergence, convergence to ideality, and extinction."

    Silly, silly Demsbki and silly, silly Joe for buying into this. ID predicts nothing about suddenness. ID would be extremely happy with a designer who constantly performs MINUTE and TINY changes. What ID states is that non-intelligence can NOT do these things. The two statements are very different.

    "We cannot predict what an inventor would do short of becoming that inventor."

    Given that this does not support your contention, it is obvious that you are a moron.


    Me:You calculated the CSI of one specific enzyme, not the CSI of the function.

    You:The original question had NOTHING to do with the function.

    1. What is the Complex Specified Information (CSI) of DNA polymerase? (for example, the polA gene in Mycoplasma mycoides is 305 amino acids long).

    Are you having a laugh? DNA polymerase performs the function of copying DNA using a DNA template. Any moron with even the most basic biology training knows this.


    Me:Yes, that it is/was intelligent.

    That's the IMPLICATION. ID doesn't say anything about the designer(s).

    Let me just supply you with the same quote again: "The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection.". I.e. ID says that the designer is/was intelligent! Christ, you're stupid.


    The prediction did come from ID and IDists have stated why one outcome is more likely than the other.

    Yes, and none of them follow from ID. And you totally failed to supply any reasons to support your point. What are those reasons?


    Additional: why were the scenarios in question 6 not in accordance with ID?

     

  • At 10:23 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "Intelligent design offers one obvious prediction, namely, that nature should be chock-full of specified complexity and therefore should contain numerous pointers to design."

    Oh, my god. It is even worse than I thought.

    Yes, your ID ignorance is is even worse than I thought.

    ID does not predict this at all.

    How would you know what ID predicts? You are ID ignorant.

    "What's more, once designed systems are in place, operational, and interacting (as with an economy or ecosystem), intelligent design predicts certain patterns of technological evolution, notable among these being sudden emergence, convergence to ideality, and extinction."

    ID predicts nothing about suddenness.

    Again, how would you know what ID predicts?

    Are you trying to tell me that you, obviously ignorant of ID, knows more aboiut it than Dembski or any IDist?

    Go pound sand.

    "We cannot predict what an inventor would do short of becoming that inventor."

    Given that this does not support your contention, it is obvious that you are a moron.

    LoL!! That is just a re-worded version of what I posted:


    What Dembski is saying about ID and predictions is that it is true that we cannot predict what any given designer will design. However we can make predictions about the design.

    Same thing, different words.

    DNA polymerase performs the function of copying DNA using a DNA template.

    The original question said NOTHING about the function. It just asked what the CSI is. You provided an example of the polA gene in Mycoplasma mycoides is 305 amino acids long.

    I.e. ID says that the designer is/was intelligent!

    ID doesn't say anything about the designer. You are confusing the implications with ID.

    The prediction did come from ID and IDists have stated why one outcome is more likely than the other.

    Yes, and none of them follow from ID.

    They all follow ID. And if you weren't so damn ID ignorant you would know they do.

    Read the book "The Privileged Planet" and you will see how they follow ID.

    Or wallow in your ignorance and continue to argue from it.

    Additional: why were the scenarios in question 6 not in accordance with ID?

    I already answered that. Nothing has changed.

     

  • At 6:25 PM, Blogger Hawks said…

    Again, how would you know what ID predicts?

    I've given good logical reason why ID cannot make any predictions. In essence, predicting x, not-x and everything in between is exactly the same thing as predicting nothing.


    Are you trying to tell me that you, obviously ignorant of ID, knows more aboiut it than Dembski or any IDist?

    About certain things regarding ID I certainly do. Oh, and have you stopped beating your wife yet?



    The original question said NOTHING about the function. It just asked what the CSI is. You provided an example of the polA gene in Mycoplasma mycoides is 305 amino acids long.

    No, I asked for the CSI of DNA polymerase. By definition, the function of DNA polymerase is to polymerise DNA. The polA gene example I gave was a red herring meant to confuse those who don't understand what CSI actually entails. That would be you, Joe.


    ID doesn't say anything about the designer. You are confusing the implications with ID.

    zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.


    I already answered that. Nothing has changed.

    Yeah, you said that you disagreed. Later, you supplied other other examples that ID were happy with although these in principle were the same as the ones I supplied. You are one confused puppy, Joe.

     

  • At 9:43 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Again, how would you know what ID predicts?

    I've given good logical reason why ID cannot make any predictions.

    Yeah you were caught quote-mining. Then once your ignorance was exposed you started backpeddling.

    You have given stupid and moronic reasons why ID cannot make predictions.

    I have refuted what you posted by giving examples of what ID predicts.

    Also I have provided sound logical reasons why ID can and does make predictions.

    Read your quote-mine again:

    "The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection.".

    Note the words "by an intelligent cause". Does that "cause" have to be a designer? No. If the words said "by an intellligent designer" you would have a point.

    Are you trying to tell me that you, obviously ignorant of ID, knows more aboiut it than Dembski or any IDist?

    About certain things regarding ID I certainly do.

    You have yet to demonstrate any knowledge pertaining to ID.

    The original question said NOTHING about the function. It just asked what the CSI is. You provided an example of the polA gene in Mycoplasma mycoides is 305 amino acids long.

    No, I asked for the CSI of DNA polymerase.

    1. What is the Complex Specified Information (CSI) of DNA polymerase? (for example, the polA gene in Mycoplasma mycoides is 305 amino acids long).

    Again if you would have left off that example your "answer" would have been acceptable. But once you included the example it made it appear that you were asking for the CSI of that example.

    And you didn't ask for the CSI of the function.

    By definition, the function of DNA polymerase is to polymerise DNA.

    Duh.

    The polA gene example I gave was a red herring meant to confuse those who don't understand what CSI actually entails.

    Obviously you do not know what CSI entails.

    Can you provide a definition of CSI?

    ID doesn't say anything about the designer. You are confusing the implications with ID.

    zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

    I take it that is how you "learned" about ID- you slept.

    Ya see hawks, in the end the answers I provided to your "quiz" were more correct than the answers you provided. Now you can't live with that fact so you have to flail away.

    Too bad that arguing from ignorance is not a position that wins many debates.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home