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

Saturday, March 14, 2009

Christian academics who find the arguments posted on Uncommon Descent unpersuasive

Religious professor James F. McGrath has been banned from Uncommon Descent.

Not my doing. I get moderated every now and again. I have learned to stay out of religious- bent discussions.

That is because I don't like what people have done to religion and I am pretty sure that not one of this planet's religions has "got it right". And that is all I want to say about that right now.

But anyway, he has said that there are Christian academics who find the arguments posted on Uncommon Descent unpersuasive.

I will give him this thread so he can tell me about those arguments he and others find unpersuasive.

My only stipulation is that he also tell me about his position in relation to our existence, the existence of all other organisms we have observed, this planet, solar system, galaxy and the universe.

By providing his position I will have an idea about the type of argument(s) he finds persuasive.

posted by Joe G @ 9:19 AM  

47 Comments:

  • At 11:27 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Do you always close comments after a beating, Joe?

     

  • At 11:53 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Ps - we're still laughing at you. Come on over!

     

  • At 11:59 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I only close comments when ignorant asshole licking pukes refuse to understand the points made and continue to act like child molesting woman beaters.

    And as I said losers always laugh at things they cannot understand.

    That is why you and your ilk are referred to as the Anti-thought Biting Cockroaches

     

  • At 12:03 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Are you going to post your cake recipe on UD, Joe. Please do. They'll love it. I think you are a leading mind in information theory. You sure could put them straight. What will the school board think of your latest, archived, post?

     

  • At 12:10 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Always the Bastard Child

    Abiding twits Biting Cockroaches

    Abiding twits Blowing Cockroaches

    Another tugjob Between Comments

    Hey Rich- you are right. This is fun!!!

     

  • At 12:12 PM, Blogger David said…

    Count me as a Christian academic who finds the arguments posted on UD as unpersuasive. (Truth in advertising: and also one who is banned-- although I think I might be the only person banned who was once offered a job as a UD contributor.) To be sure "unpersuasive" is not the first adjective that comes to mind--that would be "embarrassing." (Fart videos, creepy photoshopping, posting addresses and phone numbers of the Baylor board, outrageous claims predicting imminent total victory...)

     

  • At 12:13 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Please STAY on topic.

    I posted the cake recipe for YOU Richie.

    And I see that the concept was too complicated for your simple mind.

    But do come back if you ever have something to offer.

    Otherwise don't bother...

     

  • At 12:19 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Hi David,

    So which arguments do you find unpersuasive? All bad; some bad, some good- what?

    I stay away from many of the posts because I find them irrelevant.

    Is it ID that you find unpersuasive?

     

  • At 12:24 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Oh Joe, you know Clive doesn't like bad language. I'd hate for you to get baninnated. Hola Dave!


    *proffers high five*

     

  • At 12:36 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Re-open the thread, Joe. We've got lots of commentary on how wrong and ill-informed you are.

     

  • At 2:34 PM, Blogger JayM said…

    Joe,

    I presume that you are the person posting as Joseph at UD. Since I seem to be moderated into non-existence there, I would like to take this opportunity to invite you to the thread I've started at talk.origins. I don't believe this invitation made it through the moderators, so please remind Upright BiPed that he is specifically challenged to defend his positions on ID as science in a neutral venue.

    I would genuinely like to see your arguments when you can't hide behind Clive Hayden's skirts.

    JJ

     

  • At 3:57 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Clive wears a skirt?

    talk origins is a neutral venue?

    Will it just be one on one?

     

  • At 4:04 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Richie Clive doesn't like bad language on the blog he moderates nor any bad language towards its contributors.

    I am sure he is OK with me dealing with the trash in my way on my blog.

    As for re-opening- Nope you have already proven to be a total asshole on that one.

    However I will open a new thread discussing how to measure- MEASURE- information in a designed object.

    That said seeing that you think a baseball and a cake can arise without information I am sure you will butcher any/ all efforts put forth.

    It's what you do.

    It's all you do.

    It is all you have.

    Ya see if you had something to support your position you would have brought it up in the threads I have dealing with biology.

    Yet your comments are noticeably absent- pretty much like your mind.

    AtBC:

    Another tired Baby Crying.

     

  • At 4:13 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    I'm sorry Joe, I can't help but delight in what a demented ID cheerleader you are. I think O'Leary 'gets' it more than you. You think the number of letters in a recipe = CSI of a cake. Fantastic. You're more stupid than I could have hoped for. I forgive your angry outbursts. I imagine life is difficult for one so stupid and I can now sympathise with you.

    If the recipe is in French, is that more of less CSI?

    Don't bother with compressibility, side information or any other information theory stuff, you keep colouring in with your Crayons, chief.

     

  • At 12:21 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Who else than people would do anything o religion, Joe?

    Religion is a people thing you know?

     

  • At 7:16 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Richie,

    Thank you for continuing to prove you are n ignorant turd.

    The following is what I said:

    A simple character count reveals there are over 650 characters.

    Therefor the minimum information that cake will contain is just over 650 bits if each character is a bit.


    So when you say:

    You think the number of letters in a recipe = CSI of a cake.

    You are either really ignorant or really stupid.

    That said I will start a thread today on measuring information.

     

  • At 7:19 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And BTW I was off- there are 5 bits of info per character.

    I will take care of that in the new post.

    And Richie- just because YOU don't have a life and can fart around on the internet all day that doesn't mean everyone is as useless as you.

     

  • At 8:28 AM, Blogger JayM said…

    talk origins is a neutral venue?

    It is an uncensored forum open to anyone, very unlike the echo chamber of Uncommon Descent.

    Will it just be one on one?

    I suspect that you will attract some attention from the regulars there, purely based on what I've seen of your personality. If you make it clear that you will only be responding to my posts, the noise level should be tolerable.

    If one on one isn't good enough odds for you, please do bring your friends Upright BiPed and Jerry.

    JayM

     

  • At 8:38 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Talk Origins is one of the most dishonest websites I have ever visited.

    Heck they still push the false idea that nested hierarchy is an expected from evolution.

    I have plenty of posts on my blog that support ID.

    You are free to respond to those if you wish.

    My time is very limited and I barely have time to maintain this blog.

    Intelligent Design in Biology textbooks

    Intelligent Design in biology textbooks cont.

    More evidence for ID in biology


    Just stay on topic- that is my only request on my blog.

     

  • At 9:07 AM, Blogger JayM said…

    Talk Origins is one of the most dishonest websites I have ever visited.

    It's not a website, it's a Usenet discussion group.

    Heck they still push the false idea that nested hierarchy is an expected from evolution.

    If you think you can demonstrate that idea is false, post your refutation on talk.origins.

    I have plenty of posts on my blog that support ID.

    The question under discussion is whether or not ID is a scientific theory. Thus far, no one has answered Reciprocating Bill's simple question to show that it is.

    You are free to respond to those if you wish.

    I'm done wasting time participating in venues where my posts are subject to arbitrary censorship. If you lack the intellectual integrity and confidence in your position to debate in an open, public forum, please pass the invitation on to Upright BiPed and Jerry (since I can no longer post on UD, despite the "new" moderation policy).

    My time is very limited and I barely have time to maintain this blog.

    Watching one thread on one Usenet group isn't all that time consuming. Given how much time you spend posting on UD, I think the real issue is that you know you can't defend your position.

    JayM

     

  • At 9:14 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    JayM,

    Then it is puzzling that I have defended ID right here on my blog.

    I even gave you the links to three such discussions.

    Also I have answered RB's question.

    You guys just refuse to understand reality.

    And that means that any further attempt will be a waste of my time.

    Also if I am going to "debate" you, YOU will have to support your position.

    If you are going to hide behind father time and magical mystery mutations there isn't any reason for anyone to debate you.

    I am here. My defense of ID is here.

    And in the end the ONLY way to make ID go away is for people like you to actually support your position.

    IOW you have yourselves to blame for ID.

    Deal with it.

     

  • At 9:48 AM, Blogger JayM said…

    Joe, you have never addressed RB's question. If you had, you'd simply repost the direct answer instead of repeatedly claiming to have done so.

    ID is not a scientific theory. It may be one some day, but it will be people like Dr. Behe who make that happen.

    Given the current state of ID research, people like you, Jerry, and Upright BiPed are an enormous detriment to the ID movement. Your overstated claims, refusal to admit error, and clear lack of understanding of modern evolutionary theory in particular and science in general make it very easy for people to dismiss ID as a crackpot idea, held only by fundamentalist christians in a desperate attempt to justify their faith.

    If you're too much of an intellectual coward (or if, deep down, you know you've got no case) to debate in public, the best thing you could do for ID is stop supporting it. You are the reason places like AtBC mock UD.

    Please do extend my debate invitation to Jerry and Upright BiPed on the off chance they actually have the minimal self confidence required to attempt to make their case somewhere their fellow travelers can't protect them difficult questions.

    JayM

     

  • At 7:33 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Joe, you have never addressed RB's question. If you had, you'd simply repost the direct answer instead of repeatedly claiming to have done so.

    Yes I did asshole.

    Ya se the way to falsify ID is to demonstrate that nature, operating freely can account for it.

    THAT is the way it has been done throughout history.

    So to deny tat is to expose ignorance and/ or stupidity.

    The theory of evolution, on the other hand, is devoid of any content.

    It cannot be tested as admitted by Richard Simons.

    THe ONLY thing you can do is to hide behind Father Time, Mother Nature and magical mystery mutations.

    You want to know how sorry the ToE is? Read the following:

    “Evidence”(?) for the evolution of the vision system


    Andrea Bottaro said the following over at the panda’s thumb:
    Eyes are formed via long and complex developmental genetic networks/cascades, which we are only beginning to understand, and of which Pax6/eyeless (the gene in question, in mammals and Drosophila, respectively) merely constitutes one of the initial elements."

    IOW the only evidence for the evolution of the vision system is that we have observed varying degrees of complexity in living organisms, from simple light sensitive spots on unicellular organisms to the vision system of more complex metazoans, and we “know” that the first population(s) of living organisms didn’t have either. Therefore the vision system “evolved”.

    Isn’t evolutionary “science” great!

    I say the above because if Dr Bottaro is correct then we really have no idea whether or not the vision system could have evolved from a population or populations that did not have one.


    IOW you PoS you don't have ANYTHING scientific to claim as supporting your position!

     

  • At 8:00 AM, Blogger JayM said…

    Joe, you have never addressed RB's question. If you had, you'd simply repost the direct answer instead of repeatedly claiming to have done so.

    Yes I did asshole.

    You know, if Clive sees that kind of language he'll ban you from UD. Only if you're not a fawning sycophant though, so you're safe.

    You have never answered RB's question. Here it is again:

    "Describe an entailment unique to ID that, were there sufficient funding, could be subject to empirical test. Something that follows from ID such that were we to fail to observe it, ID or a major tenet of ID would be falsified. Your research question should conform to this very simple logical format:

    If P2 (ID) then Q2 (a unique entailment of ID).
    If not Q2 (if the entailment is not observed), then not P2 (ID is false).

    Describe that Q2, and describe how you would research it. Imagine unlimited funding.

    Assertions regarding the entailments of P1 (evolutionary biology) don’t meet this standard, because it doesn’t follow that if not Q1 then P2. That rules out re-interpretations of ongoing biological research."

    He even made it as simple as fill-in-the-blanks for you:

    “If design is true then we should observe ________. If we don’t observe _______ our theory is at risk of disconfirmation.”

    You have never answered this. If you assert again that you have, there is no other conclusion to be drawn than that you are a willful liar.

    Ya se the way to falsify ID is to demonstrate that nature, operating freely can account for it.

    This was repeatedly refuted on UD before RB was banned for pointing out the vacuity of the position held by you and your fellow travelers:

    "One last note. You’ve asserted, essentially, 'ID can be falsified through a demonstration of complexity in biology arising through natural means.' That also doesn’t follow, because there is no logical reason to conclude from the observation of the origins of complexity by natural means that other systems haven’t arisen by means of intelligent design."

    Either produce a positive testable prediction, the failure of which would serve to falsify a major tenet of ID or admit that ID isn't currently a scientific theory.

    JayM

     

  • At 8:21 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Jay,

    Clive doesn't care how I handle the trash that visits my blog just as long as I don't insult UD or its contributors.

    Ya se the way to falsify ID is to demonstrate that nature, operating freely can account for it.

    That is the way to do it-

    That is to refute/ disconfirm ID all YOU have to do is to start substantiating the claims of YOUR position.

    So how about it Jay?

    Can YOU produce a positive prediction based on the premise of an accumulation of genetic accidents?

    Ya see I know there isn't any way to predict what mutations will occur at any point in time. And I also know there isn't any way to predict what will be selected at any point in time.

    So what, exactly, does the theory of evolution predict?

    If the ToE is true we should observe _____________. If we don't observe ___________ the ToE is at risk of disconfirmation.

     

  • At 8:26 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    For those who choose willfull ignorance over reality I offer just a glimpse of support for ID (including a testable hypothesis):

    Intelligent Design: The Design Hypothesis

    Intelligent Design in Biology Textbooks

    Intelligent Design in Biology Textbooks Continued

    The Design Inference in Peer-Review

     

  • At 8:36 AM, Blogger JayM said…

    Ya se the way to falsify ID is to demonstrate that nature, operating freely can account for it.

    This claim has already been repeatedly refuted. I quoted RB's refutation in the same post to which you are replying.

    It is very clear that you do not have the ability to make a positive, testable prediction based on ID theory, the failure of which would falsify one or more major tenets of that theory.

    In other words, you can't show that ID is a scientific theory.

    Blather on all you like, those facts won't change.

    JayM

     

  • At 8:51 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Ya se the way to falsify ID is to demonstrate that nature, operating freely can account for it.

    This claim has already been repeatedly refuted.

    Handwaving is NOT a refutation.

    It is very clear that you do not have the ability to make a positive, testable prediction based on ID theory, the failure of which would falsify one or more major tenets of that theory.

    And yet I have done exactly that on several of my blog entries.

    So the bottom line is Jay is willfully ignorant and proud of it.

     

  • At 8:52 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    But anyway-


    If design is true then we should observe signs of design. If we don’t observe signs of design our theory is at risk of disconfirmation.

     

  • At 8:58 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Behe responds

    "One last charge must be met: Orr maintains that the theory of intelligent design is not falsifiable. He's wrong. To falsify design theory a scientist need only experimentally demonstrate that a bacterial flagellum, or any other comparably complex system, could arise by natural selection. If that happened I would conclude that neither flagella nor any system of similar or lesser complexity had to have been designed. In short, biochemical design would be neatly disproved."- Dr Behe in 1997

    More JayM handwaving to follow....

     

  • At 9:25 AM, Blogger JayM said…

    It is very clear that you do not have the ability to make a positive, testable prediction based on ID theory, the failure of which would falsify one or more major tenets of that theory.

    And yet I have done exactly that on several of my blog entries.

    In that case, it should be no problem for you to fill in the blanks here:

    “If design is true then we should observe ________. If we don’t observe _______ our theory is at risk of disconfirmation.” (Reciprocating Bill)

    Let's see it.

    JayM

     

  • At 10:12 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    If design is true then we should observe signs of design, such as work or counterflow. If we don’t observe signs of design our theory is at risk of disconfirmation.


    And in the end the real way to falsify ID is for YOU to actually support YOUR claims.

    Just because YOU cannot support YOUR position don't blame that on ID.

     

  • At 10:13 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    c-ya tomorrow

    Your turn:

    If the ToE is true we should observe _____________. If we don't observe ___________ the ToE is at risk of disconfirmation.

     

  • At 11:51 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "If design is true then we should observe signs of design, such as work or counterflow. If we don’t observe signs of design our theory is at risk of disconfirmation."


    BEST QUESTION BEGGING EVER!

     

  • At 12:17 PM, Blogger JayM said…

    If design is true then we should observe signs of design, such as work or counterflow. If we don’t observe signs of design our theory is at risk of disconfirmation.

    Following your links, what you seem to be saying is that, if design is true, we should see signs of design.

    Hardly a positive, testable claim. Try again.

    And in the end the real way to falsify ID is for YOU to actually support YOUR claims.

    As has been explained to you repeatedly, that is not true. ID as it currently stands is not falsifiable. It is not a scientific theory.

    Proving or disproving modern evolutionary theory would say nothing about ID.

    JayM

     

  • At 12:21 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "If design is true then we should observe signs of design, such as work or counterflow. If we don’t observe signs of design our theory is at risk of disconfirmation."


    BEST QUESTION BEGGING EVER!

    As in when will Richie ever support his position?

    Start with:

    If the ToE is true we should observe _____________. If we don't observe ___________ the ToE is at risk of disconfirmation.

     

  • At 12:42 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    If the ToE is true we should observe evidence of gradual changes in life through time. If we don't observe gradual changes through time the ToE is at risk of disconfirmation.

    And you haven't addressed your question begging, cakeboy.

     

  • At 7:21 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    If the ToE is true we should observe evidence of gradual changes in life through time. If we don't observe gradual changes through time the ToE is at risk of disconfirmation.

    We don't see gradual changes in life through time.

    That is one of the reasons for punctuated equilibrium.

    Therefor according to Richie, the theory of evolution should be disconfirmed.

     

  • At 7:25 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Following your links, what you seem to be saying is that, if design is true, we should see signs of design.

    Hardly a positive, testable claim. Try again.

    Finding signs of design IS a positive testable claim.

    THAT is how archaeologists do it.

    THAT is how forensic scientists do it.

    THAT is how fire investigators do it.

    And in the end the real way to falsify ID is for YOU to actually support YOUR claims.

    As has been explained to you repeatedly, that is not true.

    It is true. AND it is EXACTLY how it has been done mthroughout history.

    That you and your ilk keep ignoring reality just further demonstrates your ignorance-driven agenda.

    Now it is your tuen so that I can compare what YOU say about te ToE.

    If you don't fill in the blanks you may as well not come back:


    If the ToE is true we should observe _____________. If we don't observe ___________ the ToE is at risk of disconfirmation.

     

  • At 8:27 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    As for question begging- THAT is science!!!

    If we didn't have any questions to answer then we wouldn't need science!!!

    Geez Richie are you really that stupid?

     

  • At 10:01 AM, Blogger JayM said…

    Finding signs of design is a positive, testable claim.

    Not without a clear definition of what you mean by "sign of design" it isn't.

    All of your examples are of detecting human design. Are you claiming that the Intelligent Designer is human? Would we then expect to find fingerprints as evidence of design?

    Explain exactly what constitutes a "sign of design" and you'll be one step closer to actually answering the question.

    JayM

     

  • At 7:56 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Finding signs of design is a positive, testable claim.

    Not without a clear definition of what you mean by "sign of design" it isn't.

    And that has been done.

    Exactly what pro-ID literture have you read?

    You appear to be arguing from ignorance.

    All of your examples are of detecting human design.

    Not really.

    No one knows "whodunit" without an investigation.

    Take the show "Ghost Hunters"- they don't look for signs of humans.

    And they refute the inference of "ghosts" with science! That is they find the real explanations for the phenomenon they observe.

    Only when they cannot do they claim "haunted".

    Explain exactly what constitutes a "sign of design" and you'll be one step closer to actually answering the question.

    Something that has a specification and nature, operating freely, couldn't do it.

    However better explanations exist in the pro-ID literature you are avoiding.

    But anyway- read the following:

    a summary-ID Research

     

  • At 10:20 AM, Blogger JayM said…

    Explain exactly what constitutes a "sign of design" and you'll be one step closer to actually answering the question.

    Something that has a specification and nature, operating freely, couldn't do it.

    However better explanations exist in the pro-ID literature you are avoiding.

    I've read the literature. I'm not impressed by Dr. Dembski's claims. If you're going to use CSI as an indicator of design, you're going to have to define it clearly enough that anyone can come up with the same number for the same object and you're going to have to show that it can't be generated by natural means.

    So far, no ID researcher has been able to accomplish these tasks. What, exactly is the CSI of the bacterial flagella? What are the units in which it is measured? What is the exact algorithm used to compute it?

    Without answers to these questions, CSI is not a useful concept.

    JayM

     

  • At 10:29 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    JayM,

    You are completely clue-less.

    The only way to refute Dembski's claims is NOT by whining about them.

    Just support your position and Dembski's claims vanish.

    It is that simple.

    Also I will note that your position doesn't have anything as defined as CSI nor IC.

    Nothing- not one fucking testable premise.

    How the fuck can one test the premise that a bacterial flagellum "evolved" via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

    You have NOTHING so ALL you can do is whine about ID.

    When, in fact, all you have to do is to start supporting your position and ID whithers away.

    Again don't blame me for YOUR inadequacies.

     

  • At 7:10 PM, Blogger JayM said…

    Joe, I have all of modern biology. You have the rantings of a failed mathematician, a collection of vague concepts that you can't even define, and a pathetic desire to support your obviously weak faith with something resembling science, however poorly.

    What you don't have is a scientific theory or any evidence whatsoever. If you did, you'd be producing it rather than desperately trying to reverse the burden of proof.

    What you also clearly don't have is any understanding of modern biology. You could get an education, but I suspect you'll continue in your willful ignorance.

    Enjoy,

    JJ

     

  • At 8:50 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    JayM:
    Joe, I have all of modern biology.

    And that means you don't have shit.

    You have the rantings of a failed mathematician, a collection of vague concepts that you can't even define, and a pathetic desire to support your obviously weak faith with something resembling science, however poorly.

    Nice projection.

    Let's see what do YOU have that is NOT a vague concept?

    What do you have in the way of rigorous definitions?

    What do you have in the way of genetic data which would demonstrate the changes required are even possible?

    Nothing- you don't have anything that isn't a vague concept.

    You don't have anything in the way of rigorous definitions.

    AND YOU DON'T HAVE THAT GENETIC DATA.

    Heck you don't even know whether or not the eye/ vision system could evolve!

    What you don't have is a scientific theory or any evidence whatsoever. If you did, you'd be producing it rather than desperately trying to reverse the burden of proof.

    I produced it. YOU refuse to read it.

    IOW you choose willfull ignorance.

    Which is basically all you can do.

    What you also clearly don't have is any understanding of modern biology.

    If I don't then blame the professors, the books and the colleges.

    I never received less than an "A" in any biology class.

     

  • At 8:53 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Another article for JayM to ignore:

    Waiting for two mutations: with applications to regulatory sequence evolution and the limits of Darwinian evolution.:

    Abstract:

    Results of Nowak and collaborators concerning the onset of cancer due to the inactivation of tumor suppressor genes give the distribution of the time until some individual in a population has experienced two prespecified mutations and the time until this mutant phenotype becomes fixed in the population. In this article we apply these results to obtain insights into regulatory sequence evolution in Drosophila and humans. In particular, we examine the waiting time for a pair of mutations, the first of which inactivates an existing transcription factor binding site and the second of which creates a new one. Consistent with recent experimental observations for Drosophila, we find that a few million years is sufficient, but for humans with a much smaller effective population size, this type of change would take > 100 million years. In addition, we use these results to expose flaws in some of Michael Behe's arguments concerning mathematical limits to Darwinian evolution.

    Two mutations would take over 100 million years for humans.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home