What good is half and eye/ vision system?

-

What good is half an eye/ vision system?

If you understand how things work then it is obvious that it isn't any good at all.

Well perhaps as good as half a bridge.

Ya see half a bridge isn't any good for people needing to get to the other side.

It is useless as a bridge- well because it isn't a bridge yet.

That brings us back to the eye/ vision system.

If it takes a complete eye/ vision system for functionality then less than that isn't of any help.

And yes one can have a complete vision system that is faulty and that may be better than no vision system at all.

But that isn't the point.

The point is until you get that complete system you have nuthin' but parts. Parts that do not function as a vision system.

The strawman enters at this junction- 50% of vision is better than 49%.

Perhaps, but that isn't the issue.

Enter another strawman- we see organisms with a simpler vision system than we have.

True, but each of those simpler systems is complete in its own right.

The point being is that in order to respond to evolutionary issues evolutionists are forced to erect strawman after strawman. Then they tear those down and act all proud of themselves.

Strange...

The Gossip is in and it is never disappointing

Gossip factory AtBC (another tired baby crying) is still cranking out the gossip.

oldmanwithadickuphisass is gossiping about me.

The Rich Hughestard has joined in. Tards of a feather type of thing.

What the oldmanwithadickuphisass doesn't understand is that the computer code is not readable except with a computer.

The code is NOT the disc. The code is not reducible to the matter that makes up the disc.

Then a couple of comments down the oldmanwithadickuphisass gets on me for using his type of tactics against is type of ilk.

When people make bald assertions I respond accordingly.

And seeing that is all those mother-friggers have are bald assertions my responses of "Prove it" are right in line with their grade-school antics.

But anyway I am more than willing to take on any one of those fruitloops in a debate.

We can both put up some money and see who knows best.

NOTE to ErASSmus- this post is to expose your gossip.

You chumps are like a bunch of old ladies.

Thanks for the laughs...

Specific Design Mechanisms

-

Even though design is a mechanism, there are specific design mechanisms that apply to ID.

I have already mentioned Dr Spetner's "built-in responses to environmental cues", artificial selection and directed chemistry.

Directed chemistry refers to the software that runs the show in living organisms. DNA is not the software. It carries it.

To add to the list we also have a targeted search- which as I have also mentioned before- which is exemplified in the paper "Evolving Inventions" SciAm Feb 2003.

Intelligent Design is NOT anti-evolution

-

Why can't evolutionists afford to have Intelligent Design presented in public school classrooms- even if it is an elective and not presented in science classes?

Because if ID is presented properly the kids would find out that ID is NOT anti-evolution.

In What is evolution?, Larry Moran, professor, biologist, evolutionist and staunch anti-IDist, all but proves that neither ID NOR Creation (baraminology) are anti-evolution.

I say that because both allow for changes in allele frequency. Both allow for populations to change via mutation, heredity and differential survival.

The only thing ID argues against is blind watchmaker-type processes (accumulating genetic accidents) having sole dominion over the changes.

IOW the debate is over mechanisms- designed to evolve (ID)- think targeted search- vs evolution via an accumulation of genetic accidents (evolutionism).

So why do people need to misrepresent ID?

That is much easier than actually having to do something. And it works as long as ignorance prevails.

And that is why they cannot afford to have it presented- their lies will be exposed.

I just started reading "Why Intelligent Design Fails", and have already encountered numerous strawman arguments.

Gary Hurd, for example, talking about the EF says that design is the default once chance and regularity have been eliminated. Yet the flowchart he copied says that isn't so.

Ya see not only do chance and regularity need to be eliminated but a specifcation has to be met.

But anyway I jumped to Gary's chapter because he is a familiar anti-IDist.

I am sure I will have one strawman from every chapter.

Stay tuned...

Carl Zimmer said what????

-

Recently Dr Behe was interviewed on BhTV (bloggingheadsTV).

The regulars there didn't like it that an IDist was given the opportunity to talk.

Can't have someone talk about their ideas.

But anyway the clip was aired, then taken away, and then put back up.

Now a couple of guys- cosmologist Sean Carroll and Carl Zimmer- have said they will not appear on bloggingheads again.

Kooties and all. Gotta stay away from ID kooties.

But anyway in departing Carl said the following:

My standard for taking part in any forum about science is pretty simple. All the participants must rely on peer-reviewed science that has direct bearing on the subject at hand, not specious arguments that may sound fancy but are scientifically empty. I believe standards like this one are crucial if we are to have productive discussions about the state of science and its effects on our lives.

This is not Blogginghead’s standard, at least as I understand it now. And so here we must part ways.

The problem is what is being debated isn't in peer-review. That was/ is Dr Behe's whole point.

I am sure Dr Behe would love to discuss the peer-reviewed papers on the evolution of the/ any bacterial flagellum via an accumulation of genetic accidents.

The origin of information, the origin of living organisms, the origin of our universe- not much beyond we know that the universe had a begining, that living organisms exist at least on one planet, as for information.

If we limited our discussions to existing knowledge how could new ideas get introduced?

Reference existing knowledge yes. Use it to refute or confirm, sure.

Also use it as an impetus to reach the truth- there is only one reality behind our existence.

If you really think this all the result of a bunch of accidents/ sheer dumb luck, put it in peer-review- describe the methodology used to make that determination.

Tell us how to test the premise. Give us some EXAMPLES.

But don't act like a wussy.

Unless of course that is your true nature...